Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

While the rate of inflation has eased, prices of everyday items remain high. It is still expensive to do the weekly shop, to fuel your car, pay your bills and make ends meet. That is why this Government put together a budget that supports families and our most vulnerable, and puts money back in people's pockets.

I will now turn to the Social Welfare Bill itself, section by section. Section 1 provides for definitions of the relevant Acts. The weekly earnings of an employee determine the PRSI rate an employer pays on behalf of that employee. Currently, employer PRSI is charged at the rate of 8.9% on weekly earnings between €38 and €496. Weekly earnings in excess of €496 attract employer PRSI at a higher rate of 11.15%.

The earnings threshold increase from €496 to €527 in section 2 takes account of the forthcoming increases in the minimum wage from €12.70 to €13.50 per hour. Employers with employees on the national minimum wage will, therefore, continue to attract the lower rate of employer PRSI. This section will come into operation on the same day as the national minimum wage increase, that is, New Year's Day 2025. This measure will save employers €616 annually on employer PRSI for each of their employees working full-time on the minimum wage.

Section 3 provides access to carer's benefit for the self-employed.

Section 4 provides for a €15 increase in the weekly rate of maternity benefit to €289 from this coming January.

Sections 5 to 7, inclusive, provide for the equivalent increases with regard to adoptive benefit, paternity benefit and parent's benefit, respectively.

Section 8 gives effect to the increases in the graduated rate of jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's benefit for the self-employed.

Section 9 is merely a minor amendment to correct a layout error in the earlier legislation. Carer's benefit is a PRSI-based payment provided to individuals who need to leave work or significantly reduce their working hours to look after someone requiring full-time care and attention.

Section 10 provides the regulation-making powers to provide access to the scheme for the self-employed.

Section 11 provides for a once-off payment of €282 for newborn or adopted children born after 1 December 2024. Deputies will be aware that I was anxious that Christmas babies will be included, so this date was brought back from the original date of 1 January. This will be given in addition to child benefit and will generally be paid in the first month after the child's birth or adoption.

The carer's support grant, formerly known as the respite care grant, is paid to recipients of carer's allowance, carer's benefit or domiciliary care allowance. Section 12 increases the grant from €1,850 to €2,000. This is the highest ever it has been. It is paid annually in June, and it is not means-tested. The working family payment provides extra financial support to working families on low pay who have children.

Section 13 provides for a €60 increase in the weekly income thresholds of the working family payment for all family sizes. This will mean that existing recipients whose employment earnings do not increase will see their payments rise by €36 per week.

The purpose of section 14 is to allow the regulatory power to vary rates of payment of child benefit and the working family payment. This will enable the implementation of the following cost-of-living measures: paying a double rate of child benefit in November and December 2024, and making €400 lump-sum payment to recipients of the working family payment next month.

Following the enactment of this legislation, the necessary regulations will be signed by me in conjunction with my colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform, Deputy Paschal Donohoe. I would appreciate the co-operation of Members of this House to expedite the passage of this Bill. It is necessary that this Bill is passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas before the Hallowe'en recess-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Or the election. Which?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----to enable these important measures to be implemented.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Trick or treat. The Minister is going trick or treating now. She will be trick or treating around Monaghan.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am a bit old for that. Deputy McGrath could try it.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You are never too old.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 16 and Schedule 1 provide for increases in the rates of social insurance payments. I am very pleased to say that there will be a €12 increase per week in the maximum personal rate of PRSI-based benefits.

Section 17 and Schedule 2 provide for increases in social assistance or, in other words, means-tested payments. It also provides for increases to qualified adults and other increases where relevant such as, for example the living alone allowance. Domiciliary care allowance is a payment in recognition of the additional burden involved in caring for children with a severe disability and it is not means-tested.

Section 18 provides for an increase in the rate of payment from €340 to €360. In 2022, I was proud to be the first Minister to increase this payment since 2009. It was also increased in last year's budget. These increases are in recognition of the significant and difficult role that family carers perform in Irish society.

Finally, section 19 is the Short Title of the Act.

This is my fifth budget as Minister for Social Protection. Since 2020, I have navigated the social protection ship through turbulent waters - the aftermath of Brexit, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, inflation and the cost-of-living increases, through it all, with the help of the can-do culture of the team in the Department of Social Protection. I want to acknowledge the staff of the Department of Social Protection, not just in the Department here in Dublin but right across the country. It is fair to say, and we will all acknowledge, that they did wonderful work in churning out all those payments during the pandemic, such as the PUP and all the different supports. It was nothing short of a credit to them.

Matt Shanahan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They were all working away to make sure that people had the money they needed. I just want to acknowledge that. As I said, through it all, and with the help of this can-do culture of the team, we have stayed the course.

I have learned at this stage, of course, that no matter what we do, it is not going to please everybody and there will always be calls to do more. I accept that but we cannot do everything. What we can do is give a helping hand to those who need it the most. When you look at this budget in its totality - the cost-of-living payments, the weekly increases and the targeted measures - I believe this is a package that delivers for our older people, carers, people with disabilities and young working families.

The budget measures will make life a bit easier for these groups. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to hearing the contributions of Deputies.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of clarification, is there something happening other than Hallowe'en at Hallowe'en? We want the Bill finished by Hallowe'en.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There will be a treat when you turn up at the door.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister going trick or treating?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know what tricks you have up your sleeve. There will be some treats.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I prefer "Help the Hallowe'en party" rather than "Trick or treat". It is an old Dublin phrase.

Unfortunately, this budget has failed to make the correct and necessary adjustments needed to improve the quality of life of the most vulnerable in our society, including carers, children and people with disabilities. I have spoken to many people regarding the budget as, I am sure, has the Minister. There is a general sense that there was a clear attempt by the Government to buy the election. One-off measures are fine for Hallowe'en or Christmas, but they do not deal with the fundamental issue of consistent poverty or help the tens of thousands of children in consistent poverty.

Carers and people with disabilities deserve much more from this social protection budget. We know carers are at a much higher risk of poverty. Carers all across the State have been told to wait until July 2025 before they see any changes to the means test. Can the Minister explain to carers why the Government has told them that they must wait?

Sinn Féin has committed to a significant increase in the carer's allowance means threshold, going further than the Government. We would increase the income threshold to €730 for a single person and €1,460 for a couple, compared to the Government's proposal of only increasing the disregards to €625 and €1,250. We have allocated €100 million to this measure, which would see 3,754 additional carers becoming eligible for carer's allowance. In addition, 6,590 people who are currently on a reduced payment due to means testing would become eligible for the full payment. We all have stories of people who are outside of the thresholds or perhaps receive €10 per week for caring for their families. We know the billions of euros that is saved by carers who do incredible work. It will be clear to all carers that the only way to eliminate the means test is a change of government, as Sinn Féin has committed to this, whether the election is at Hallowe'en or next year.

We would also introduce a pay-related carers benefit for those who have to give up work to care for someone. This would ensure that carers do not see their income fall off a cliff edge. Their income would be protected when they have to give up work, which can be a very difficult time. People on the doors are constantly telling us stories about their income falling off a cliff edge at very short notice.

We also know that people with disabilities are at a much higher risk of poverty, yet there is no recognition of the increased cost of disability. Sinn Féin proposed a €20 weekly increase in disability payments instead of the €12 decided on by Government. I was struck when meeting someone recently by the significant costs of those with a disability who live alone. For example, most of us can cut the grass in our gardens ourselves. It is one of the simple, small jobs we do not even think about, but it is a significant cost for people with disabilities. Unfortunately, people with disabilities deserve far more than this Government.

