Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. This is a necessary and welcome debate. I recognise that the Government has increased pension rates by 120%, unemployment benefit by 130% and child benefit payments by 330%. These are welcome increases which all of us support and salute. The Bill, however, is a savage attack on those in receipt of social welfare payments.

What do we mean by the term "social welfare"? While preparing for this debate, one of the definitions I found was "governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need". That is the position at one level.

I agree with Senator O'Malley in asking why so many people live in poverty. Is it down to Government policy? Is it down to the condition and culture we have allowed to develop? At one level the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill would be welcome if the provisions and supports were put in place at the same time. I refer to child care, education, housing and a movement of people away from reliance on social welfare. I fully agree with Senator O'Malley in referring to the working poor as now being possibly the most vulnerable group in society. The Bill is about the most vulnerable. It is about the imposition of a cut, in whatever shape or form one likes, affecting those who are most dependent. I am concerned that we are accentuating the divide in society and creating a new poverty trap that further embeds people in social welfare dependency.

I listened to Senator Boyle's contribution and found it difficult to disagree with much of it. I believe we must put a value on work. As a director of adult education in my previous incarnation before my election to this House, I understand the importance of education, retraining, upskilling and giving people an avenue, in particular single mothers who have great potential to increase their benefit to society through education. Senator Boyle should clarify the thought process he is going through. At one level he is talking about reversing the social welfare cuts imposed in the last budget which cut social welfare to the people who most need it - the disabled and the blind. What is social welfare about? What are the barriers to creating employment? There does not seem to be consistency in Government policy or a willingness to tackle the issue of putting a value on work and rewarding entrepreneurship by rewarding entrepreneurs in the creation of employment. Last week the Minister announced PRSI changes which have been Fine Gael policy for 18 to 24 months. This year - in 2010 - the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin, spoke about a range of measures that were envisaged.

My difficulty is with the people who are not saved from the cuts. In the past two budgets the Government has targeted the most vulnerable. If we are to have reform of the social welfare system, we need to get people away from welfare and into jobs, and put a value on those jobs. In hundreds of local authority housing estates there are people who are idle, getting money as lone parents or through unemployment benefit, and there is a culture of dependency. They have medical cards, houses and there is a begging bowl mentality. That is the culture in which they have been raised and no attempt has been made to change it over the years. We have not changed the culture and given them a cause for hope, and that spiral continues. When I meet people in my clinics or on the canvass, the same issues arise all the time. We need a complete rethink and revamp on the budget.

It behoves the Government in the next budget not to make cuts affecting the poor, who are the most vulnerable. Senator Boyle spoke about the levels of income exemptions across the world. In this country exemptions are applied to public sector workers earning up to €30,000, which is a very fair figure. Senator O'Malley referred to CORI. What is Fr. Seán Healy saying? He is saying we must look after people. In many cases, whether because of the education system or the social welfare policies we have adopted over the years, people do not know any better and cannot find the mechanism to get out of it. If they do, they are being clobbered because there are no jobs.

We need a major debate on the role of FÁS, which the Government has hived off to different Departments. We need a major review of the role of FÁS. While I do not completely subscribe to the Michael O'Leary viewpoint, we need an honest debate on how we might make FÁS more effective and how we can retrain and educate people. When out canvassing last Saturday, I met a young man who had completed three years of his apprenticeship. The company that employed him folded. He has one year of his apprenticeship left and he cannot complete it, which does not make sense. Why can the local authority not take him on for the final year of his apprenticeship and allow him to be involved in working on upgrading or fixing houses that are vacant throughout Cork city and county? There are hundreds of such people who have not been able to complete apprenticeships.

I believe Bill Cullen is right. I would rather work than not work. I remember my first summer job and I remember how damn hard it was to get that money, a point on which I agree with Senator O'Malley. We must put a value on employment and reward entrepreneurs, otherwise we will find ourselves in a spiral of decline and will not go anywhere in the future. Irrespective of politics, I believe this Bill will have a profound impact on those most affected by it. As the unemployment level has increased, activation, about which Senator McFadden spoke in her fine address, has become the core issue. The problem is that the Government does not have a jobs policy or a back to work programme to get people off the live register and into employment. The courses do not exist and the Government is making it more difficult for people to go on courses. We are not supporting those who are most in need.

Senator McDonald spoke about the social welfare culture, but what happens to people if we do not have social welfare? Where do they go? Do we want to become like America? I hope not. Therein lies the problem. We have no supports. In his address the Minister spoke about the new child care provision. What does he mean by the new child care provision? We already had a debate on the community child care subvention scheme, which is to be revised in September. The Minister speaks about labour activation focus. What will it do? He has not spelled it out. He has given us a nice soundbite that sounds well. Where are the after-school service and the homework support clubs? Where is the money for these? Who will roll them out? This is the same Government that is tackling community development programmes and taking their powers away. The Minister, Deputy Pat Carey, will not meet the community development programme umbrella body, yet we are expected to listen to a Minister speak about all this.

While I may draw the ire of Senator O'Malley, which I do not really want to do, the Government has created latchkey children as a matter of policy. I grew up in a house where my mother, God bless her, gave up work to stay at home and rear us. When we went to college she went back to work so that she could help us pay for our fees because it was my parents' philosophy to look after payment for our education. There are other families that cannot do that. The Government's policy has not helped. Nothing in what the Minister said today indicates there will be a different mentality from 2011 onwards.

I wish to make one final contentious point. I wish people would stop suggesting that single mothers are deliberately getting pregnant. I do not believe the majority of lone parents want to be where they are today.