Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Apr 2009

Vol. 680 No. 3

Social Welfare Bill 2009: Second Stage.

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

This Bill will give legislative effect to the social welfare elements of the supplementary budget introduced earlier this month. In the context of the current economic circumstances, it has been necessary for the Government to take steps to reduce overall public expenditure to restore order and stability in the public finances. In light of extremely difficult decisions having to be made in respect of the entire range of Government expenditures, social welfare was prioritised in the supplementary budget. Almost €21.3 billion is being provided for welfare services in 2009. This represents an increase of €1.7 billion, or 8.7%, on the amount originally provided for this year in the previous budget and is €3.6 billion, or approximately 20%, higher than the actual amount spent in 2008. This additional expenditure arises mainly as a result of increases in unemployment, with the expected average live register figure for 2009 having been adjusted upwards, unfortunately, from 290,000 to 440,000 between the October and April budgets. The extra cost in this regard will be €1.97 billion.

Significant additional expenditure also arises as a result of the cost of the improvements announced in the October budget, which provided for increases of between 3% and 3.8% in basic social welfare payment rates. At that point, the expected rate of inflation for 2009 was 2.5%. This forecast has, however, not been realised. Instead, deflation of almost 4% is now anticipated. With social welfare recipients receiving between 3% and 3.8% more in their weekly payments and with prices having fallen in recent months, their living standards, therefore, have been protected.

In the aftermath of this month's budget, total gross spending on social welfare is expected to account for 29% of gross total Government expenditure in 2009. Leaving aside borrowing, the social welfare expenditure provided in the budget is expected to account for 60% of the Exchequer's anticipated current revenue from tax and other sources. At a time when Government expenditure must be controlled as much as possible, this significant investment in social welfare is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to protecting the vulnerable and helping those who rely on the State for their basic income.

The Bill provides for certain amendments to the social welfare code, as announced in the Minister for Finance's Budget Statement of 7 April 2009. I wish to detail the main changes to the House.

The Bill provides for the changes in the rent supplement scheme that were announced in the supplementary budget. The purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to deal with emergencies and short-term needs that arise when a person suffers a change in circumstances — for example, when a tenant becomes unemployed and can no longer afford his or her rent. There are currently almost 84,000 people in receipt of rent supplement, an increase of 40% since the end of December 2007. The supplementary budget provides for a net increase of €29 million in rent supplement. This consists of an increase of €77 million for additional claims arising from the increase in the live register and a saving of €48 million in 2009 — €75 million in 2010 — as a result of the a number of measures.

From the end of this month rent supplement will be restricted to individuals who have been existing tenants for six months. Individuals who have not been tenants for six months or who are forming new households must have been placed on a local authority housing list following a full housing assessment before they will become eligible for a rent supplement payment. These measures will apply to all new applicants for rent supplement. Exemptions will apply where a housing authority designates that a person is homeless or where he or she has been already identified by a housing authority as having a housing need, where the person is a tenant of a voluntary housing body — capital assistance scheme tenants — or where he or she is aged over 65 or is in receipt of a disability-type payment. These exemptions will ensure that young people coming out of residential care settings, such as foster homes, will be protected. Rent supplement will continue to provide support where housing authorities are not in a position to respond within a reasonable timeframe and where a person is at risk of experiencing homelessness or hardship.

The second change being made to the rent supplement is an increase in the minimum contribution that individuals and families make towards their rent. This is being increased by €6 to €24 from 1 June 2009, which will align the rent supplement more closely with the rents that local authority tenants are obliged to pay. In Dublin city, these tenants must pay a minimum of €25.80 per week and the average is approximately €59 per week. One of the reported impediments to the transfer of rent supplement claimants to the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, is the significant difference between the contribution which is required of the tenant under the rent supplement scheme and the contribution which they are required to pay through the differential rent scheme.

The third rent supplement change is a reduction in the maximum level of rent supplement payable by the State in respect of all new tenancies or on renewals of tenancies. The limits will be reduced by 6% to 7% on average, ranging up to 10%, depending on the geographical area and household size and by reference to an analysis of rent supplement and the Private Residential Tenancies Board rent data, as well as downward trends in private rents as published by the Central Statistics Office.

As Deputies will be aware, trends in the private rent sector indicate that rents have fallen considerably during the past 12 months. This is evident from data available from the Private Residential Tenancies Board and the Daft property website. I am sure Members will agree it is vital that taxpayers' money should not be used to pay landlords inflated rental prices. This change will help to ensure that this will not be the case in respect of new rent supplement tenancies. However, with more than €490 million being spent by the State on the rent supplement, we need to make sure that landlords of existing tenants do not charge too much. To this end, from 1 June 2009 the rent supplements for all existing tenancies will be reduced by €6 to reflect their additional contribution towards their rent and by a further 8% to reflect the impact of the new rent supplement limits. While tenants are contractually obliged to pay the rent agreed to in their lease, we expect landlords to decrease the rent in recognition of the fact that rents have fallen generally and that there are now a large number of vacant rental properties nationally. I urge all Deputies to support us in this and help us to send a clear message to landlords that tenants supported by the State will not be overcharged. On a positive note, agreement has been reached with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on 1,000 transfers from rent supplement to the longer-term rental accommodation scheme in 2009. This will bring the total number of such transfers to 9,000 this year.

The next area where legislative changes are required on foot of the budget is the early child care supplement. The Government appreciates that the supplement has been a significant support to families with young children and we were glad to have been able to introduce it when funding allowed in 2006. However, in the current economic climate, very difficult decisions had to be made in the budget and there were no easy options in reducing expenditure. The early child care supplement cost €480 million in 2008. We need to achieve better results with fewer resources.

In the supplementary budget, it was announced that the monthly ECS payment will be halved to €41.50 per child from 1 May 2009 and that it will be abolished in full at the end of 2009. It will be replaced in January 2010 with a free pre-school year of early childhood care and education for all children between the ages of three years three months and four years six months.

The recent report of the National Competitiveness Council on education and training stated that "pre-primary education is a key determinant of student performance at all levels of education, as it leads to improvements in students' skills levels, motivation and the propensity to learn, which in turn raises the private and social returns from all future investments in their education".

Such a brass neck.

The Government's investment of some €1 billion over the last decade in the development of a child care infrastructure means that it is possible to introduce a free pre-school year and be confident that the overwhelming majority of parents who wish to access a pre-school place for their children will be able to do so.

The introduction of a free pre-school year is a highly significant step in the development of Ireland's early childhood care and education policy.

The Minister did not think that a few years back.

The decision demonstrates the Government's continuing commitment to our children's social and educational development.

The Minister is simply making statements. She should be honest about this.

The provision of a year's free pre-school to all children will promote equality of opportunity at the most important developmental stage of children's lives.

The Minister did not believe that three years ago.

