Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys.

The Fianna Fáil Party supports the Bill which provides for a 50% correction in the €10 cut in child benefit introduced in 2012. We also support the legislative provisions which finally settle the long-running Waterford Crystal pensions dispute. I regret, however, that the Bill does not disguise the fact that the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection has serious questions to answer about the manner in which cuts have been implemented. The budget 2015 announcements restore only a small fraction of the reductions introduced since 2012.

On 12 October 2012 the Minister stated: "We are committed to maintaining the basic, core social welfare rates." Notwithstanding her promise, she subsequently cut child benefit, reduced the period of entitlement to jobseeker's benefit from nine months to six, dramatically cut jobseeker's allowance for everyone under 25 years to €100 per week, impoverished pensioners by filleting the household benefits package and abolishing the telephone allowance, cut the back to school allowance for clothing and footwear and reduced the respite care grant for carers by 25%. This is not a legacy of which the Tánaiste can be proud. I say this with regret, rather than as outright criticism.

According to Social Justice Ireland, 16% of adults living in poverty are employed. These are the working poor and I suggest a significant number of them took part in yesterday's demonstration, not necessarily to protest about Irish Water but to oppose the Government's austerity programme to which they have been subjected in recent years. It is rather interesting that the Tánaiste's decision to abolish the weekly €100 PRSI allowance has resulted in an anomaly, whereby lower paid workers will take home less pay when they earn more.

The Minister of State will be aware that Ireland is obliged under European law to pay child benefit to the children of non-Irish nationals living here. While this is a reciprocal obligation across all European Union member states, Irish rates of child benefit are high in comparison with those in other countries. The welcome increase of €5 per month will increase Ireland's standing in the relevant international index. I ask a question about the financial impact of this obligation on the Department. I understand that, as of 8 December last, the obligation applies to 4,793 customers and 7,668 children and that the amount paid out from 1 January to 30 November 2013 was €10,856,950. This is a significant amount of money, as the Minister of State will no doubt agree. I have no difficulty with the principle of paying child benefit to children of non-Irish nationals in this country. Irish citizens resident in other EU countries benefit from the same provision, although not to the same degree. Are moves under way in the European Union to change the position in this regard?

Sentiment is shifting on the package of social welfare benefits being paid to transient populations across EU member states. As the Minister of State will be aware, I raised on the Adjournment the recent Dano case in Germany, which provides further evidence that change is taking place. Change is not always in the best interests of the vulnerable and less well-off and I do not advocate changes that will affect the vulnerable. Nevertheless, the current position raises questions. It is fine that non-Irish nationals resident here whose children are living in their home country receive child benefit. The disparity between the rate of child benefit paid in this country and the rates paid in the countries from which non-national recipients come is significant. The Irish child benefit rate is almost as high as the weekly wage in some of the countries in question. I raise this issue because money is still tight in the Department and the Minister is clearly considering a range of options to save money. Is the Government changing its position on this issue? I suggest sentiment is changing on the issue, although this may simply reflect the language used by the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP, as we receive most of our news from the United Kingdom, rather than Germany, France and so forth. I am curious about this matter.

I commend the Department for continuing to focus on minimising social welfare fraud and abuse. Work in this area generated control savings of €632 million in 2013. During the lifetime of the previous initiative which started in 2011 and concluded in 2013, more than €1.9 billion was achieved in control savings, a considerable sum in the context of an overall budget of almost €20.5 billion.

The figure for the Department is almost €2 billion. I understand from listening to the Minister recently that one of the reasons there has been a slight loosening of the purse-strings in some other Departments is because of the savings in the Department of Social Protection budget as a result of increased employment as well as other fraud control measures. It is within that overall package that I raise the issue in the context of this legislation. I realise it does not impact directly on the Bill but it is akin to it and perhaps the Minister of State has some views on the matter. I appreciate that I am throwing the Minister of State a curveball today but he may have some views. Perhaps he will agree that the topic is at least worth reassessing and considering.

Perhaps the Minister of State will also provide the House with an overview of the European perspective on the issue of the totality of social welfare benefits. The Minister of State knows better than me that the social protection budget is one of the highest in the entirety of Government expenditure which, I gather, is of the order of €55 billion this year. Therefore, a budget of €20 billion from that total is considerable. That is why I am making the point. I am mindful that the Department is constantly looking at ways to minimise loss or waste. I ought to choose my words carefully. I am not suggesting that the payment of child benefit to people living in other EU countries is a waste but I am simply asking whether in the current economic climate it is worthy of reassessment and whether this view is growing within the European Union.