Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. While there are some very difficult changes, every job is difficult and there are tough choices to make, could the Minister deal with one aspect of complaints we all receive, namely, the length of time for processing claims? I am going to debate some of the cuts she has made, claims for disability, illness and jobseekers, and in particular appeals and the percentage of appeals that are upheld. The percentage of appeals upheld show that some of the decisions made at the very start are incorrect. Perhaps the Minister has some up-to-date details about what percentage of appeals are upheld and granted and could tell us what the turnaround times for processing claims are and what changes, if any, she has made in the administration sections of the Department to ensure that claims are processed as promptly as possible.

My colleague, Senator Mooney, has outlined our party position on this very well and has detailed many of the items about which we have grave concern. I will focus on two or three items. First, I will address the abolition of the mortgage interest supplement. The mortgage interest supplement was one of the few direct measures that assisted people in mortgage arrears and applied to people regardless of whether they were working or not. In the context of the Government having introduced the new Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act which makes it easier for banks to repossess people's principal private residence and having torn up the statutory code of conduct on mortgage arrears to give the powers to the banks under the new code of conduct on mortgage arrears, I am interested in finding out what the Government is proposing in its stead. Is it proposing that the State should not intervene to assist the 143,000 households in mortgage arrears that are in grave difficulty? What will happen to these people? I know this covers a couple of Departments but the abolition of mortgage interest supplement is a retrograde step and the Government will be taking the rug from under people who really need this payment.

I listened with interest to some Members and some Government colleagues, particularly the Taoiseach, talking about welfare over the past weeks. One headline stated "Kenny declares war on welfare culture". I am not saying that the Minister has been guilty of this but there is a sustained message coming from Government about welfare fraud and welfare spongers. Tory-style language is being used, particularly from Fine Gael colleagues in this regard. The welfare system is there to help people when they are in trouble. Most of them have paid taxes for this. Could the Minister ask her Government colleagues, particularly the Taoiseach, to watch the language that is used? Does the Government expect people to feel grateful that they receive assistance from the State when they are out of work or have problems with their mortgages? I believe this notion has crept in over the past 18 months in Government circles.

I was astonished to hear Senator Clune commend the Minister for changes to maternity benefit - standardisation as she called it. It is not standardisation. That is language used by focus groups employed by the Government and its spin doctors. Let us be straight about this. This change in maternity benefit is a cut - a €30-million cut. I ask the Minister to confirm these figures. What percentage of women claiming maternity benefit in any given year will the de facto reduction of €32 per week affect? According to the figures I have, standardisation will affect 96% of women.

Only 4% of women will benefit from it. The Minister can call it whatever she likes but it is a substantial cut. We do not think it is too late to change course, and we will be tabling amendments through our spokesperson, Senator Mooney, because the Minister got it wrong in this regard. I support her in the tough choices she has had to make in other areas but the cut - not standardisation - to maternity benefit is wrong. I would like to know what figures are available from the Department. If she is saying it is a standardisation that is saving €30 million, it is effectively a cut.

Other issues that are not covered by the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill include the telephone allowance and the household benefits package. In case my colleagues believe the abolition of the telephone allowance will only mean a cut of €9, it was €26 when this Government took over and it is currently €9. It will be nothing from next year. That will affect people. We cannot change it because it is not in this Bill and primary legislation is not required for the cut.

These are things that really hurt but even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to reconsider the cut to maternity benefit and the bereavement grant. She corrected me earlier when she said that she supported the reduction introduced by the previous Government to social welfare payments for those aged between 18 and 21 years who were living at home. I take her at her word in that regard but her party vociferously opposed the Social Welfare Bill which introduced those measures. She should not proceed with the cuts to the maternity benefit and the bereavement grant. It is not too late for her to change her mind. A government cannot say that it supports working mothers when it takes €32 per week away from them. It it not standardisation; it is a cut.