Children enrolled in play-schools will receive free pre-school provision of three hours per day, five days each week over a 38 week year. This equates to a weekly capitation grant to the service provider of €64.50 and parents with children enrolled in these services will not be charged. Children enrolled in full or part-time child care services will receive free pre-school provision of two hours and 15 minutes per day, five days a week over a 50 week period. This equates to a weekly capitation grant to the service of €48.50, with parents paying for their child care net of this amount. Over the course of the year, the financial benefit of the scheme for a single child is over €2,400.

This is so disingenuous.

All community and private pre-school services which meet the requirements of the scheme will be invited to apply for entry to the scheme and all notified pre-school services will be contacted by the office of the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs by the end of May 2009.

To introduce the scheme as quickly as possible and maximise the number of children and their parents who will benefit from the outset, the Government did not propose to wait until the school year beginning September 2010 but to introduce the scheme from January 2010. From September 2010, the pre-school year will run from September of each year in line with the school year.

All children aged between three years three months and four years six months at 1 September each year will be eligible and parents who wish to avail of the scheme can enrol their children with the available participating service of their choice. Children entering the scheme in January 2010 will be eligible if they are aged between three years and seven months and four years and ten months at 1 January 2010. Parents should have regard to the enrolment policies of their local primary schools in making decisions regarding the age that their children should avail of the pre-school year.

The introduction of this free pre-school year is an example of how a programme can be re-shaped and made more effective at a lower cost to the taxpayer.

It is to save money, that is the only reason it is being done.

The Social Welfare Bill also provides for changes to the jobseeker's allowance which are designed to incentivise 18 and 19 year old jobseekers to avail of education and training opportunities and avoid becoming welfare dependent from a young age.

The rate of jobseeker's allowance that will be paid to new claimants under the age of 20 is being reduced from €204.30 per week to €100 per week, with effect from the first week of May 2009. When a person on the reduced rate of jobseeker's allowance reaches the age of 20, if he or she still qualifies for the allowance, he or she will be entitled to the full adult rate. The full adult rate of the relevant scheme will be paid to 18 and 19 year olds who participate in a full-time Youthreach course for young early school leavers or a full-time course in a senior Traveller training centre or qualify for the back to education allowance for pursuing a full-time second level course or post-leaving certificate course. To qualify for the back to education allowance, they must have been out of formal education for at least two years and been in receipt of a jobseeker's payment for at least three months; or participate in a full-time FÁS training course. They can also participate on a PLC course or third level course on the same basis as any other young person and may qualify for a third level grant. This measure also applies to new claimants of supplementary welfare allowance who are under 20 years of age.

The numbers affected will be small at first as it will only affect new applicants from the first week in May. The numbers affected will rise on a weekly basis. Based on current figures, and an expected overall live register average for 2009 of 440,000, we expect a weekly average of 5,000 18 and 19 year olds to be affected by this change in 2009 and a weekly average of 9,000 to be affected by it in 2010.

These changes have the potential to generate savings of €12 million in 2009 and €26 million in 2010. If take up of the education and training opportunities is high, fewer savings will be achieved in the short term but the long-term savings generated by helping young people to avoid welfare dependency would be expected to be significant.

The qualified adult rate for a spouse or partner payable in these cases will also be reduced to €100 per week. This will mean that a couple, where the primary payment is to the 18 and 19 year old, will get a total of €200 per week, down from €339.90.

It is important to note that the following people will not be affected: existing claimants, young people with dependent children, those who qualify for the jobseeker's benefit and people transferring to jobseeker's allowance immediately after exhausting their entitlement to jobseeker's benefit or those transferring from the disability allowance directly to jobseeker's allowance, thereby avoiding their being faced with a large income drop.

Also, where an existing jobseeker's allowance claimant under age 20 being paid €204.30 gets a job and leaves jobseeker's allowance, but loses that job and ends up back on jobseeker's allowance within 12 months, he will get €204.30, rather than €100 a week. If this was not done, there would be little incentive for those currently on jobseeker's allowance to take up offers of work. I am conscious that 18 and 19 year olds leaving the care of the Health Service Executive might be particularly vulnerable to these reductions in the rate of jobseeker's allowance and I propose to make an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure that the additional needs of this group are protected.

The rationale for this change is straightforward. Receiving the full adult rate of a jobseeker's payment at 18 years of age without a strong financial incentive to engage in education or training can lead to welfare dependency from an early age. While many young people with low levels of education and training were able to get work in construction and other areas when the economy was doing well, they are likely to find it much harder to get work over the next few years. If they do not improve their skills, they are at risk of becoming long-term unemployed from a young age. They are considered to be at a greater risk of having difficulty securing a job than older jobseekers who might have low skills but at least have some work experience. Therefore, it is considered necessary to provide 18 and 19 year old jobseekers with a strong financial incentive to engage in education or training or to take up employment that pays more than €100 per week.

The fact that 18 and 19 year olds who participate in a FÁS or similar training or education course will get the full rate of the relevant payment, for example, the FÁS training allowance, community employment rate or back to education allowance, instead of €100 on jobseeker's allowance should be a major incentive for such participation.

Another reason for making this change is the experience we have of a recent pilot initiative. FÁS and the Department of Social and Family Affairs are currently running a pilot exercise in Clondalkin and Letterkenny for all 18 and 19 year olds who wish to sign on the live register for the first time. Instead of getting jobseeker's allowance, they will be immediately placed on a six-week programme designed to improve their chances of securing employment, in return for which they receive the normal FÁS training allowance, which is slightly more than jobseeker's allowance. Failure to attend means they receive no payment.

Initial feedback showed that many candidates did not wish to participate, preferring to get almost the same money without having to attend a course, and consequently they were sometimes disruptive and difficult to manage. This obstacle of a lack of a substantial financial incentive is now being addressed with the introduction of the reduced rate of jobseeker's allowance for those under 20.

It is also questionable that 18 and 19 year olds without child dependants need an income of €204.30 per week and the current income differential between young jobseekers and young third level students can be considered to be unjustifiable. The maximum amount of third level grant, including the special top-up grant, paid to young people from the poorest families whose family home is near their college is just €2,680. The maximum amount of third level grant, including the special top-up grant, paid to young people from the poorest families whose family home is near their college is just €2,680. If such young people have to live away from home to go to college, the maximum they can get is €6,690. The current rate of jobseeker's assistance which is currently paid to 18 and 19 year olds amounts to €10,624 per annum, while the reduced rate of €100 per week amounts to €5,200 per annum, which is still almost twice the third level grant rate paid to young people from the poorest families whose family home is near their college. Overall, I believe this change will incentivise 18 and 19 year olds to take up education and training opportunities and this will leave them in a much better position in the long term.

