Phil Prendergast (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, although I regret that the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, had to leave for another engagement.

We are debating the Social Welfare Bill 2010 but never in the history of this State has the word "welfare" been more out of place in legislation. It should be called the social harm Bill because that is what it will cause to every welfare recipient in this country, including those in receipt the State pension. "Harm" is a mild description of the effects it will have on millions of people. The Bill is an arrest warrant for our future. The opportunity for children to develop physically, socially and educationally will be put behind bars. The parents of these children are headed for the labour camps and the poor house and the Bill is corporal punishment for the elderly.

There is so much wrong with the Bill that it is difficult to know where to start. However, it is not difficult to see where it is going to end. Since this Government began to make welfare recipients and low income earners pay for its criminal incompetence, there has been a spike in violence on the streets and behind closed doors, drug and alcohol abuse has been on the rise and, as the increase in suicide rates indicates, our country's mental health is failing. Towns and villages that never before had to deal with drugs are now facing what were once understood as big city problems. Children are being forced into poverty and the elderly are dying in the cold. I have visited houses in which older people had to wear coats in June and July. Not only was the recent period excessively cold but older people do not retain heat to the same extent as the young. Businesses are closing and our young people are leaving the country while the Government holds the door open. Instead of speaking about ghost estates, in the future we will be speaking about ghost towns.

What is most galling is that the Government could have chosen the alternative route of deciding to make the wealthy pay their fair share. Given that nobody who supports this Government appears to understand the word, "fair" means reasonable and acceptable to social norms. When a party that has been in Government for longer than all the other parties combined loses 70% of its support, it can hardly claim to be acting in accordance with social norms.

I will show how this Bill passes the test of reasonableness by referring to some of its provisions. The average income loss for families from the combined tax and social welfare package is estimated at €43 per week. The allowance for people who save the State hundreds of millions of euro by caring for family members is to be cut by €8. The same cut is being applied to those with medically assessed disabilities and individuals aged over 25 years receiving jobseeker's payments. VTOS and FÁS training allowances are to be reduced by more than €11 per week. The personal weekly rate of supplementary welfare allowances will be reduced by €10. As Senator McFadden noted, Barnardos predicts that the cuts to these payments will push 30,000 more children and their parents into poverty and more mortgages will fall into arrears. Those on the minimum wage will pay more in the universal social charge than those on the highest rate of tax. Older people will suffer disproportionately from fuel levies because they will receive a mere €40 instead of the promised voucher scheme.

While these people are battered by the so-called Social Welfare Bill, the other half of the budget's despicable duo, the Finance Bill, will help the rich to get richer. The message Ireland is sending to the world is that some wealthy people will be better off because of the most severe austerity budget in our history. Anyone who thinks that passes the reasonable test has no business being in this or any other respectable forum.

Like everyone else in public office, I have encountered many people in my office or on the streets who are genuinely upset. Some of them are trying to access services or facing the loss of special needs assistants for their children. In one case, a young boy with insulin dependent diabetes required his mother to give him as many as four separate injections during the school day. His mother subsequently underwent a Caesarian section while giving birth, which meant she could not drive for six weeks. When I asked the authorities about getting a special needs assistant for him, I was told he could not get one because his mother had previously provided the service. I was advised that the best solution was to take the child out of school. I did not think it fair or reasonable to require a child to miss schooling simply because he could not get the help he required but we were ultimately able to secure a special needs assistant. This incident took place during the height of the boom in 2007. Recently, the hours for that boy's special needs assistant were cut from 30 to six hours per week. His diabetes remains uncontrollable because it is very difficult to regulate insulin levels in a growing child. He needs frequent monitoring by someone with the appropriate skills. His mother continually worries about him because she cannot predict when he needs to be tested for low blood sugar.

People are worrying about their medical needs, the loss of local services, FETAC and FÁS training allowances, employment schemes, the cost of Christmas and their futures. From January they will have to meet higher costs in almost everything out of reduced incomes. This budget will not help them. It is not appropriate to cut the minimum wage at this time.

This is the worst Social Welfare Bill I have ever encountered. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's response to the issues raised by Senator McFadden and other speakers.