4 March 1999 Edition
Social Welfare checkpoints slammed
New powers for social welfare inspectors to mount joint vehicle checkpoints with the gardai were strongly criticised in the Dáil this week by Sinn Féin TD Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin. The powers are contained in the Social Welfare Bill which also implements the social welfare changes announced in the Budget.
The Cavan/Monaghan TD said the Social Welfare Bill failed to address the extent of poverty which still exists in Ireland despite renewed economic prosperity. We carry here an edited version of Deputy Ó Caoláin's contribtuion to the Dáil debate on Tuesday evening.
It is impossible to live ``in a manner compatible with human dignity'' on such paltry incomes.
Caoimhghín O Caoláin TD.
I oppose this Bill because I believe that it fails the test of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy, which states that social welfare must ``provide sufficient income for all those concerned to move out of poverty and to live in a manner compatible with human dignity''.
The key phrase here is ``moving out'' of poverty. The level of social welfare increases in this Bill will not help to move people out of poverty; they will keep social welfare dependents lagging far behind the rest of society. Given the related failure of successive governments to deal with educational and employment disadvantage the message from the Social Welfare Bill and the `99 Budget is, at best, ``as you were''.
In the context of the biggest budget surplus in the history of the state the social welfare increases are very disappointing. They continue the failed policy of recent years. Writing in Poverty Today last year Professor Brian Nolan of the ESRI made the point that: ``We have so far failed to use our new-found wealth to make serious inroads into poverty, to ensure that everyone has enough to live with dignity and participate fully in our society.''
In their pre-Budget commmentary the ESRI warned that the continuation of the policy pursued in recent years would actually see a rise in the numbers in poverty and would make the attainment of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy's poverty reduction target unattainable. This Bill does indeed continue the policies of previous years and thus fails for one central reason.
The fundamental failure of this Bill is to ignore the advice of the Combat Poverty Agency which calls for an increase in social welfare rates in line with the increase in average industrial earnings, rather than with the rate of inflation. In failing to do this the Bill ensures that the poverty gap will continue to widen.
Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that £72 per week is an adequate income for a single person, £115.20 for a couple, £141.60 for a couple with two children or £168 for a couple with four children? It is impossible to live ``in a manner compatible with human dignity'' on such paltry incomes, which represent the hourly rates of pay of some of the wealthy in our society, and not even the wealthiest at that.
The increases for pensioners are welcome if long overdue but one must ask why the rate of increase for others is considerably lower. Why was there not a comparable increase across the board? Many people are now concerned that the Victorian concept of the deserving and the undeserving poor is seeping from the thinking of some in this government into legislation which deeply affects the daily life condition of tens of thousands of the most disadvantaged of our people.
This thinking is all too clear in the increased powers in this Bill for social welfare inspectors, including the by-now -notorious power to set up vehicle checkpoints with gardai. This has caused justifiable anger throughout the country at a time when the multi-million pound tax fraud of financial institutions and their high-flying clients is being exposed on a daily basis.
This Bill creates the potential for abuse of powers by these inspectors. The danger of whole estates being targetted is obvious; are we to be faced with checkpoints at the entrances to housing estates which suffer high unemployment and welfare dependency?
There is more than an element of the publicity stunt about this measure because the Minister knows well that the actual level of social welfare fraud is relatively low. This measure creates the impression that many social welfare recipients are claiming illegitimately, thus stigmatizing people who are already disadvantaged. It ignores the fact that there are few opportunities in the so-called `black economy' for welfare recipients; participants in the `black economy' are much more likely to be in full-time employment and doing nixers not declared to the Revenue than they are to be working and claiming welfare.
Welfare recipients are already subject to stringent checks and constant monitoring. There is no comparison between the resources available for this monitoring in social welfare and health board offices throughout the country and the resources of the Revenue Commmissioners who are tasked with policing those who defraud the compliant taxpayer for sums many times in excess of those lost through welfare fraud.
The Cavan/Monaghan TD said the Social Welfare Bill failed to address the extent of poverty which still exists in Ireland despite renewed economic prosperity. We carry here an edited version of Deputy Ó Caoláin's contribtuion to the Dáil debate on Tuesday evening.
It is impossible to live ``in a manner compatible with human dignity'' on such paltry incomes.
Caoimhghín O Caoláin TD.
I oppose this Bill because I believe that it fails the test of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy, which states that social welfare must ``provide sufficient income for all those concerned to move out of poverty and to live in a manner compatible with human dignity''.
The key phrase here is ``moving out'' of poverty. The level of social welfare increases in this Bill will not help to move people out of poverty; they will keep social welfare dependents lagging far behind the rest of society. Given the related failure of successive governments to deal with educational and employment disadvantage the message from the Social Welfare Bill and the `99 Budget is, at best, ``as you were''.
In the context of the biggest budget surplus in the history of the state the social welfare increases are very disappointing. They continue the failed policy of recent years. Writing in Poverty Today last year Professor Brian Nolan of the ESRI made the point that: ``We have so far failed to use our new-found wealth to make serious inroads into poverty, to ensure that everyone has enough to live with dignity and participate fully in our society.''
In their pre-Budget commmentary the ESRI warned that the continuation of the policy pursued in recent years would actually see a rise in the numbers in poverty and would make the attainment of the National Anti-Poverty Strategy's poverty reduction target unattainable. This Bill does indeed continue the policies of previous years and thus fails for one central reason.
The fundamental failure of this Bill is to ignore the advice of the Combat Poverty Agency which calls for an increase in social welfare rates in line with the increase in average industrial earnings, rather than with the rate of inflation. In failing to do this the Bill ensures that the poverty gap will continue to widen.
Is it the view of the Minister and the Government that £72 per week is an adequate income for a single person, £115.20 for a couple, £141.60 for a couple with two children or £168 for a couple with four children? It is impossible to live ``in a manner compatible with human dignity'' on such paltry incomes, which represent the hourly rates of pay of some of the wealthy in our society, and not even the wealthiest at that.
The increases for pensioners are welcome if long overdue but one must ask why the rate of increase for others is considerably lower. Why was there not a comparable increase across the board? Many people are now concerned that the Victorian concept of the deserving and the undeserving poor is seeping from the thinking of some in this government into legislation which deeply affects the daily life condition of tens of thousands of the most disadvantaged of our people.
This thinking is all too clear in the increased powers in this Bill for social welfare inspectors, including the by-now -notorious power to set up vehicle checkpoints with gardai. This has caused justifiable anger throughout the country at a time when the multi-million pound tax fraud of financial institutions and their high-flying clients is being exposed on a daily basis.
This Bill creates the potential for abuse of powers by these inspectors. The danger of whole estates being targetted is obvious; are we to be faced with checkpoints at the entrances to housing estates which suffer high unemployment and welfare dependency?
There is more than an element of the publicity stunt about this measure because the Minister knows well that the actual level of social welfare fraud is relatively low. This measure creates the impression that many social welfare recipients are claiming illegitimately, thus stigmatizing people who are already disadvantaged. It ignores the fact that there are few opportunities in the so-called `black economy' for welfare recipients; participants in the `black economy' are much more likely to be in full-time employment and doing nixers not declared to the Revenue than they are to be working and claiming welfare.
Welfare recipients are already subject to stringent checks and constant monitoring. There is no comparison between the resources available for this monitoring in social welfare and health board offices throughout the country and the resources of the Revenue Commmissioners who are tasked with policing those who defraud the compliant taxpayer for sums many times in excess of those lost through welfare fraud.