As Deputies will be aware, the budget contained a major focus on helping people to stay in employment and to get back to work, with initiatives such as a €100 million enterprise stabilisation fund, a pilot training scheme for workers on a three day week and increased training places both through FÁS and in the education sector. These will be enhanced by improvements in the welfare supports. The back to education allowance scheme allows jobseekers who qualify for it to return to education and maintain their welfare payment. The number of recipients of the allowance has increased significantly in recent years — from 5,247 in 2004 to 7,952 in 2008.

The Government is determined to maximise the potential of this scheme, so improvements provided for in this Bill are outlined as follows. Jobseekers who have been out of formal education for at least two years will now be able to access the second level back to education allowance, BTEA, once they have been in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or benefit for at least three months. That is down from six months. Earlier access is also being provided to the BTEA third level scheme. Currently, there is a general requirement that a person be receiving a jobseeker's payment for 12 months before he or she can access the scheme. They can access it at nine months if this is recommended by a FÁS employment services officer. This is now being extended so that they will also be able to access it at nine months if this is recommended by one of the facilitators of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

In order to respond effectively to the growing numbers on the live register, the changing profile of jobseekers generally and the current employment situation, it has been decided to refocus the existing resources from the back to work schemes on helping people into self-employment. The intention is to support enterprises that will, in due course, create further employment opportunities. To this end, the employee strand of the back to work allowance will be closed to new applicants and the duration of the enterprise scheme will now be up to two years, as distinct from four years. These resources will be used to support significant improvements in the back to work enterprise allowance, BTWEA.

Currently, to qualify for BTWEA a person must be in receipt of a jobseeker's payment for 24 months. Access will now be available much earlier under two distinct BTWEA schemes. First, people who are entitled to jobseeker's benefit and have been awarded statutory redundancy or have been employees paying full rate PRSI contributions for at least two years prior to their claim to jobseeker's benefit can access a shorter back to work enterprise allowance scheme immediately. This new scheme will be payable for the duration of their jobseeker's benefit entitlement while they are establishing their enterprise, for example, for a maximum of either nine or 12 months. The key feature is that they can access it immediately. Second, access to the general BTWEA scheme is also being improved. It will now be possible to access the BTWEA at 12 months, instead of 24 months, provided a person has an underlying entitlement to jobseeker's allowance.

Further flexibilities are also being introduced into the scheme, including allowing a person who has previously availed of the BTWEA scheme and exhausted his or her entitlement to participate a second time after a period of at least five years has elapsed. The overall purpose of the new arrangements is to financially assist those on the live register to set up a business almost immediately when they become unemployed, thereby ensuring that their knowledge, skills and expertise are fully utilised at an early stage and thereby promoting enterprise and employment in the economy.

In addition to the areas already outlined, the Bill also provides for changes in PRSI and other areas. I will outline the main provisions. Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill provide for adjustments to PRSI as announced in the budget, increasing the earnings ceiling applicable to employees and optional contributors from €52,000 to €75,036 per annum. Section 5 provides for an amendment to customer activation and information profiling for jobseeker's benefit. It also provides for a new short-term support scheme under the back to work enterprise allowance scheme for a person who qualifies for jobseeker's benefit or who qualifies for statutory redundancy.

Section 6 provides for an amendment to customer activation and information profiling for jobseeker's allowance. It also provides for an amendment to the rate of jobseeker's allowance payable to a person aged 18 and 19 years where that person does not have a qualified child. This section also provides for a proportional adjustment in respect of the amount payable to a person in this category in respect of his or her qualified adult. Section 7 provides for an amendment to the provisions governing supplementary allowance and rent supplement by providing for a revised rate of payment to persons under the age of 20 years, where that person does not have a qualified child, and incorporating in primary legislation circumstances in which the supplement may be payable.

Section 8 provides for amendments to the early child care supplement by reducing the annual amount of the payment to €498 and a consequent reduction in the monthly rate to €41.50 from 1 May. This section further provides for the abolition of the supplement from 1 January 2010. Section 9 provides for the making of regulations setting out the information to be provided by claimants when making a claim for benefit. Section 10 provides for an amendment to the domiciliary care allowance scheme to facilitate payment of up to six months arrears in the case of a late claim. This is in line with recent practice when the scheme was administered by the Health Service Executive. This scheme was transferred to the Department of Social and Family Affairs in April 2009.

Section 11 provides for revised rates of payment for jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance as provided for in sections 6 and 7. Section 12 amends the Health Contributions Act 1979, by providing for an increase in the rate of the contribution and lowering the earnings threshold. This section also provides for the aggregation of earnings, emoluments and income for the purpose of calculation of contribution and adjustment to take account of aggregate calculations.

Given the very short timescale involved in bringing this Bill to the House, there are a number of areas where legislative changes are considered necessary but which could not be finalised in time to be included in the Bill as initially presented to the House. I will, therefore, table several amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. First, I am very conscious of the impact the current global recession is having on the value of Irish pension funds. It is estimated that in excess of 90% of defined benefits pension schemes are in deficit. This is presenting trustees of pension schemes with significant challenges in their efforts to optimise the benefits for pension scheme members.

Deputies will be aware that the Government put a number of measures in place last December to ease the funding pressures on these schemes. While these measures were helpful in the short term, I wish to signal my intention to bring forward a number of further measures which will support the job of the trustees of these schemes in meeting the challenges that confront them and provide greater flexibility and regulatory support to improve the affordability and viability of defined benefit pension schemes. I will also be amending the National Treasury Management Act.

I have already mentioned that I propose to introduce an amendment to protect 18 and 19 year olds leaving the care of the Health Service Executive to ensure that their additional needs can be met. I will also be making a technical amendment to section 7 dealing with the supplementary welfare allowance. It may also be necessary to make some technical amendments to section 12 dealing with amendments to the Health Contributions Act. I will also be introducing an amendment to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009 to provide for the changes announced in the supplementary budget regarding the public service pension levy.

Chun críoch, the main changes provided for in this Bill relate to improvements in the back to education and back to work schemes, measures designed to generate savings in respect of the rent supplement and the early child care supplement and an increase in the PRSI ceiling. The Bill will also provide a legislative basis for the changes being made to the jobseeker's allowance to incentivise 18 and 19 year old jobseekers to avail of education and training opportunities and try to avoid them becoming welfare dependent from a young age.

It is important for each of the savings measures to be considered in the context of the overall economic situation and the need for immediate action to reduce the major gap between public income and expenditure. It is also important to note that while the budget included measures designed to reduce expenditure on certain welfare schemes by €300 million in 2009, provision has been made for an overall increase of 20% in the welfare budget next year — bringing it to almost €21.3 billion. This Bill is necessary to implement some of the changes announced on budget day, while other changes do not require legislation. In deciding on where to achieve savings in welfare expenditure, there were no easy options but, with both borrowing and taxes having to increase to pay the rising welfare bill next year, choices had to be made.

