Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The Minister is very welcome to the House. I intend to make a couple of supplementary points to those of my colleague, Senator Devine, who covered most of our issues to date. It is appropriate to begin by acknowledging the kind words of Senator Butler towards his colleagues in Fianna Fáil, referring to them as partners in government. To be fair, Fianna Fáil have been very loyal and dependable partners in government to date. We see it here week in and week out as Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will always vote together. We had it on the housing issue this evening. I assure the Minister that Fianna Fáil will be dependable as ever in rejecting issues like rent certainty and aligning themselves with their Fine Gael colleagues. We could describe it as a civil partnership at the moment, but I have no doubt that in due course there will be a big day out for the two parties. I wish them well. They are ideological bedfellows and it kind of makes sense.

There is a reference, I think, to equality proofing in the programme for Government. Where is that at? In our own budget proposal, we costed an equality and budgetary advisory body for just €1.1 million, according to the Department of Finance. As the Minister may know, more than 60 countries have either implemented or are working towards equality proofing budgets and legislation. It is very disappointing that the Government appears to have chosen not to budget for such a body. The purpose of such bodies is to ensure that equality impact assessments are carried out on proposed Government policy. The fact that so many countries are engaged in such a process outlines the need for such a body here. I guess it is not in line with the Minister's own ideological thinking, in which case he might tell us that.

Equality proofing would involve working with NGOs as well as carrying out internal research to evaluate to some degree what impact legislation will have on areas like poverty, deprivation and gender inequality. It is often the case that legislation can be rushed and things can be overlooked. Too often, budgetary decisions can have a narrow deficit-management focus rather than looking at the wider implications for marginalised and minority groups. Our colleague from Labour mentioned already the issue of child poverty. We know from TASC that child poverty doubled between 2008 and 2014. That is based on the Government's own figures and, as such, is beyond doubt.Let me translate that. Some 11.2% is 138,000 children living in consistent child poverty. We have all acknowledged that there is not enough in the Minister's proposals this year to really deal with that in any way whatsoever. It is very disappointing.

I also want to raise an issue that my union, SIPTU, has raised on several occasions, and I cannot understand why the Minister has not addressed it. Perhaps the Minister can give me an answer this evening and address it, even at this late stage. It is the failure to act on the issue of older workers who are approaching the mandatory retirement age and who have been left high and dry by the abolition of the transitional pension. SIPTU has repeatedly called for an increase in jobseeker's benefit at the age of 65, as a temporary measure, to deal with this issue. It would cost just €5 million per year, which is absolutely nothing. For just €25 million, all 65 year olds who are dependent on social welfare could be covered. For the life of me, I cannot understand why this has not been done by the Minister. If it is an oversight, I ask that he please acknowledge it and tell us that at this stage he will include it in the Bill. If it is not an oversight, then can he please tell us why he will not do it? Surely it is not the cost if it is €5 million. Does the Minister have an ideological problem with people getting decent payments as they approach the later retirement age? If there is no good reason not to do it, then I ask the Minister to please take the time to do it now.