The Government has not increased child benefit. The payment is still below the rate in 2008. In every budget we are told the economy is flying and billions of euro are available, yet the child benefit rate has stayed the same. We would have increased the rate by €10, the first increase since 2016. The payment was cut by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Governments. Sinn Féin would have delivered a double payment of child benefit in October and December, as well as a €10 monthly increase. Families are under savage pressure and the core rate needs to be increased. One-off payments are all well and good, but people need the Government to make a lasting difference for them. That is what Sinn Féin has proposed.

Sinn Féin would establish an employer PRSI rebate scheme to provide support for businesses impacted by the rise in the minimum wage. The relief relates to full-time employees earning €650 per week or less. The scheme would support businesses in adjusting to the minimum wage increases and protect employment while ensuring low pay is not incentivised.

Sinn Féin would introduce a parental bereavement leave and benefit scheme. In each of our last three alternative budgets, we proposed a scheme that would make statutory provision for two weeks paid leave for parents following the loss of a child, to be paid at the rate of existing maternity, paternity and parents' leave. The benefit would be payable to parents who lose a child under the age of 18, including following a stillbirth or during pregnancy, irrespective of the length of the current employment. Unfortunately, to date no action has been taken by the Minister. I will resubmit this proposal as an amendment to the Bill.

Sinn Féin would extend fuel allowance eligibility to working family payment recipients, given the crippling energy costs families are experiencing. Sinn Féin would target increased accessibility for lower and working families with children by ensuring that families on low incomes would be eligible for the fuel allowance by extending the payment to working family payment recipients. It is incomprehensible that low income working families are still excluded from the payment.

One of the biggest issues of the past general election was the right to retire at 65 years of age. The 65 campaign garnered thousands of emails from workers who demanded that right. I discovered that those around the Cabinet table who make decisions have the right to retire at the age of 50 if elected to this House or if they worked in the public service prior to 2001. It is quite hypocritical to demand others retire at the age of 66. In fact, the proposal was to make the retirement age even higher prior to the campaign; I believe the proposed age was 70. We made a commitment to ensure that people aged 65 would have the right to retire on a State contributory pension and will make that commitment again when the election is called. I urge all of those who campaigned so brilliantly in 2020 - I remember being up until the early hours of the morning trying to answer all of the emails - to get their emails ready again.

The social protection budget is focused on the short term and will fail to deliver in the long term for those families who are in consistent poverty. Those children who are still experiencing poverty will continue to do so because of this budget. The budget should have been about delivering meaningful and real long-term change. Sinn Féin has consistently put forward costed and sector-backed proposals to Government that would tackle the cost-of-living crisis and ease the pressures carers, people with disabilities and ordinary workers and families face. The Government's budget has failed to deliver for carers, people with disabilities and hard-pressed ordinary workers and families.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I note the Minister's pressing need to have this Bill promulgated prior to the recess. There was a time when social welfare Bills would be a source of great debate in this House. I have noticed in latter years the debate has become shorter and shorter.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bigger budgets.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledge the work of the Minister in providing protections for vulnerable people in society through the payments she has instigated in the past number of years, in particular.

We have to come to a stage where there is some maturity in these Houses around acknowledging where there is a strong social welfare package that gives people more resources and money to meet their everyday needs. I absolutely acknowledge the work of the Minister in that regard, but - there is always a "but" - I note that in latter years there has been a preponderance of one-off measures. While every family, especially those with children, will welcome the one-off measures as we come into the Hallowe'en-election period when the coffers will be a little heavier in the average household, I have to question the sustainability of using that mechanism. When the Minister returns after receiving a new mandate from the people, if she should find herself in the same role, a review may be done of the sustainability of one-off measures and whether such money should be embedded into payments as a better and more sustainable way of supporting people, especially those who find themselves not quite below the social floor but as near as makes no difference. That is one political point I make in my last debate on a social welfare Bill before the House. I am privileged to still be in the position of being able to speak about the Bill.

I will also speak for colleague Members of the Oireachtas. The Minister will be aware that the Maternity Protection Bill will be before us this week. Coincidentally, the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, is trying to ensure that Bill is also promulgated prior to the Hallowe'en recess. There seems to be anxiety among Ministers to have legislation done and dusted before the recess. The Maternity Protection Bill has in its content measures to provide certain protections for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas relating to maternity provisions. Section 2 of the Maternity Protection Bill provides that "any absence by a member [of the Houses of the Oireachtas]...duly notified...[related to the birth of a child] during a period of up to 26 weeks...shall be called maternity leave for a member of the Houses of the Oireachtas". We are embedding into our structures supports for colleague Members of the Oireachtas who require protection during maternity.

I tabled an amendment to the Minister's Bill which was ruled out of order. I sought to insert a new section as follows:

“Maternity benefit – members of the Houses of the Oireachtas

5. A woman who—

(a) being a member of a House of the Oireachtas, pays contributions as a public office holder under Chapter 5A of the Principal Act, and

(b) ceases to be a member of the Houses within 24 weeks of the date on which she is [forgive me for the arcane language]

delivered of a child,

is entitled to maternity benefit, where she otherwise satisfies the conditions in accordance with which maternity benefit is paid to an employed contributor under that Act, for the unexpired portion of that period of 24 weeks.”.

That was ruled out of order because it was deemed to place a charge on the Exchequer. I understand that. However, there is a point. We have situations where, for example, if a Member were due to give birth this week and for the rest of the term of the Dáil would be on maternity leave, that person as it stands is not entitled to maternity leave. However, that person does get an additional staff member to cover the 26 weeks, is entitled to enter a formal pairing arrangement for votes during the period and will continue to be paid a salary. The issue arises when there is an election in the middle of the 26 weeks as women colleagues who either lose their seats or do not contest again will not be entitled to claim even State maternity benefit due to the class K PRSI stamp they have been paying for the period they have been serving as Members. That leaves the person with an uncertain few months where that person is not able to access even basic social welfare entitlements.

I am trying to speak for colleagues who find themselves in the invidious position where if they leave the Houses of the Oireachtas or are not re-elected, they will be in a precarious position for a period. If it could be looked at, people would welcome it. I am sure it has been brought to the Minister's attention. I have no doubt about that. Whether it can be usefully added to this Bill remains to be seen, but I ask the Minister to look at it.

I have also tabled an amendment which I have been told is in order that provides:

The Minister shall, within 3 weeks of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the payment of maternity benefit to public office holders who are members of either such House and who cease to be such a member in the period during which maternity benefit is normally payable to employed contributors under the Principal Act.

If the Minister could look at that in the course of or in advance of Committee Stage deliberations, I would be grateful.

I absolutely acknowledge the work the Minister has done in respect of ensuring that, where moneys are made available, her Department has been a significant beneficiary of the increases in Exchequer funding.

If the Minister, instead of using one-off measures on a regular basis, were to embed more of those moneys into structured payments, it would make it more sustainable for people, especially during a cost-of-living crisis or where cost-of-living challenges arise in society periodically.

We welcome the Bill. I see no reason not to support it at this juncture on Second Stage. We will table amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage and we hope the Minister will look favourably, particularly on amendment No. 6 that will come before her on Committee Stage.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a short time. I welcome the budget and especially the work the Minister has done over the years. It is a fact that the Minister is hardworking, efficient and effective. I also pay tribute to her staff around the country. As a TD and public representative for 50 years, and I suppose I drive everyone mad by ringing up about clients, but I have to say on the record that the Minister's Department is the best there is. It gives instant responses and the Department comes back straight away. It looks after people exceptionally well. I am sure I speak for all Members of the House when I say how much we all respect her Department. I wish all other Departments were as efficient as hers. Having put that on the record I will say more good things.