The harsh reality is that if some cuts were not made now, much tougher ones would have to be made later. It is important that all of us as public representatives are up-front with the people about the stark choices that are required at this time. The changes in this Bill are necessary and some of them are very positive and have an incentivising effect. I hope we can have an informed debate about them over the course of the next two days.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have grave difficulty accepting many of the proposed changes and I disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Minister in her final remarks. I hope we have an informed debate but I cannot see much room for agreement on many of the issues. Accordingly, Fine Gael will vote against the Social Welfare Bill.

Based on what the Minister said, the Government is probably taking comfort from the fact that legislation is not necessary to abolish the Christmas bonus, which is probably one of the reasons that decision was taken. It is clear that Government backbenchers and local authority candidates, rather than the people in need, were to the fore in the Government's thinking when it was considering social welfare cuts. The Government made a clear decision to cut something that would not require legislation and thus would not force Fianna Fáil TDs to vote on the issue. I welcome the fact that we will have an opportunity to discuss the issue in this House later today and tomorrow on Private Members' time. That will afford an opportunity to all Members of the House to make it clear to the public where they stand on the removal of the Christmas bonus from the most vulnerable people in society.

We in Fine Gael have long sought changes in the back to work enterprise allowance, as the method by which it currently operates is a disincentive to employment and entrepreneurship and forces people to remain on the live register. Everyone in this House can give the Minister many examples of people who have come to them who were ineligible for the allowance, despite having the ideas, determination and skills to create a job for themselves and to potentially create jobs for other people once they are set up in business. However, the changes in the Social Welfare Bill, as announced in the budget, do not go anywhere near what is required to help create an enterprise culture and to help people who have lost their jobs to get back into the workforce.

It is time the Minister accepted and realised that those schemes were set up in a climate where we were trying to deal with long-term unemployment and not one where we are trying to deal with massively rising unemployment in such a short timeframe. That fact alone must change how the Minister operates and how the Government does business, but it has not yet been taken on board.

The old rule that one must be unemployed for two years before one could avail of the back to work enterprise allowance was nonsense. I am pleased the Minister has accepted that. The change, however, does not go far enough. The allowance has been reduced by a year, but what stopped the Minister moving to six months, which is what has been suggested by many people involved in working with the unemployed? One year is an extremely long time to force somebody to stay on jobseeker's allowance or benefit. I disagree with the Minister's assertion that access to the allowance is almost immediate; one must wait for a year, which is a significant proportion of a person's working life.

The other scheme is immediate.

The new scheme.

I am sorry, colleagues, but discussion is not allowed.

I outlined two schemes.

Which scheme is immediate?

If one is getting jobseeker's benefit, one can immediately access the back to work enterprise allowance.

No, immediately.

On which payment?

If one qualifies for jobseeker's benefit, one no longer has to fulfil the criterion of actively seeking work and one can immediately get on a back to work enterprise scheme. One can have that for the duration of the period one would normally qualify for jobseeker's benefit.

The majority of people, however, will still have to wait a year before they can avail of it. That is the reality of how the scheme operates.

No. The majority of people are on jobseeker's benefit, not on jobseeker's allowance.

We are talking about people who have lost their jobs, who are probably highly qualified in their own area of expertise and who do not need another degree. They have skills and the spirit of entrepreneurship to make their ideas work. The Minister might have seen the "Prime Time" programme recently on the back to work enterprise allowance. Perhaps it influenced her decision. It highlighted the ridiculous situations in which people find themselves by virtue of the way the scheme operates. What was most worrying was the fact that failure to be approved for the scheme in some instances counted against people when they sought financial assistance from banks. There is no logic to the way the Government is approaching those allowances, which deprive people of hope and opportunity. While the one year change is positive, it could have been better.

At the same time the Minister made another decision that did not make any sense in the current economic climate. A decision to give the allowance for only two years is madness. Everybody knows that in this climate it is more difficult to start a business and keep it up and running. We all know of businesses that we thought had stood the test of time, that were going to be here for the long haul, but we have seen them close their doors in recent months. How much more difficult is it for a person who has started a new business without significant financial backing who is reliant and dependent on the back to work enterprise allowance for four years to see him or her through the difficult start up phase? The allowance provided a lift to allow a business to survive. The decision to cut the allowance from four to two years does not make sense. It is especially foolish when one realises that the other alternative is for a person to be on jobseeker's allowance or benefit where he or she will be in receipt of a State payment anyway. Surely it makes more sense to try to facilitate people to stay in employment? I cannot understand why the Minister fails to see that.

The Minister stated in her budget press release that "the intention is to support enterprises who will, in due course, create further employment opportunity" but she is making it extremely difficult for that to happen. The positive changes the Minister has made to the scheme have been damaged by the negative changes. The Government's mantra in recent months has been "jobs, jobs, jobs", yet the steps the Minister is taking and the decisions she is making are not in any way creating the opportunity for employment that makes those jobs a reality or even a possibility.

I welcome the fact that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has finally seen some common sense on the operation of the back to education allowance. I say "some", because again, while changes have been made, they do not go far enough. It is a pity that it took so long for the Minister to make those changes. I welcome the fact that the jobseekers who have been out of formal education for at least two years can now access the second level back to education allowance once they have been in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or benefit for at least three months. I hope that will help people with low levels of qualification to get back into the education system and to receive formal qualifications.

The early access being provided at third level is insufficient. Up to now there has been a requirement that a person must be in receipt of jobseeker's payment for 12 months before he or she can access the scheme. There have been exceptions in recent times for people in employment action plan areas and people who have received redundancy. However, the most recent figures available to me from the Department show that the numbers who have taken up the scheme are minuscule. My overall figure, which I received in reply to a parliamentary question, is slightly different from that of the Minister. Of the 9,796 people who are recorded as participating in the back to education allowance in November 2008, a total of 113 were awarded statutory redundancy and 75 were referred earlier to the third level option as a result of their participation in the national employment action plan, NEAP. Those figures do not inspire hope that we will see an improvement.

I have been waiting to get the up-to-date figures. I was told they will be available this month but this week the Department informed me it could take another three to four weeks. Perhaps we will see some improvement in take up. That is difficult to say as the figures I expected to have for the debate are unavailable. The reality is that not everybody who loses his or her job is in an employment action plan area or receives a redundancy payment. We have seen many closures of small businesses, restaurants, shops and hotels where people are not able to avail of redundancy payments. I do not see the sense in limiting the scheme in that way.

It is some improvement that the Minister will now allow access to the scheme after nine months if recommended by one of the facilitators of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, as is the case currently if it is recommended by a FÁS employment services officer. I have, however, two difficulties with that. First, I still believe that nine months is too long. The longest timeframe that I would find acceptable for the scheme is six months. Second, how much work does the Minister expect those facilitators to be able to do? We are all in favour of getting as much out of the public service as we possibly can. There are 60 facilitators, and the Minister admitted herself in her budget press release that an average live register figure of 440,000 is likely for 2009 with some estimates putting it higher. That is a mammoth task if each of those facilitators is to deal with each person on the live register, or even a proportion of them. In effect, all I can see happening is that the wait to see a facilitator will replace the three months that the Minister has cut off the requirement for the scheme.

