David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment. I am sorry the Government has not tabled a single amendment because that would have shown that we had no practical impact on the Bill. We will not have much a practical impact. We will put issues on the record and we will represent certain groups that feel they have been marginalised and punished. There have been many useful contributions but there is no Government amendment, which suggests we have been talking fruitlessly. I hope some ideas will settle and I acknowledge the Minister took careful note of a number of suggestions and so on.

However, I agree with Senator Quinn that this is a sensible amendment but that does mean it will be enacted. We are not facing the Minister but a principle that has been established for a long time by the Department of Finance. I do not recall a single occasion during my time in the House that a motion was permitted, which allowed money to be ring-fenced. The Minister might discuss with her colleagues whether it is possible to do this. I recall raising this issue in the context of drug money. Tony Gregory came up with the idea of the Criminal Assets Bureau. While he did not call it that, he suggested linking the Department of Social Welfare, the Garda and the Revenue as a method of getting at the gangsters, similar to the Al Capone situation, who were running the drugs war. The Government of the day tried to avoid giving the credit to him but he was right. I supported him in this House and I tabled a motion, about which I felt strongly, because I live in a area with a serious drugs problem. The money was bled out of the veins of the people in the area and I wanted this substantial amount ring-fenced to create employment and educational opportunities there. That was a blazingly obvious measure but it was opposed by the then Minister and it was clear the opposition came from the Department of Finance. The amendment, therefore, will not be successful.

With regard to the reduced social welfare rate for the under 26s, this will be a more serious problem than I even thought yesterday, when I spoke at length about it. I have received further information from one of the people by whom I have been briefed and he says that the Department originally stated these cuts would affect 13,767 people but they will impact on a much higher number. He attached a table but it is not made clear to me whether the table originated from the Department or whether it is the result of an actuarial calculation. He accepts that in 2014, a total of 13,767 claimants will be affected but by 2015, the number will increase to 22,756 and then to 28,193 in 2016. It is possible the number will increase to in excess of 30,000 after that. That makes this cut much more serious than I even imagined yesterday. I am afraid I do not hold out a huge expectation that the amendment will be accepted but the issue is more urgent now that these figures exist and I assume they can be authenticated.