The fact that the House is not full of people to talk about the Social Welfare Bill is important because it shows that it is effective. There is no significant adverse criticism of the welcome changes the Minister is making. It is important they continue and that we encourage the Minister in that regard.

I will bring two issues to the Minister's attention. The first was brought to my attention today. It is not specifically germane to her Department. The mother of a school secretary has passed away in England and due to not having full State employment that person cannot get paid compassionate leave to attend the parent's funeral. There should be way under the Minister's Department or the Department of another Minister at the Cabinet table, for everyone to have that right. Everyone has a right to compassionate leave, but not to be paid.

If someone's mum or dad who lives in England or another country dies, we should cover that.

My next point is on older people. I am someone who is heading into that youthful cohort in reasonably good health, but as people age, their health eventually becomes compromised. People in nursing homes get poor dental care. They have rights and entitlements under the treatment benefit scheme and so on, but given that 28,000 to 30,000 older persons are in nursing homes, we need the Government to engage proactively in looking after them better, particularly where dental care is concerned. While I am not saying this applies to all older people, many older people have poor dental hygiene and suffer heart conditions and other health problems as a result. We should find a way of looking after older people better. We should have a mandatory scheme whereby all over-65s, not just those in nursing homes, should have routine and professional cleaning of their teeth free of charge and at the Department’s cost regardless of their income because they will live longer if they get that. Dental care is important.

I will probably not be able to myself clear in the five seconds I have left, but I am happy to discuss this suggestion with the Minister. Older people should have free dental care, including teeth cleaning, under future budgets. This would make them live longer, happier and better lives pain free. The capacity to live longer is critical, but their dental needs are not being met at the moment.

Ruairi Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many of us have spoken about those who do a large amount of caring work in our families and communities, including for those with disabilities. It is fair to say that we have to examine the means test. This is not the first time the Minister and I have engaged on the issue. I am coming at this from the point of view of delivering something that is sustainable. We know the large amount of work that is done by these people and we know that, if we relied on the State to provide the same care, it would cost hundreds of millions of euro. Delivering something sustainable will not be straightforward, but we have to get to that place sooner rather than later.

I recently engaged with the Minister on the back to education allowance. I know of a person who qualified to do a level 5 course over nine months to become a healthcare assistant but who was unable to pursue it due to already having a level 8 qualification even though that qualification was in hospitality. We all know the issues affecting hospitality, and those need to be addressed in and of themselves, but we need to facilitate someone in changing careers and doing something beneficial for society. I have no doubt that the Minister agrees. We just need to find the solution, be it for this person specifically or for everyone who falls into this bracket.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will use the majority of my time to discuss poverty – childhood poverty and poverty of the parent or guardian – and the missed opportunity of this budget to go some way towards addressing it. Hundreds of thousands of people continue to be left out of what the Government refers to as Ireland’s economic recovery post crash, a myth told to countless struggling families across the country. I have seen this myth in some parts of my constituency, but certainly not all. Social welfare changes implemented over the past two budgets have widened the income gap. It is not just me saying this, but countless charities and people working at the coalface of hunger, cold and the lack of warm coats, two pairs of shoes and all the other measurements that are captured in the definition of "poverty". In light of this knowledge, one would be forgiven for assuming that the Government that made the same mistake not once, but twice would not make it a third time, but here we are watching the attempt to ratify the same measures after two years spent watching the earlier changes have a negative effect on the income gap.

The Government’s budget shows no appetite for change in social welfare, which tells us that we are content with the hardships that hundreds of thousands of families have been condemned to over the past two years. The €12 weekly increase in core social welfare rates fails to compensate for the damage that inflation continues to wreak on poorer households. Despite inflation going down, prices remain unassailably high. A €25 boost was the minimum required for the Government to benchmark rates of 27.5% of average weekly earnings, which was the target set in 2007, so even twice the €12 provided would have left families well short.

There was an incredibly distasteful debate in the lead-up to the Government’s budget, with a question being asked about who was worthier of social welfare payments and people who were considered to be on long-term social welfare payments being pitted against other vulnerable groups. There were even some in the Opposition who engaged in this, so I am glad that it did not come to fruition.

This Bill, like the previous two such Bills, fails the poorest. They have been left behind while the Government boasts of Ireland’s economic boons, rubbing it in their faces. There has been no attempt to reduce poverty in line with the Government’s targets in the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025. One-off measures and double payments are welcome, but completely inadequate – the phrase “eaten bread is soon forgotten” is relevant to those who are going to be worried about where their next meals will come from – with no solution to the challenges of poverty and income inadequacy. These one-off measures disappear in a matter of weeks or months, landing those who need them in more precarious situations than they were beforehand.

One in seven children, or more than 167,000, is living in poverty. The Bill does not contain measures to tackle child poverty, for example, raising core social welfare rates by €25 or making the public services children rely on more available and affordable. Ending child poverty, which the Government brazenly claims to prioritise, requires more than a double payment and one-off measures. It requires measures such as adequate adult welfare rates, decent rates of pay and conditions for working parents, supporting parents and adequate and more accessible public services, such as childcare and after-school care. Child benefit is of the greatest help to families on the lowest incomes. Instead of increasing the monthly rate to support these low-income families, though, the Government has again to chosen to rely on one-off lump sum payments, which will fade away without reducing poverty levels. The failure to adequately increase core social welfare rates and child benefit and to address low pay leaves vulnerable families trailing behind. The Government did not prioritise access to housing, child care, healthcare and education that was suitable for their needs, including speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and all of those vital services that allow a young person the basic level of dignity. The Bill has failed to fully implement the Government’s policy on addressing child poverty as laid about in the child poverty and well-being unit’s work programme despite the fact that office operates as part of the Department.

The Taoiseach called this a child poverty budget, but he was probably one of the only people to do so. Many of the groups that work every day with families have not described it in those terms. The failure to make tax credits refundable means that low-paid workers have gained the least from the past three budgets of this Administration. According to the ESRI, budget 2025 will have little effect on reducing overall poverty or child poverty specifically while the cost to the Exchequer of the untargeted cost-of-living measures, for example, energy credits and the double child benefit payment, would have been enough to finance a second tier of child benefit, which could have lifted 40,000 children out of poverty.

The withdrawal of cost-of-living measures may increase the risk of poverty for pensioners and people with disabilities unless there are accompanying welfare increases. Temporary cost-of-living measures, which have been a feature of this and recent budgets, are providing considerable assistance to many households. As I have stated countless times over the years, the minimum essential stand of living, MESL, is the only way to tackle poverty effectively. There has been a cumulative increase of 16.8% in core MESL costs in the period 2020 to 2024, indicating ongoing cost-of-living challenges for households. Compared with 2020, the cost of the MESL food basket has increased by 21.2% and the cost of the MESL household energy basket has increased by 64.5%. Although declines in other areas of expenditure have offset some of these increases, the overall impact is a 16.8% increase in the cost of goods and services needed for a MESL. The core MESL costs remain highest for children of second-level age, that is, 12 years and over, at €149 per week, approximately 60% higher than the minimum needs of younger children, with social welfare supports meeting 63% of MESL needs. The change found in the MESL costs for an infant’s needs are considerable.