It is important to bear in mind that those are the same 60 facilitators the Minister for Social and Family Affairs announced last July would deal with numbers of young unemployed under 25 and the same facilitators the Minister said would work on "a one to one basis with lone parents". What next for those 60 facilitators? That change is disingenuous. It will not achieve what it needs to achieve and it will not help those who are unemployed in an efficient, effective or meaningful way.

That brings me to the proposed changes to the jobseeker's allowance for young people outlined in the Bill. Last July, the Minister expressed grave concern over the number of people under 25 on the live register and made a big announcement on how they could avail of the back to education allowance. Clearly that did not work and the number of young people on the live register has grown since. I was not surprised by the Minister's announcement having heard her interview on "News at One" on the subject of cross-Border fraud, during which she clearly supported the amounts paid to young people in Northern Ireland. It was quite clear she was coming around to the idea of cutting young people's social welfare. It is a pity that when she came round to this idea, she did not actually ensure there were alternatives for them.

The National Youth Council of Ireland stated clearly that "the jobs are simply not there and few education and training opportunities have been provided to date". The Minister will know that approximately 17% of young people fail to complete their leaving certificate examinations. The figures in this regard have not improved greatly despite the resources available in recent years. I am extremely concerned that, with the cuts across the board in the education sector, including cuts affecting transition year such that only the school allowance and book allowance will be covered, and the expected scaling down of services in schools to the provision of very basic education, the figure of 17% will possibly rise or, at best, remain the same. Nobody is fooled by the notion of incentivising 18 and 19 year old jobseekers to avail of education and training opportunities to prevent them from becoming welfare dependent. I share the Minister's concerns about the young becoming welfare dependent and about their availing of social welfare immediately after leaving school. However, she has put the cart before the horse to some extent by not ensuring that places are available to these new claimants.

The full-rate adult payment will still be made for those who participate in Youthreach — this is on a pilot footing and applicable to those of 19 years — or full-time courses in a senior travel training centre. Will there be enough places on these courses? It is difficult enough as matters stand to get people to do them. I envisage many more difficulties owing to the position on the incentive that should be in place. I do not believe there will be enough places. If individuals qualify for the back to education allowance, they will still have to have been out of formal education for at least two years. Therefore, what is the position in regard to somebody who has dropped out of school in mid-leaving-certificate year and who might be 18 years or almost that age? Such a person will not be eligible for the back to education allowance for a year. He or she can participate in a full-time FÁS training course, but only if there is one available. I ask the Minister to outline in her concluding remarks where the places will be available for young people.

I listened to the Tánaiste's budget speech in the House. I was not convinced that any serious thought had gone into the proposal on activation measures. It is more designed to save €12 million than to incentivise young people. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are no clear facts and figures available to us.

Who will work with the young people? Will it be the same 60 facilitators who are to work with everybody else? It is time the Minister got real in regard to this and appreciated the fact that, no matter how hard-working these 60 people are, they cannot bear the brunt of everything that is happening in the social welfare system. They cannot possibly work with every single target group.

The idea of profiling first-time social welfare claimants to facilitate job programmes and more targeted training is, in principle, a good idea, but the reality and delivery on the ground will be very different. In this regard, I am not convinced by a Minister who has failed to deal with rising queues in social welfare offices and the crisis in the community welfare system, and who has failed thus far to help young people who are unemployed. I do not understand how this measure will address what she intends to address or says she intends to address in this legislation.

The Minister has to some extent included in the Bill many of the proposals made by the Opposition over recent months but not in a way that achieves the outcomes we hoped for or intended to achieve. This applies to the back to work enterprise allowance, the back to education allowance and the supplementary welfare payment or rent supplement. In February, I proposed that the Minister examine rent supplement payments and conduct a review thereof in the belief that potential savings of up to €55 million could accrue this year if payments were in line with market rates. I gave examples in February of the differences in rent reductions available across the country and used figures available from daft.ie.

The rent supplement scheme has become a critical scheme providing supposedly short-term income support to people in private rented accommodation who otherwise would have nowhere to live. I suggested that the Minister set about lowering the ceiling for rent supplement to reflect current market rates and that, given the number of vacant properties, her staff should negotiate with the owners to reduce the financial burden on the State and increase the standard and quality available to claimants. What did the Minister choose to do instead? She made a blanket announcement affecting the whole country equally, changing not only the rate being paid to the landlord but also the rate the tenant must pay. Although rent fell by 13% in Dublin and 5.8% in Galway, people from both areas will be subject to the exact same cut.

The Minister needs to conduct a full review of the scheme, not just a cost-saving review. It should take account of the needs of those involved. There are parts of Dublin's city centre, for example, where rents have not been subject to any noticeable decrease. There are particularly vulnerable groups, such as people in bed-sits, paying as much as €169 per week with a rent supplement cap of €130 per week, thus forcing them to pay top-ups to their landlords. The Private Residential Tenancies Board is aware that such top-ups are being paid. Threshold, which has done much work in this area, demonstrates that this is still very much a live issue. It has not been tackled. In theory, these tops-ups are illegal but there are no real checks to determine whether they are being paid. In some cases, vulnerable tenants are forced to make these payments. There is still no adequate checking of the quality of the accommodation.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, together with the Minister of State responsible for housing, who was reappointed today, who has plenty of experience, needs to examine the vacant properties and consider the possibility of including them in the rental accommodation scheme with a view to including more people. The Minister announced today there will be 1,000 more places available under the scheme. This will just about bring us half way towards meeting the commitment made on where we should stand at present. Announcing 1,000 more places is no great cause for celebration as we are nowhere near where we should be. The opportunities under the rental accommodation scheme by comparison with those under the rent supplement scheme, in terms of getting rid of poverty traps and allowing people to work, are far more beneficial. We should concentrate on this. The scheme should be working much better. Removing the traps and increasing the opportunities to work would be much more cost effective for the State and far more beneficial to the tenant.

The Government needs to get tougher on landlords. I could not believe that the Minister, in her speech, asked us to help send out a message to landlords. That is the job of the Minister responsible.

The Deputies are public representatives.

Deputy Hanafin is the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and a Minister of State responsible for housing has been reappointed. In addition, there is a Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and a Minister for Finance, yet, between them, they cannot deal with the issue of landlords. How many more times are we going to discuss in the House the fact that there is still no link between rent supplement paid to landlords and checks to ensure those landlords are paying tax out of the moneys paid to them by the State in respect of their properties? We have raised this at committees, including with the Revenue Commissioners, and in the House. Those responsible just nod and say they are considering the matter. How long more will we be considering it? When will we see something happen? It is very easy to take €6 more from a tenant after having taken the same from him or her in October. It may be a bit tougher to put in place the system I advocate but there is no reason it is not in place, as it should be. That it is not is a failure on the Minister's part. We have discussed it time and again and it needs to be fast-tracked. Surely when trying to make savings, ensuring that we get the most from the taxation system would be a sensible place to start.

