Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Táim an-sásta go bhfuil mé ag fáil deis labhairt ar an ábhar fíor-thábhachtach seo.

Tá go leor ábhar i gceist leis an rannóg áirithe seo agus go leor ábhar go bhféadfaimid a phlé, ach díreoidh mé ar chuid acu sin.

Táthar ag glacadh leis go gcaithfear gearradh siar a dhéanamh ar an Roinn Coimirce Sóisíalaí. An bun-difríocht a bhéadh idir Sinn Féin agus na páirtithe eile ná nach nglacaimid-ne leis gur chóir go mbéadh sin a tarlu. Dár le Sinn Féin, tá sin ag tarlú mar gheall ar na fiacha baincéireachta atá orainn, mar go bhfuilimid ag íoc ar ais le lucht baincéireachta agus as na bannaí nár thugamar aon barrántas orthu, agus nach ndeachamar i ngleic leis an bhfadhb sin.

It is taken as a fait accompli that there will be cutbacks in the Department of Social Protection. Sinn Féin does not, necessarily, concur with that view. Our fundamental economic model is different from that of the Government and Fianna Fáil. The austerity budgets should not have been brought in as they were. Unguaranteed bondholders should not have been paid back, but that is a wider debate.

That debate does, however, relate to social welfare and is specific to some of our social welfare payments. The one thing we know about social welfare recipients is that they spend most of the money they have in their local economy. Every penny is used and spent locally. Cutbacks in social welfare have a substantial multiplier effect on local shops and businesses.

The Government's fundamental economic model, under the aegis of the troika, is the wrong one. We should be stimulating growth by creating employment, taking more people off the live register and, therefore, reducing social welfare payments. That can be done, as shown in the jobs proposal Sinn Féin has put forward which I hope Senators will read over the weekend. We need to create jobs to take people out of the social welfare scenario.

We also need to tax wealth. Sinn Féin brought forward proposals to cap Civil Service salaries of over ¤100,000 and to introduce a wealth tax of 1% and a third income tax band of 48% which would generate revenue that would alleviate the proposed cutbacks.

Kite flying by Ministers about changes to social welfare payments is also detrimental.

I agree with what Senators Hayden and Mullins said about some areas of social protection. The basic tenet of the argument, however, is that if one buys into the model of austerity and cutbacks one must cut back social protection measures.

In last year's budget, lone parents were given a very raw deal by the Minister who introduced severe cutbacks. I call on the Minister to reverse those cutbacks in the forthcoming budget. Budget 2012 removed many of the protections that were, rightly, put in place to help lone parents with the costs associated with returning to work. It reintroduced poverty traps and put in place obstacles to work, despite the rhetoric from the Government that the opposite was its objective. We were making it easier for lone parents to stay at home rather than continue in employment. Many of the groups who lobbied public representatives testified to this. I must praise Single Parents Actively Raising Kids, SPARK, who did very good lobbying on this issue. I am sure they will be lobbying again in the run-up to this year's budget.

Last year we saw cuts, including a drop in rent allowance, children's allowance for families with more than three children and reductions in back-to-school and fuel allowances. The one-parent family allowance was also removed from people on community employment schemes. I call on the Minister to look into the purse and reverse those cuts, in particular.

Senator Hayden raised the issue of homelessness. I concur with most of what she said. She is perfectly right. The cuts to rent supplement caused huge strife throughout the country. They did not reflect what was happening in the market. The fundamental model used to calculate the rent supplement was wrong. It was based on an average rent in an area and did not reflect what people were actually paying. In Galway city, for example, there were caps on rent supplement of ¤700 for a family, while most people were paying ¤800 or ¤850. People were forced to move out of their homes and communities and the cut caused considerable upheaval. I ask the Minister to revisit this matter.

The fundamental issue is that we are too reliant on private rented accommodation and we are paying too much for it.

The State should be providing more accommodation and I agree that it should be under local authority aegis. We have been talking about this for the past year and I do not see any proposals coming forward from the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, on the issue in the interim. I would hope to see them as a matter of urgency. Large numbers of people are on the housing lists. This issue is probably one of the most common to be raised at all our local offices as people try to get their names on the council housing or transfer lists. It is obvious there is a dearth of housing stock and this matter needs to be addressed.

The issue of poverty which was raised by Senator Reilly is very important. We should examine every Bill that comes through these Houses to ensure it is poverty-proofed. I suggest the EU model which we debated here at some length during the year. The stories we have heard this week about people having their "cornflakes day" once a week because they cannot afford a full meal, are scandalous. I agree that the cuts in fuel and other allowances should be reversed.

Tá neart eile gur mhaith linn a rá faoin ábhar seo, ach tá mé cinnte go mbeidh lá eile ag an bPaorach.