The cost for an infant has shown the largest increase of all age groups, rising by 22.4% between 2020 and 2024. This increase was driven primarily by a 37% rise in baby milk formula and an 84% increase in the cost of nappies. These two items now account for more than a quarter, 29%, of infant minimum essential standard of living costs.

I do not doubt for a second that there are lots of good things in this budget. I do not think anybody shows up to work in the morning and decides to be cruel or indifferent to the needs of people who are in poverty. I just think the choices were wrong. We can pick any number, but the one that will stand out for me is the almost €23 million in energy credits that will go to people with second homes. I know it is not contained in this Bill, but that will be almost €100 million given to people with second homes over the course of three years. I keep referring to poverty as that which a child or adult is expected to go without and we have a situation where people in second homes have been given a bundle by Government over the past three years. I appreciate there have been some increases in payments, but there have also been increases in costs of food and basic necessities. We have a situation where people with second homes are getting double energy credits while people with children who cannot afford a second pair of shoes or a warm coat have not received anywhere near the same attention. That is a shame. There was an opportunity in this Bill and in that budget to address some of those and it will be looked back on as a lost opportunity.

Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I start by talking about the progress of Ireland over the past 20 years. There has been a lot of discussion in the House about poverty. However, the SILC report published prior to the budget indicated that those at risk of poverty was 10.6% in 2023. That is a historic low and is down from 20% in 2005. We have halved the number of people at risk of poverty over 20 years. The number of people living in consistent poverty in 2023 was down compared with 2022. It is getting better and went from 4.9% to 3.6%, so it is down. People at risk of poverty was 10.6% in 2023. That is down from 12.5 in 2022 - in other words, more improvements. Let us be clear that when people talk about other measures in the budget, they are also talking about us not having those cost-of-living measures for everyone and the universal element. If the Government's cost-of-living measures had not supplemented incomes, if we had not done that, those at risk of poverty would not have been 12%. It would have been 13%. In 2023, 3.6% of people were found to be living in consistent poverty. Without the Government's measures that would have been 4.4%. In other words, all the measures we are taking are having a real impact, both for people at risk of poverty and those in consistent poverty. When you look at the detail of that, the percentage of people who are unable to afford two pairs of well-fitting shoes was 2.1% in 2022. Again, that is down, so 98% of people were able to afford those. Those people unable to afford a warm, waterproof coat were 1.3%, which was again down to 1.2%. Measures like the free schoolbooks scheme, the free school meals scheme, many of the other anti-poverty measures we took and the costs the State put on people, had an impact. By making those improvements we reduced the cost of living in the country, particularly for those people who were at risk of poverty. I congratulate us for the work we have done. It is a significant reduction. We of course want to see that figure reduced further and I think we will, but we do it on the basis of an economic model that allows us to create the environment where we are not only able to do that, but also to put away measures in the future where we can continue to invest in infrastructure when the economic cycle is not as positive.

There are a number of measures that I want to welcome, including the over-66 fuel allowance, not only for the additional income that provides people, but the gateway into the better energy warmer homes scheme, which in some cases gives people up to €50,000 or €60,000 worth of work on their home at no cost to those older people. If I am right, the carer's allowance means test increase means somebody can earn up to €65,000 per year and still get the full carer's credit for those parents. I think we can do more. Some of that is about the recognition of care and the work carers do. We can do more to recognise that as a paid payment rather than a social assistance payment. I turn to disability. The White Paper had to be withdrawn and it was the right thing to do. There is more we can do, but the disability support grant was perhaps one area where we could continue in the future to recognise the real cost of disability while we are waiting for a full White Paper alternative to be delivered.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A progressive social protection system is the equaliser that attempts to level the playing field. In real terms it is the difference between a life of poverty and drudgery and a life in which potential can be reached. It is a safety net for our citizens and a net too many people are now falling through. This Government's budget is a lost opportunity to enact a progressive social protection agenda. The Government's mean-spirited approach to the thousands of carers across the State is one example of a Government that is out of touch. We know that carers are at much higher risk of poverty, yet carers across the State have been told to wait until July 2025 before they even see the limited changes to the mean test. In my constituency of Mayo, I was recently contacted by a woman who said she had been caring for her intellectually disabled daughter for 36 years and she is not in receipt of carer's allowance. Her daughter had recently spent six weeks in hospital in Castlebar which involved a 50-mile round trip each day for her parents to visit her, not to mention the many medical appointments since then. This mother, and thousands more across the State, have had to give up the opportunity of working in paid employment to provide 24-7 care for her adult child. This social welfare Bill offers little solace to parents such as these. They rightly feel they are penalised financially for doing the State a service. They are the ones who worry at night about what the future will bring for their vulnerable loved ones. Sinn Féin knows the value of carers. That is why we would invest in carers by scrapping the means test entirely over one term of Government.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I first object to the guillotining of this Bill. It is a sign of the arrogance of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael that after 100 years in power, either together or by themselves, they routinely ram important Bills through the Dáil without proper scrutiny. I suspect we will see more of it next week as well. They do it because it is politically convenient for them.

I turn to the details of the Bill. I note a sneaky little cut that the Minister was quiet about. It did not get mentioned on budget day. The Government is going to increase the amount of money that people can be docked from their dole if they are deemed not to have complied with so-called labour activation measures. The most they could be docked previously was €44 per week. This will now be increased to €90. Someone on the standard jobseeker's rate of €244 per week can now have their payment cut to just €154. The lowest they could previously be cut to was €188. It feels like the Minister is returning to the "I, Daniel Blake" style social welfare reform. Her attempts at persecuting people on disability payments failed earlier this year in the face of a powerful campaign of disabled people who overwhelmingly rejected it and the Green Paper which contained the proposal. However, it now seems that in the context of an unprecedented budget surplus the Government has licked its wounds and returned to the same Tory playbook. With these cuts the Government is deliberately burying people below the poverty line, sometimes literally. Immiserating people who depend on social welfare will not force them into work, it will just drive them into further misery. In England, it has led to suicide and even starvation among people who have had their benefits cut. If that happens here, it will be the Government's fault. The €24 billion surplus it has just means that the cuts are even more of a disgrace. Cutting the dole of someone who has kids does not really hurt the adult involved, it hurts the children more.

The Government is doing this at a time when one in seven children, that is, more than 176,000 kids, are living in poverty and one in eight parents are using food banks and one in four cannot afford to put food on the table. The public should be aware that this type of performative cruelty is the real politics of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. If they get back into office after the coming election, I guarantee there will be no repeat of the once-off payments contained in this pre-election budget. They will be the first things to go in budget 2026. What will remain are the permanent, regressive measures that are in this budget. The increases to weekly social welfare rates of €12 a week are less than the rate of inflation. People who depend on social welfare are being left further and further behind by this budget. Social Justice Ireland stated that this Government will leave a regressive legacy and that it has yet again resorted to a distribution of resources that will ultimately benefit the better off. There are no surprises there. We know what to expect after 100 years of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. The only answer is to get them out.

The same cuts will also be applied pro rata to the discriminatory lower rates of dole for young people. I have repeatedly raised this as an unjust form of age-based discrimination against young people. With the multibillion euro surplus, the Minister had a golden opportunity to reverse this austerity-era cut to social welfare for young people. It was brought in when the Labour Party was last in Government. Again, in advance of the next general election, let that be a warning to anyone considering voting for the Labour Party. However, the Minister chose not to reverse this cruel cut. The message from this budget to young people is "Let them emigrate", which is the same message given by Fine Gael and the Labour Party after the crash. It does not seem to matter whether the Government has a deficit or a surplus. The message to young people is the same, "Pack your bags and get on a plane." There is nothing for young people in this Bill and nothing in this budget.