Threshold has asked, quite reasonably, what support the Department is to offer regarding the process of negotiating rent reductions. It is a fair question because there should be support for tenants. Some landlords will take advantage of a vulnerable person, particularly in areas where there may not be many alternative properties. The principle of reducing rent supplement with falling market rent is important but the blanket approach adopted will only result in hardship for many vulnerable people. It is not the best approach.

It has been suggested that the Minister should set up a system whereby, rather than having a community welfare officer hand over a deposit to a tenant for a landlord, that deposit would be held in an account and made available to the landlord if the property was not handed back in good condition. Currently the deposit is paid directly to the landlord and tenants find it very difficult to recover it at the end of their tenancy. Threshold has estimated that the Department could save between €6 million and €7 million per year if my proposal were implemented. I have asked the Minister about this in the past and I again ask her to examine it. The deposit holding scheme I advocate would save the State money and would make more sense. Since tenants will have to shop around owing to the reduction in the supplement, the holding scheme, if implemented, will mean their deposits will be refundable because the landlords will not get their hands on them unless, for whatever reason, the tenants leave the properties in poor condition.

The Minister's decision in the budget to increase by €6 the minimum contribution to rent supplement after a similar increase in the October budget is extremely unfair and will make life really difficult for poorer vulnerable tenants. The changes to the maximum rent figure to which the supplement applies were sufficient and what the Minister has done in increasing the contribution will make it extremely difficult to access accommodation because of the amount tenants themselves will have to pay. On the submission made by Focus Ireland, will the Minister ensure that no person will become homeless as a result of the changes made to the rent supplement and jobseeker's allowance schemes? Despite the money available and, to some extent, squandered in the past 12 years, the Government did not do what could have been done to tackle the issue of homelessness. Despite the existence of a Minister of State with responsibility for housing, the matter still seems to fall between a number of Departments. There are real concerns that there will be difficulties in that regard.

I am glad the Minister stated she would table an amendment on young persons who have left State care. That is important. She also needs to examine the position of young persons who have left the family home which I fully appreciate is a much more tricky issue. Their position is not as simple as that of young persons who have left State care but there are situations where there is a severe breakdown within families for one reason or another, as a result of which young persons are forced to leave. There are young persons who have not had to go into State care because they are aged 17 or 18 years but they are still in the vulnerable position to which I refer. Perhaps community welfare officers who tend to know the persons concerned should have the flexibility to make a payment in such circumstances rather than see a young person, by reason of drugs or alcoholism in their own case or in the case of somebody else in the family home, being left vulnerable if homeless as a result.

The Bill compounds the attack on families that took place in Budget 2009. In addition to charges, taxes and the pain being felt by everybody else, in a double whammy those with young children are being hit through the loss of the early child care supplement, while those with children in their late teens will be hit through the introduction of third level fees. In the next budget those with children of any age will be hit through some form of change to child benefit. The budget of October 2008 made every household pay for Fianna Fáil's mistakes and the emergency budget of 2009 has ensured every family will pay on the double.

What is laughable about the changes to the early child care supplement and the introduction of a year's free preschool place, if the matter was not so serious, is that in recent years Fine Gael and the Labour Party made this proposal and tried to persuade the Government which then had the money of the importance of preschool education. During 12 years of what the Government certainly thought were unlimited resources, it failed to introduce such a provision. I remember debating the matter here with the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, on one occasion when she questioned the educational value of preschool education.

The Minister did. She stated there was a social value and that it would teach——

No. I never questioned the educational value but did question the value of providing it in primary schools.

No one proposed providing it in primary schools. The Minister questioned the level of educational attainment.

I have never questioned the educational value.

The Minister did.

The Minister stated there was a social value and a value in interaction.

Now that finances are tighter and the Government wants to make savings but does not want to be seen as too much of a bad guy because the local elections are coming up, it will cut and then abolish the early child care supplement and replace it with a free preschool place for one year. I am not sure if the Government has really worked out the mathematics. I am sure it did from its own perspective in saving money, but it was not from the perspective of a family with a newborn child who would be losing a payment for five and a half years to be replaced by preschool support for 38 weeks. It provides little comfort for families who must make some really tough decisions. It is critical to remember that these are the same families who bought houses in the past few years at extortionate prices and who are paying massive mortgages, one third of which is actually a payment to the Government because that is the portion of their mortgage that relates to the tax they are paying on their home. These young couples are faced with a choice — can they both afford to stay at work? Can they afford the cost of child care or can they afford to stay at home? Even a difference of €30 to €40 a week in income is immense help in making such decisions and trying to budget and balance their books.

The way in which Fianna Fáil introduced the early child care supplement was a typical example of the way it moved to gain kudos with the electorate. On six occasions in the House after it was introduced Ministers, as well as the former Taoiseach, gave different figures for what it would cost. Nobody at the time realised that it would have to be paid for children not in this country but whose parents were, even though the supplement was supposed to meet the cost of child care provided here, and with a click of the fingers it is gone.

I still have questions on the provision of a free preschool place for one year. I still question the Government's ability to deliver on such a measure by next January. We are spending €50 million a year on prefabs in the primary and post-primary sector, yet the Government thinks it can deliver up to 80,000 places by January. I do not think anybody believes that is possible. We have yet to see a breakdown of how and where the places will be provided. All the press releases issued since the announcement have not answered these questions. The Minister is asking the House to vote to abolish the early child care supplement when she has given little or no consideration to what will be in its place and the impact on families.

The Minister has stated the figure "equates to a weekly capitation grant to the service provider of €64.50 and parents with children enrolled in these services will not be charged." I spoke to a child care provider today who has had some discussions with whoever is in charge in the Department and the provider seemed to be of the opinion that there would be an ability to charge a top-up fee. I ask the Minister if she is sure of the figure of €64.50 and that top-ups will not be charged because people are not sure. Where providers are charging more already I cannot see how they will reduce their prices. Will families have to pay a top-up charge to some providers? There are not uniform charges across the country. Will we now see those, perhaps in more rural areas, charging less upping their prices? How did the Minister arrive at the figure of €64.50? What about the extra facilities that will be needed? Currently, there is no funding available because of the review of the NDP. These questions need to be asked. People know when they are being sold a pup, as they certainly are in this instance.

The decisions taken in the Bill echo those taken in the budget. There is a lack of vision, strategic thinking and real reform. What there has been is much tinkering, mostly aimed at saving money with the odd nod towards the possibility that people will be given a little bit of a break. However, all it is is a nod.

Twice the Minister almost bragged about an increase in social welfare expenditure. The only reason it has increased is that the numbers unemployed have increased. This is something we should all deplore rather than speak of as something for which the Department has received a little extra because those affected are not getting it.

