Pearse Doherty (Sinn Fein)

I spoke on this issue earlier and during Second Stage. The attack on those under the age of 25 is the worst aspect of this legislation. When we dealt with the previous section I did not get to ask the Minister if she had obtained legal advice on this provision. I apologise in advance if she has given this information to the House. I understand that such a provision has been introduced for those under the age of 20 in a previous budget. I am not a legal expert, but this provision is fundamentally unfair. It IS an attack on young people who are unemployed. There could be a good case for legal action on this issue. What is proposed is ageism. How can young people be singled out and told to take a reduction in their payments and that not apply to a person who is 26 or 27 years of age? Their circumstances are the same. I heard contributions from Members on the other side of the House yesterday to the effect that when young people turn a certain age all they want to do was go on the dole. Those comments were disgraceful and they should be refuted by the Minister, as they were made by colleagues of her party. What they said was ridiculous.

Some 32% of young males are unemployed through no fault of their own. Some of them have come out of college. Some of them are trained teachers but because of cutbacks and increases in class sizes there are no jobs for them. They have no option but to depend on social welfare.

I note the Minister said a young person with no education has the option of staying here and taking up training and they will get their social welfare payment or the option of going abroad and they will get sterling £50. She mentioned that amount of pounds. I am sure she is aware that of the EU 15 we have the third worst social welfare payment for a single person. The member states with a payment that is lower than ours are the UK and Greece. That suits the argument the Government has put forward of making a comparison in terms of the rate of payment with our neighbours across the Border. The Minister did not mention all the other benefits people living in those jurisdictions receive. We should talk about the payments people receive in other members states that are ranked much higher than Ireland in terms of provision for single people. This myth that we have the most generous social welfare system in Europe is nonsense. We should deal with the facts.

My primary question is in terms of legal advice. Are we on a solid legal footing on this issue? I cannot understand why on 1 January a 26 year who has become unemployed should be treated any differently from a 25 year old who has become unemployed. The 26 year old and the 25 year old could be qualified teachers. Why should those two people be treated differently? Both of them could be married. Therefore why should we treat them differently? A total of 14,000 people under the age of 25 are married. They are not all living in their mothers' houses or sponging off their parents as people would like us to believe. Many others are in relationships and many others have dependants. What has been done is unfair and it is a trend the Minister has continued from a previous budget when she took on those aged under 20, but it has been extended to those under the age of 25. It is an incredibly unfair measure. I understand that people in that age group have different issues on their minds. They probably will not congregate and march on Leinster House, although I wish they would because what the Minister has done is horrible. Is it the intention of this Government, as the Minister said previously, that this measure would be in place for only one year? Is this a permanent fixture that we will treat those under the age of 25 differently?

I understand the Minister's argument to a point in that we must get people back into training but that misses the point that we have highly qualified people under the age of 25 who are already trained. The problem is that jobs do not exist, and the Government has acknowledged that more jobs will be lost this year. If the Minister subscribes to the idea that there is a danger that a person under the age of 25 who becomes unemployed will remain long-term unemployed and if we subscribe to the idea that a person under the age of 25 who becomes unemployed needs to get back into education, retrain and reskill to get back into the workforce, and to do that we must limit their payments to encourage them to take up those opportunities, why do we not believe that a 26 or 27 year old should be incentivised to do the same? Have we written off the entire age group from 26 upwards in that we are telling them that if they are unemployed the Government believes it does not have to introduce the same incentives it is offering to those under the age of 25 - which in my view are not incentives but that is the language the Government is using to make its argument - and that age group is up a creek without a paddle, so to speak? Is that the argument we would make?

My final comment is that the way the scheme will be introduced is fundamentally unfair. I am not arguing that the scheme should be for everyone under the age of 25. The difference in income from the State is more than €100 in the case of two brothers, both under the age of 22, where one is made unemployed before Christmas, and the other is made unemployed the week after Christmas. The difference in the way the State will treat them is that one will get more than double what the other will get. The fundamental issue is how the Government treats young people under 25 in the legislation. I completely oppose the section.