Another austerity-era cut the Minister declined to reverse was also introduced by the Labour Party in 2012 when the then Minister, Joan Burton, doubled the number of PRSI contributions needed to qualify for the contributory State pension from 260 to 520. People have approached me about this issue, showing me everything they paid and pointing out that they are entitled to even less than the non-contributory pension. Other People Before Profit Deputies also get representations. People who are in their 50s in 2012 have now reached pension age only to find that they do not qualify for the full contributory pension. This mean and unnecessary austerity cut is now coming home to roost. It should be reversed. There was an opportunity in this budget to reverse it. I call on the Minister to address this with Report Stage amendments tomorrow and reverse this cut.

Other issues have arisen with the new system of pension auto-enrolment. This will be a bonanza for private pension funds but there will be no such bonanza for workers. It turns out workers will be taxed not once, not twice, but three times - on their wages, their contributions, and a third time when they draw the pension down. Employers are to get tax relief on their contributions but no relief will be given to workers. The answer is not to continue with this system, which amounts to privatisation of pensions by stealth, but to provide all workers with a decent universal State pension.

There is also very little in this budget and this Bill for carers and disabled people. The insulting means test for carer's allowance is still not being abolished, despite the inspiring campaign from carers. People Before Profit included abolition of the means test in our costed alternative budget. We proposed replacing it with a non-means-tested living wage for carers of at least €15 an hour or €525 a week. The Government had the money to do it and refused. In contrast to the Government's approach of once-off payments that will be taken away next year if it gets back into office, we propose permanent changes to reduce the cost of living both now and in the long term. These included capping food and energy prices and taking the energy system into public ownership to control the price of energy. This is totally different from what the Government would ever consider. To control prices, it is necessary to control production. Unless the State owns it, it cannot control it.

We also proposed raising all weekly social welfare rates to €300 and bringing in an additional €50 a week cost-of-disability payment. Rather than cutting employer PRSI yet again, as happened in this budget, despite the fact it was already the lowest in the EU, we would raise it and raise an additional €3 billion. We would abolish the USC for all workers earning less than €100,000. We would replace it with a higher income social charge on the highest earners and a wealth tax on multimillionaires that would raise over €8 billion. These are the kind of radical, socialist, transformative measures that a genuine left government could introduce. The resources are there to transform our country for the benefit of the many instead of the few. Not to do that is a political choice. I encourage the public to make a different political choice in the coming weeks or months and make the political choice to get Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael out.

Maurice Quinlivan (Limerick City, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The most recent budget was an opportunity to address some of the challenges faced by social protection payment recipients, especially carers and those with disabilities. It was an opportunity to address the challenges facing those who are carers, a cohort of our people who have been let down by this Government time and again. Being a carer is work, often a labour of love, but it is work nonetheless. It is work that saves the State billions of euro yet carers are often treated abysmally. An initial application for carer's allowance can take up to three months to be decided on. If it is necessary to appeal, which happens far too often, there can be a further six months' wait, at least, for a decision to be made. This is a long time to wait. The person for whom the care is provided still needs care and support.

In the recent budget the Government allocated €11 million to relax means testing for carers. Sinn Féin proposed an allocation of €100 million so that many more carers would be eligible for the payment next year. This would have seen 3,754 further carers become eligible for carer's allowance. Instead, the Government opted for a minimalist approach. The Government does not hear carers or their advocates. If it did it would have introduced some of the new income disregards from January, instead of singling out carers and making them wait until July 2025.

Ultimately, carers sacrifice so much of their lives to care for a loved one and they do so regardless of their means. However, we put them through the ringer in the means test. It should be abolished. We need to move towards that. Sinn Féin in government would do that. It is unfair and unreasonable that those who sacrifice so much in this labour of love are means tested.

Those on carer's benefit face a financial abyss when they need to take leave for care. We proposed a pay-related carer's benefit to prevent such a dramatic drop in earnings. This budget has not improved the life of the least well off in the longer or medium term. We have seen no increase in fuel allowance and even though carer's allowance has been added as a qualifying payment, those carers will not be eligible until January 2025, meaning they will miss half of the 28 weeks' duration of the fuel allowance. This is an extremely unfair decision.

With the current surplus, much could have been done for the hardest pressed. Instead, many social welfare recipients were offered tokenistic, one-off payments in the budget. The Government failed to make the adjustments needed to improve the quality of life of most of the vulnerable in our society, including carers, children and people with disabilities.

Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important Social Welfare Bill as it goes through the House. It is important to acknowledge that there is a lot of good in this Bill. It follows on from other improvements made over the years in relation to social welfare payments. I, too, acknowledge the work of staff in social welfare offices throughout the country who are at the beck and call of Members and the public. In tough times and good times they have been there to steer people as they try to navigate their way to a payment. It is important to acknowledge that, as I am sure the Minister does.

I welcome a lot of the improvements and the money that has been spent because it is going to the people who need it. The important aspect of social welfare is that money goes to the person who needs it. It is not filtered through Departments such as the Department of Health where some of it gets lost. I acknowledge the commitment the Minister showed when we introduced a Private Members' motion on carers and not means testing carer's allowance. It is important that we continue on that trajectory so that we bring in a non-means-tested carer's allowance. It will not happen overnight but the commitment is there. We acknowledge that but we need to make sure it happens as quickly as possible.

There are carers in my constituency, and no doubt in the Minister's constituency, who are living off the fact that their husband or wife is working in a good job.

The other partner may have given up a career to stay at home to mind a loved one. They do that and save the State money. We all know the facts and figures. It is a question of implementing something that will be of enormous benefit to people who are not looking for something for nothing. They are giving a service to the State beyond what the State itself could provide and would cost the State €20 billion a year. It is important we do that.

The fuel allowance means test disregard for older people should have been considered. The fuel allowance is what I call a ticket to qualifying for the warmer homes scheme. For older people to have a warmer house, insulate their houses and put in a better heating system is of enormous benefit to them. If people in their 70s, 80s or 90s want to do this work but do not have the fuel or carer's allowance, they will not get a loan to do it. It is important to note the carer's allowance is a ticket to that scheme. From my experience in dealing with it in my constituency, Galway East, there are problems with the time of delivery of the scheme and what can or cannot be done but they can be ironed out. We should try to get more people in with an income disregard for older people for the fuel allowance.

As a member of the disability matters committee, I wish to home in on people with disabilities. The cost of living with a disability is constant with a long-term disability. We should bring in a support grant for persons with a disability beyond the disability allowance or payment. In my constituency, I came across a man with a disability who found love in his life and got married. Once he did, his disability allowance went from around €200 down to €54 because his wife works. He told me that if he had known that, he would have lived in sin and taken the monetary gain. It is the principle of it; somebody with a permanent, long-term disability should be given a disability allowance irrespective of their partner's income. A person with a disability has a lot of additional costs which should be met. There are a lot of ongoing issues for an adult or a child with a disability and so many families are affected. We should take a caring approach to the disability sector and make sure we take care of the most vulnerable in society. We spoke earlier about child protection but we need to protect people with a disability as well.