The Minister spoke about deflation and the protection of living standards. Much of the deflation has been in the area of mortgage payments. Gas prices, electricity prices, bus fares and cost of primary education have increased. The week before last I met the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which told me that there had been a 30% increase in the number of calls made to it. The only places where it has not seen an increase are the Border counties where people are able to cross the Border to buy food where it is cheaper. That highlights the difficulties being experienced by families. Deflation may help some but it is not helping everyone and it is disingenuous to suggest it is.

The positive changes made are not enough to really make a difference or a dent in the live register figures and get people into training or back to work. The changes to the rent supplement scheme are too blunt and what could have been really good cost saving changes are only going to hurt a significant number of people rather than truly take advantage of falling market rates. The idea of incentivising young people to return to education or training through profiling is only window dressing aimed essentially at cutting payments to them. The reduction in the value of the early child care supplement and its abolition will cause untold difficulties for young families.

We still have received no details on the information which must be provided by claimants in making a claim for benefit. Overall, there is nothing in the Bill that will facilitate people in getting back to work. Everything depends on the work of 60 facilitators who will deal with hundreds of thousands of unemployed persons. The Christmas bonus is being removed but it is not even mentioned in the legislation. It was a quick lazy attempt at saving money. The Government in no way tried to deal with or solve the problems endemic in the system. As a result, we will still have queues at social welfare offices and community welfare officers will be unable to cope with the level of demand. In fact, this will be compounded by the changes to the rent supplement scheme. No assistance is being given to facilitate the changes. More and more people will turn to community welfare officers seeking exceptional needs payments because of the social welfare cuts contained in the Bill. No extra assistance has been given to MABS or funding made available for mortgage interest supplements.

On the changes to the Bill that the Minister announced she will introduce on Committee Stage, I will wait until then to comment on them. However, it is time to bring forward the recommendations made in the White Paper on pensions rather than just tinkering with the system. Real decisions need to be taken.

I wish to share time with Deputies Upton and Costello.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Social Welfare Bill 2009 is about social welfare in name only. It is unashamedly about extra taxes and reduced benefits with hardly any measures that will actually improve our social security system, help the poor or those struggling in the recession. For the most part, it is a finance Bill in disguise. What concerns me most is how families will be able to afford many of its measures, particularly families with very young children. With the introduction of the health levies under section 12 and the abolition of the early child care supplement under section 8, a single-income family with two children under five years on €40,000 a year will lose €230 per month from their net monthly income. Add the income levy, the abolition of mortgage interest relief, additional excise on diesel and such a family will incur extra costs amounting to more than €3,000 a year. Many families will pay more.

The Labour Party is opposed to the Bill for what it does to family budgets, how it threatens jobs and how it hits easy targets instead of raising revenue in other areas. It contains several of the largest cuts announced in the supplementary budget. It proposes halving and the eventual abolition of the early child care supplement. The supplement may have been introduced by Fianna Fáil to bribe the electorate, but it has since become an essential part of family budgets. As such, its abolition will have a serious impact on the ability of some families to make ends meet. A family with two children under five years will lose €83 a month from 1 May. The same family will lose a staggering €166 a month from 1 January next. That has the same effect as halving child benefit for the same family. It was interesting that when child benefit for 18 year olds was abolished last year in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008, a tapering arrangement was provided for welfare recipients with children to allow them to adjust to the sudden drop in income. No such provision is contained in this Bill. Many parents who have lost their jobs will now have to put up with a massive reduction in the amount of support they receive for their children.

Contrary to the impression created by some media commentators, the introduction of a subsidy towards preschool costs only fractionally offsets the substantial loss of income for the young families affected. Instead of a payment of about €5,000 for the first five years of their child's life, parents will now receive a payment for one year in preschool. The abolition of the early child care supplement comes at a time when the cost of child care for families continues to rise — up 5.8% in the past year, yet the budget contained no measures to tackle prices in this sector or to address excessive rent and insurance costs for providers. For many young families, child care costs are often higher than mortgage costs and always higher than the cost of groceries.

One Dublin family with two children under two years this week gave me detailed accounts of their monthly outgoings. One parent works full-time and the other part-time. It costs the family €5,000 on average each month to run the household. They have a modest lifestyle — they have one car, one annual holiday, a two-bedroom ex-council house, are non-smokers and have a mortgage of only €60,000. Even sending the children to a child care facility only three days a week, their child care bill comes to €1,500 a month, 30% of all outgoings. This is the real cost of having young children in 2009. It is the reality that no one in government and few in the media seem to appreciate. Rising child care costs mean that while some families may be benefiting from deflation, the cost of living is actually rising for parents who use child care facilities — the very people hit by this cutback.

The focus of the public has been, by and large, on the extra income levies. However, many do not realise that the doubling of health levy rates represents the single largest tax increase for most workers in the supplementary budget. Section 12 proposes new rates of 4% and 5%, with the 4% rate starting at €26,000 and the 5% rate at €75,036. For that same family on €40,000 to whom I referred, the reduction in take-home pay from the health levy alone will be €66.67 per month, double the income levy bill. The income and health levies combined will take €100 a month from such a family. How on earth is taxing people on modest incomes by taking €100 from their monthly income going to restore consumer confidence or protect jobs? It is a recipe for disaster with people cutting back more and taking more trips to the North. Surely there was scope to introduce a tapering arrangement. Under the proposed arrangement, the effect of the levy is such that a person on €26,500 will have a lower net income than a person on €25,500. Yet again, we have another proposal from the Government that it has failed to work out properly before it presented it. I urge the Minister to adjust it on Committee Stage.

Sections 5 and 6 propose to introduce new rules for job seekers. What precisely has the Minister in mind? The phrasing appears to suggest a job seeker's payment could be refused if a person were not to agree to take a training or development course when requested to do so by a departmental official. All the announcements around the budget suggested such a move was for young people leaving school with no mention of it being extended to everyone, yet that appears to be the intention as the Bill is drafted. No indication is given as to what constitutes a reasonable offer. For instance, one could not offer an unemployed IT specialist a computer course or someone in Drogheda a place on a course in Wexford. Who would pick up the cost of attendance or what would happen if there were transport, family or health issues? Where are the course places? Who will provide them and who will pay? Is there a way of appealing a decision? Will a claimant still be counted on the live register?

As regards the under 20s, the Labour Party believes the worst outcome for a young person is that he or she goes straight from school onto the dole. I have no problem with the general scenario of making welfare payments contingent on attendance at an education, training or development course. However, there are several categories of teenagers that simply will not fit into this scenario. I am concerned about the Bill's proposals in this regard and that the details have not been properly considered by the Minister. I am concerned that it is included among a package of measures designed to save money. It should be introduced only on a revenue neutral basis, with the savings in welfare reinvested in training and development courses. The State will still profit in the long run by preventing long-term dependency on welfare.