I also wish to raise the self-employed. I have come across cases of a self-employed person who might be a one-man operator or subcontractor, such as a plumber or electrician, who goes off sick and does not get illness benefit because the self-employed do not pay the same rate of PRSI. I thought that had been resolved but obviously it has not because people still come to my office when they fall sick and have no income. They get no money. They may have two or three people working for them as subcontractors. If their employee falls sick, they get sorted out but the person employing people is not sorted out. There should be a focus on that. For example, the self-employed could pay a higher rate of PRSI to qualify. Small business owners get sick as well. They have to take time off work when they are sick. If they do not have the security of some sort of income, their mortgages can fall behind and they have families to support. It is important to look at that issue in the long term. They also cannot get a medical card in many cases. I came across a case in which the wife of a self-employed person could not get a medical card even on emergency grounds because he was self-employed and was treated differently, yet the wife was also penalised. There are anomalies in the system and in the Minister's budget. I know it is hard to get everything right. She has got lots of things right over the years but it is important to focus on the things that are not right and make them better.

Martin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will raise a few issues. The first relates to carers. I have been contacted by several people who applied for the carer's allowance over the past year or 18 months. They found it difficult because their lives have been dominated by a person in their home to whom they need to give almost 24-hour care, yet they get nothing. They have not a hope of getting anything because another person in the household works and has an income. It is unfair. They made very strong points about the amount of care they provide. In one case, the person will probably need to go into residential care in the next ten or 15 years. They would not be able to cope with being at home with the person they are caring for because they are ageing. The State will then have to pay for all the care but now it will not even assist with the care this person delivers at home. The issue of the means test for the carer's allowance is the one thing I know the Government needs to look at urgently. It must ensure something can be done to resolve the issue.

The second issue I raise relates to the disabled person's grant for work on the home. There is a huge problem in that respect. Local authorities in most cases do not have enough money to get the work done and there are issues with the rate at which people can apply for the grant because of income in the household. There is another issue in regard to the mobility scheme, which has gone on for many years. This concerns people who want to get a car or adapted vehicle to bring someone in their home who has a disability to hospital appointments, for example, or a disabled vehicle for themselves. It is a huge problem that has been left unresolved for, I think, more than a decade. Something urgently needs to be done. While some progress has been made, we are a long way from resolving many of these urgent issues for people in dire need.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We welcome social welfare increases for the people who benefited but one group for whom we are all disappointed is carers. They do such Trojan work minding an elderly or disabled parent or sibling, for example. They do great work but because their husband or wife works, they do not qualify for the carer's allowance. We are disappointed about that for so many people. We all supported the motion to abolish the means test. The Government did not oppose it and everyone assumed there would be a change to it in the budget. Instead, the cap has been raised. The income threshold will be raised for whoever applies. That will happen some time next July, not long before next year's budget. It is totally unfair and not acceptable. I ask the Government to look at this matter again. With the amount of money these people save the State and the number of people they mind, it is terrible they are not recognised and that they suffer financially for doing the great work they do. It is not fair.

On the fuel allowance, if a person in a house is on a benefit payment, he or she is disqualified from getting the fuel allowance. I raised this with the Minister last year and the year before. These people have contributed and paid stamps and I cannot understand why those people who worked and made contributions are disallowed from applying for the fuel allowance.

The primary care certificate is vital for people to be able to move and to get around and to have someone to drive them. I have a constituent who is blind and he will not qualify for the primary care certificate and that is not fair.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is ironic that we are talking about the Social Welfare Bill on a day when the hospitality sector, as well as hairdressers, shopkeepers and childcare workers, all marched across Dublin and arrived at Leinster House today. Many speakers raised the issues with the VAT rate and spoke about how many closures we will have in the hospitality sector. Many people who spoke about it showed how many businesses would close down because of the Government's failure to protect the hospitality sector and all of the other businesses. I am telling the Minister that the cost of having all of these people on social welfare will be a cost to the State.

If one looks at the VAT rate and the business model, I note the Minister, Deputy Peter Burke, appeared on television speaking about how the number of businesses opening up exceeded the number of businesses that were closing down. What he forgot to mention was that all those businesses that open up get funded for two years from Enterprise Ireland and other sources. After two years, they are closing. Moreover, the businesses that are there for decades cannot stay open because of the increasing costs. Why not look after our businesses and our people in our areas to ensure there is the future for hospitality and other businesses in this country?

Michael Collins (Cork South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On carers, and it already has been mentioned to the Minister numerous times, there is no point in getting up to say the budget was all bad. That is wrong. The problem is that while there is a lot of money out there, it is pegged everywhere and there is no accountability as to where it ends up. The real bonanza is in the Minister's Department with all of the social welfare payments out there. Other Departments are pegging money at the OPW, at Uisce Éireann and at health. It is all going all over the place but there is no accountability as to where it is being spent.

The Minister should look at the carer's allowance and it should not be means tested. There has been a motion and a discussion in here about the many elderly people being looked after in their homes by family members, a neighbour or someone from down or up the road. While they are doing tremendous work, they are not getting anything for it. It is very difficult. The means test is a very mean hit on ordinary people.

When I have the floor, I must talk about the VAT rate not falling from 13% to 9%. It was an astonishing mistake by this Government to let people down. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil promised people and when the VAT 9 group came in here, it was promised it would be looked after. The problem is that the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and the Minister, Deputy Chambers, are totally out of touch with what really goes on on the ground. They are Dublin 4 TDs and if you are a Dublin 4 TD, you do not see the reality. The bottom line is that hairdressers are going out of business, as are childcare people, restaurants, cafés and pubs. Some 600 of them went out of business in recent months and many more besides. If one was out there today one could hear these people objecting to the way they are being treated as they are all being closed down.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad to see the Minister is present because as she knows, she is one of the few people in government in whom I have faith in. I am disappointed with the issue concerning carers and the continuation of the means testing. I am upset on behalf of the people who give such great service to this country because they deserve better.

Also, today, as the Minister may be aware, thousands of people came up to the Dáil, not just vintners and restaurant people and hoteliers but from all strands of business life in Ireland. On their coming here, one thing stuck out in my head which I would like the Minister to listen to. The Minister's head is on the right way round. She may know this already but I want to state, on the record of the Dáil, that a business which has €1 million of a turnover, which is not a massive amount of turnover, is one that is being faced with €96,000 of additional charges it did not have a year or two years ago because of the actions of this Government. I get no satisfaction out of saying that and the Minister knows that, but I am only saying to her it in a practical way as she holds a very important job and portfolio.

I would very much like for her to listen to that and to respect the fact that in our case, for example, 30 people came from different walks of business life from the county I represent. I am glad they came up and that they took the time. Every one of them is a worker and they are people who left businesses after them today. In many cases, one person was not good enough to take their place as it took two or three people to do their work today when they came up here to Dublin. They came here because they feel so strongly about the issue they wanted to raise.

Finally, in my last remaining seconds of speaking time, I am disappointed that this Bill is being rushed through the Dáil here tonight and being guillotined in this way. That is wrong.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Bhí mé anseo nuair a bhí an tAire ag labhairt and she said - with a pinch of salt - that she wanted to have the Bill passed for Hallowe'en. I asked was she going trick-or-treating and she said she was getting too old for it but she is going off like the tooth fairy with all of her grants. I know she is giving many of them to Monaghan and they will appreciate them but there are all these different payments, with €300 once-off payments for households receiving fuel allowances, the €200 once-off payment for pensioners and a €400 payment for carers receiving the carer's support, which are all very welcome. Of course they are.

The trick of the loop, however, is that people are being fleeced with tax. The carbon tax was put on the same night, at 12 midnight and some of these payments will not be paid until 4 January. The Minister will hope to be sitting back on that side of the House but she might end up being stuck sitting on this side of the House. I am sure she will be back, even though we do not know if we will be back or not as it is up to the people.

This is a three card trick. The Minister said she had loads of money and loads of calls on it but the one call that was on it was for the enablers. These are the people who came up today protesting, even though that is not in their nature, but to make their case once again. In the past 12 months alone, 600 such businesses have closed. Why is the Government so blind? There are none so blind as those who cannot see at all. They suffer. They are the enablers. They pay the wages, the VAT, the insurance, the PRSI, the sick pay, the additional minimum wage, the whole lot and they are getting nothing. They expected and believed that they might get the VAT rate back to 9%, where it might give them some bit of a lifeline, but no.

This Government has a dead set against the self-employed and small business people. It is fine if one is a Google or a big business or a beef mogul, where the red carpet will be laid out for you, but the ordinary small businesses that employ one to ten or one to 25 people are crucified. The working man is also crucified and he did not get much in this budget either. This was a bribe budget. We should call budget day bribe day now, because that is what it was. One can fool the people if people want to be fooled. The saying is: fool me once, it is my fault, but fool me twice and it is your fault. I do not think that the people will buy this because these payments will be gone like snow off a ditch. The Government will be going around like the tooth fairy, as I said, at Hallowe'en. The Government may need the masks going to the houses and a good costume so that people do not know who they are as at some houses, people are an-crosta ar fad. They are waiting in the grass and behind the doors. They are angry at the way the Government has mistreated, neglected and abused them with the waste of money which it is spending every day of the week.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Deputy Joan Collins, who is sharing time with Deputy Pringle.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have tabled two amendments to this Bill. I have been working on one for a while and the other, from a constituent, was raised with me recently.

The first amendment is to review extending the fuel allowance to those in receipt of working family payments. This is a demand I have been making at successive budgets. It has been called for for years by numerous groups working with people living in poverty and deprivation. Between 2018 and 2023, we saw household energy costs go up by over 100%. Since 2022, energy costs went up twice as fast in Ireland as compared to the EU average. This has affected the most vulnerable to the greatest extent. The Government has made no real attempt to target support to those hit the worst by this and there has been no attempt to benchmark these supports to energy costs.

Instead, we saw massive increases in energy costs, driven in some part by massive increases in energy company profits. In 2022 alone, we had 377,415 people unable to keep their houses warm, 453,918 people who had gone without heating and 469,218 people in utility arrears.

The ESRI has estimated that 29% of the country experienced energy poverty in 2022. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has estimated that this could peak at over 40% of the country experiencing energy poverty. I put it to the Minister that those numbers are just shocking. At the same time we have seen increases across the board for the rates of at risk of poverty, deprivation and consistent poverty for people in work. In 2023 we saw large increases of in-work deprivation and consistent poverty. This increase of in-work poverty has been driven in no small part by the cost of energy. This is not to mention that we have seen rising rates of children living in material deprivation, at risk of poverty, and record child homelessness over the course of this Government.

The Minister missed her chance to seriously address child poverty in this budget. The double child benefit payments should not be just for Christmas 2024, it should be for childhood. That is why the Minister should have implemented the second tier of child benefit recommended by the ESRI and many other organisations that are fighting for children's rights. There is a clear need to target energy cost relief to families who are in work. There is a clear need to extend the fuel allowance to those in receipt of working family payment.

My second amendment proposes to review increasing the energy payments under the household benefit package. This issue was raised with me by a constituent recently. These payments have not increased since 2020 while energy costs have risen at twice the EU average and as we went through the worst cost-of-living crisis for a decade. The €35 per month now barely covers the standing charge. This payment has been totally eaten away by the cost of living and the cost of energy. If the Minister decided that a support such as the household benefit package is needed then why on earth would the Minister see no need to increase it if it is seriously affected by inflation?

In my budget statement I said that budget 2025 failed to give targeted relief to those who most need it. This was a giveaway budget by a Government that has given up on actually addressing the problems of this country. Polls show that 75% of the country have seen through the Government's attempts to buy their votes. People are not stupid and a €250 energy credit does not make people forget that they cannot find a home, a GP, or a school place for their kids. The budget ignored the most vulnerable in favour of putting money in the Governments' voting bases' pockets. If the Government had been serious about helping the most vulnerable it would have implemented targeted supports such as these amendments call for. What we have seen over successive years under the Government is a failure to take seriously the real and dire issues in our society, and most clearly in the Government's total failure on housing and health. Most badly felt by people around the country is the failure to seriously resolve poverty and deprivation.

In budget after budget we saw one-off payments with no follow through or adequate increase in targeted supports or core social welfare rates, or a benchmark of them to inflation. We saw a little for everybody but not nearly enough for those who most need it. I support any measure that helps people to make ends meet but when these one-off measures are gone many people will be left behind by years of failing to raise or expand social welfare and different benefits and payments in line with inflation. This is especially in the context of energy supports in a cost-of-energy crisis.

By 2022 there were 377,400 people unable to keep their houses warm while Irish household energy costs rose at twice the rate of the EU average. In 2022 ESB profits rose by €675 million, Bord Gáis profits rose by €948 million, SSE profits rose by €1.5 billion and Energia profits rose by €178 million. That is nearly €9,000 in additional profits for every person who was unable to keep their homes warm, just in one year and for just four energy companies. If the energy companies can make billions of euro and increase their profits then we can target supports so that families and our most vulnerable can heat their homes without going broke.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Ceann-Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill 2024. I agree with everything the previous speaker has said in relation to the energy credits and so on. It is shocking when one sees that the Government has, again, given an energy credit to us in this House and to many millionaires in this country who can well afford it. If I owned five houses and was making €1 million a year I would be getting five energy credits and the people who are dependent on social welfare are getting one. It is a shame and a disgrace.

As I have previously stated, this year's budget is really just a lacklustre repeat of last year's budget, with very little for the public to truly be hopeful about. It does not offer the long-term systemic change that is desperately needed in this country and it certainly does not offer improved access to services. This Bill is a reflection of that. The Bill outlines a few minor increases but nothing that will make a real impactful change in people's lives and nothing that will help ease the burden of the cost-of-living living crisis on those who are struggling the most. There is nothing that would help to end Ireland's homelessness crisis. In its budget 2025 analysis and critique, Social Justice Ireland stated that despite vast resources the Government's five budgets have been cumulatively regressive. The analysis shows that a couple with one earner on €100,000 is better off by €73.35 per week due to the last five budgets, while a couple with one earner on €30,000 is only better off by €3.34 per week after five budgets. This is a shocking indictment of the Governments and their budgetary policy.

It is clear that Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael budgets only look after the wealthy and have no interest in bridging the widening inequality gap. Research shows that the rich-poor gap had jumped €23.27 per week as a result of the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael budgetary policy and the decisions to allocate substantial resources to the wealthy rather than the poorest in our society. It is not only incredibly unfair but also extremely cruel. Inequality affects all aspects of Irish life from unemployment and healthcare to accommodation and education. This Social Welfare Bill 2024 will do nothing to address the income inequality that is causing poverty and serious social divide in our country. Irish society is becoming incredibly fragmented and divided as of late. This Government is doing nothing to address that. Instead, it continues to exacerbate the issue by introducing budgets that benefit the well-off and leave behind even further those who are struggling.

These social welfare increases are wholly inadequate and it is disappointing that a cost-of-disability payment has not been introduced, that the means test for carers has not been scrapped, and that child benefit has not seen an increase since 2016 despite inflation and significant increases in child poverty and deprivation. This would make real and meaningful change for the benefit of people who are dependent on social welfare payments and dependent on the support of our Government and our society to actually live and have a decent standard of living rather than giving payments to benefit the wealthy right across the board in this country.

Last year the Government claimed it was on a mission to tackle child poverty but this budget makes it clear that was nothing but another empty promise made by the Government during its term. The Taoiseach has a child poverty section in his Department. They must be doing nothing or they must be away on holidays permanently because certainly nothing is happening in terms of child poverty.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is. The Deputy took that out of last year's speech.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One-off payments will not do anything to benefit people in the long run. That is the reality of the situation.

Violet-Anne Wynne (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I do frequently in the House I want to use this opportunity to raise the need to abolish the means test for carers. I also acknowledge frequently that the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, is the first Minister in so many years to make progressive changes to the means test for carers. On the most recent occasion I raised this with the Minister there was a discussion around the massive disparity between the figures the Minister's officials and her Department had provided to her and the figures that were costed by Family Carers Ireland. The Minister said then that she would look at that. I did not get to see the Minister's opening statements and maybe she did allude to it. I am aware there are also statements later tonight so maybe between those two opportunities the Minister might be able to come back to see if any progress is being made there.

As I have done for the past two years I will also take this opportunity to advocate for the extension of the fuel allowance to those in receipt of the working family payment. Barnardos figures show that 30% of lone parents say they or their children went without, or cut back on food, compared to 17% of two-parent families. If such families are renting a damp property they would also then suffer further expenses due to the ill health they and their children experience. I know myself from renting substandard accommodation with lots of mould and dampness that it is a massive concern on a daily basis for everybody's health in the household.

I will also take the opportunity to raise the issue of those in County Clare living in properties affected by defective concrete blocks. People who are living in such social housing are still anxiously waiting for a scheme to open for them. There are those who are suffering retention issues and other delays with their remediation.

They are still suffering with massive gaps and with the cold getting in. I ask that the Minister of State work with the Minister for housing to look to possibly extend the fuel allowance to those individuals and various types of households to ensure they do not become too cold this winter.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all the Deputies who have contributed to the debate. It is fair to say that whether one is a pensioner, a carer, a person with a disability or a working family, the measures in this budget were designed to reach the people who need it most. This year's budget represents the largest social welfare package in the history of the State. Many of the social protection measures announced on budget day do not require primary legislation and therefore, are not reflected in this Bill. This includes the ten lump-sum payments the Government is providing, at a cost of €1.4 billion, to assist people with the cost-of-living pressures they are facing. As people might be wondering what these are, I will list them to allow people to be aware of them.

A doubling of child benefit in November and December will support 678,000 families in respect of more than 1.2 million children. An October double payment will benefit some 1.4 million people. A support grant of €400 will be paid next month to people with disabilities and to carers. Also secured as part of the budget was a €300 fuel allowance lump sum payment, which will be paid on the week commencing 4 November, to more than 387,000 households. During the same week, a €400 lump sum working family payment will be paid to some 46,000 households. There will also be a €200 lump sum payment in November to the almost 254,000 people in receipt of the living alone allowance. There will be a €100 child support payment, formerly known as the increase for a qualified child payment. This will be paid in the week commencing 25 November and will support 340,000 children. Finally, the Christmas bonus will be paid in the week commencing 2 December. This will be paid on the same basis as last year.

Other measures announced by the Government on budget day that do not require primary legislation include the age criteria for the more generous fuel allowance means test being reduced from 70 years of age to 66. The free travel companion pass will be made available to Irish residents over the age of 70. When someone wants to go somewhere, you can bring whosoever you want with you. This measure combats isolation and encourages people to get on the bus and to get out and about.

The disregard for means assessment purposes will be increased for the sale of a primary residence to allow non-contributory State pension and disability allowance recipients to move to more suitable accommodation. This means that if a recipient has to sell his or her house to move in with a family member, or into a nursing home, they will be able to continue to receive the relevant social welfare payment.

The weekly rates for participants in the work placement experience programme will be increased by €24. This valuable scheme increases the employability of long-term jobseekers. The earnings disregard is to be increased for carer's allowance by €175 for a single person and €350 for a couple. This means that the household income of a couple where one is a carer can be €65,000 and they can still qualify for the maximum carer's allowance. In fact, the income can go up to €90,000 before the payment is cut off completely, because it reduces on a sliding scale up to an income of €90,000.

Carer's allowance is now a qualifying payment for the fuel allowance purposes. The carer's benefit will now be extended to the self employed. If someone is self-employed and has to take time off to look after a loved one, he or she will now qualify for carer's benefit.

Finally, one that everyone knows to be close to my heart is the hot school meals programme. This will be extended to the remaining 1,000 primary schools that are not in the scheme. Along with this, a holiday hunger scheme is to be piloted next summer.

There are a few questions that I want to answer. According to the CSO analysis, the consistent poverty measures reduce consistent poverty and the number of people at risk of poverty. Consistent poverty as measured by the latest survey on income and living conditions, SILC, is at its lowest ever level at 3.6%. The at-risk-of-poverty level would have been at 13% without the one-off measures but with these, it is down to 10.6%

Child poverty was referred to. The €12 increase in the weekly rate of child benefit will address some of these issues. There is an increase of €4 in the child support payment for children under 12 years of age and €8 for those over 12. This is the highest rate this payment has been at.

There is an increase of €60 in the working family payment in budget 2025. The cost of living measures, the October and Christmas bonus of €100 per child, the €400 working family payment lump sum, the extension of the hot schools meals programme and the free school books programme are all addressing child poverty. Income supports and access to basic, essential services such as housing, health and education are also key in addressing poverty and social exclusion. The most recent SILC data shows that the national rate of child poverty - which is based on consistent poverty - decreased significantly, from 7% in 2022 to 4.8% in 2023.

Many references were made to the carer's allowance and the means test. The means test has been increased again. It kicks in from next July. All budget measures have been given specific dates to enable their implementation from a process and a systems perspective and in light of the available budget 2025 envelope. Adjusting means thresholds is more complicated than increasing payment rates as it requires individual claim reviews and adjustment of claims in payment. For that reason, changes to means thresholds that are announced at budget day usually take place mid-year. It was only last July that we increased the carer's allowance weekly income disregard. At present, it has been €450 for a single person and €900 for a couple from June 2024. That is going to change from next year. Individual claim reviews and subsequent of claims in payment do require a lead-in time. The Department needs this lead-in time to undertake these reviews of means and to contact people whose payment might be affected, to give them the opportunity to update the means data the Department has for them.

I also speak to carers a lot. I spoke to Family Carers Ireland and a number of other carers' organisations. They welcomed the benefits we have introduced in the budget. I will give an example. Orla has two children, aged 13 and 8 and is a carer for one of them. She will benefit from a number of increases in this budget. Her total post-budget 2025 increase will be €2,906 per annum. That will help Orla and I know it will make a difference to the support she receives.

There were a lot of questions raised and I am not going to get to them all. Businesses were mentioned. The Government has put a lot of focus on businesses in the budget. The retail and hospitality sectors will receive a €4,000 energy grant by Christmas, to cover the cost of higher energy bills. There will be significant tax changes that will help small businesses and the self-employed. These include changing the VAT thresholds to allow small businesses and the self-employed keep more of their own money. There will be changes to the self-employed earned income tax credit to allow them keep more of their hard-earned money. There will be changes to the capital gains tax retirement relief to help families transfer a business to the next generation.

There are a lot of supports for business. We will continue to support businesses. I have covered a good few of the questions that were raised with me. Deputy Paul Murphy has gone. That is a pity because I was going to ask him where is the money tree that is going to fund all the proposals he listed out. I would love to know where it is because I could do with it.