There are already several caps in place on PLC and VEC courses, with demand far exceeding supply. There are no guarantees in the Bill that a suitable course will be available to each claimant or on the quality of those courses. Can I take it from the way section 6 is framed that the claimant will not be denied his or her full entitlement to social welfare unless an officer requests him or her to take up a course, and that there will be no automatic disbarring from the current payment? The Minister might let us know how these provisions will work if no course is available because, clearly, there is a lack of sufficient quality training places at present.

What guidelines will the Minister put in place for this scheme? As Deputies, we all get very mixed opinions from the public about individual job liaison personnel. Some claimants get the feeling they are simply being processed, especially when staff are dealing with people in such large numbers, as at present. This reform will be a disaster if that attitude remains. Guidelines in this area will have to be very clear and where disagreement arises between front-line staff and the claimant, there should be a right of appeal. The Minister might consider examining this for Committee Stage.

The Minister needs to clarify what will happen if there is a genuine difficulty in completing or attending a course for any number of reasons, such as family, transport, health issues or the cost involved. For instance, what happens in the case of a young drug user who may get a place on a drug treatment course and must attend daily for methadone? What rules will apply in those circumstances?

There will be some categories of young people for whom the new arrangements will simply not fit. Young people who leave State care may simply not be in a position to take up a training place. If, for example, a young person has left State care, cannot return to the family home and has to rent, he or she will be left with a net weekly income of just €76 per week because of the combined effect of changes in this Bill and changes to rent supplement.

I will amend that.

I welcome that indication. A similar dilemma presents itself for young people in transitional accommodation.

The wisest course of action is for the Minister to be provided with powers in the Bill to exempt by regulation certain categories of unemployed teenagers from these provisions. This would allow the Minister to establish a period of public consultation and reflection on this measure before the relevant sections are commenced and to exempt people before they cause unnecessary hardship. If this is really about activation, the Minister should have no problem doing this.

Section 7(b) proposes to disallow rent supplement unless a person is an existing tenant or has been assessed by his or her local authority as being in need of housing. In my view, this measure is reckless and downright irresponsible. It puts in harm’s way young people who have a serious falling out with their parents and any person who, for example, is subject to abuse in the family home. I am appalled by this measure. It is a bull-headed ivory tower reform of the worst possible kind and reflects a pathetic understanding on the part of the Minister about the reality on the ground. I do not have any confidence that the discretion afforded to community welfare officers is sufficient to guarantee that no one is made homeless from this proposal. I spoke to Focus Ireland about these measures and it does not have much confidence either. Can the Minister absolutely guarantee that no one will be made homeless as a result of this measure? If she cannot, then why is she attempting to pass this proposal? The Minister might respond directly to this.

Of course, other cutbacks are also being made by regulation to the minimum contribution a person must make to rent supplement and to the maximum amount of support a person may receive under the scheme. The Labour Party accepts that there are savings to be made from rent supplement at a time when some rents are falling, although it has to be pointed out that rents are only 1.3% lower now than when the rent supplement limits were changed in January 2007, and the 6% to 10% cut is certainly excessive.

There is also something pathetic about a policy decision being taken based on what the Daft website states.

It is not just Daft.

The Minister should tell us what other figures she has.

The PRTB and CSO figures.

She should give us that information. She came to the House tonight and quoted the Daft website.

The Deputy asked the question. It was the PRTB and the CSO.

The Minister should make that information available to us.

The Deputy has access to the figures in the same way we have.

Daft does not keep any figures on rents at the lower end of the market. I am talking specifically about poor quality bed-sits where many young people, including those at risk, stay. As far as I know — perhaps the Minister can tell me to the contrary — no information is available on what is happening to rents in that category. The anecdotal information would suggest that because of harder times and more people seeking low-cost accommodation, those rents are not reducing.

This latest Social Welfare Bill will hit hardest the former poster children of the Celtic tiger. Young families with large mortgages and young children will be most affected by these proposals. It will also hit those who did not benefit from the Celtic tiger by reducing rent allowance and halving the jobseeker's allowance in certain cases. The Bill is the latest from a Government which is out of touch. Irish people want to see those who did the best during the boom times paying their share but this is simply not happening and this Bill is doing nothing to move in that direction.

The decision to reduce mortgage interest supplement to seven years is a serious decision which will have negative consequences for thousands of families across the State. One of the legacies of the Ahern-Cowen era of Government will be the reckless way in which they allowed the housing market to be inflated. Massive tax incentives were offered to landlords. The media is also culpable, given its relentless promotion of the property ladder.

The net result was that many people bought houses for huge sums, often a long distance from their work or families. They were encouraged to do this and offered mortgages beyond their wildest dreams. They were given access to funds when anyone looking at the conditions and the prospects of repayment would have suggested there were sure to be tears at the end of the rainbow, not a pot of gold. However, young families needed a home and bought into the dream.

The mortgage interest supplement is now to be reduced to seven years. People are struggling to pay their mortgages as the banks, which the Government guaranteed on behalf of this country, continue to charge sizeable interest despite the historically low interest rates. Surely, it would not have been too much to ask that these banks do some service to the State and to the suffering families by offering a penalty-free switching window for those on fixed rate mortgages. Instead of trying to relieve hard-pressed householders by driving a hard bargain on their behalf, the Government has cut costs and brought serious misery to people across this country who bought into their vision of the board game "Monopoly".

The Labour Party fully supports the policy of the provision of one year of free early child care to all children in the State and it is one we have backed for a long time, although not as a back door to cutting the early child care supplement. As Deputy Shortall pointed out, this may have been a sweetener when it was introduced but the reality now is that families have come to depend on it and it has become part of their standard budget. Cutting it will cause serious hardship for them. The new scheme is not established and the question is whether it will it be ready when the early child care supplement is abolished. Cutting the early child care supplement between now and the end of the year, as is due to happen, will only drive up costs for young families when crèche fees are increasing.

For those who have fallen on hard times the Bill is no saviour. The decision to cut rent allowance has been addressed by Deputy Shortall but a number of issues arise. The minimum contribution is being increased by 33% and the rent allowance is being reduced by 8% for existing claimants, with maximum claims for future tenants being reduced by between 6% and 10%. The decision to reduce payments by 8% is based on the assumption that landlords will have no choice but to reduce the rent charged by this amount but this is by no means certain.

In Dublin city, there are thousands of people on the housing list who are in receipt of rent allowance. They will not necessarily be able to take advantage of the cheap rents available in other parts of the country, nor will many of them be in a position to drive a bargain with a greedy landlord. They will be left at risk and vulnerable. Those who will be most affected by this decision will be those who need a large house and who may be relying on only one rent allowance to house a family of four, for example. The nightmare scenario is that these people could end up homeless. Instead of an arbitrary reduction in rent allowance we should have had reform and a move towards a system of support based on dependence. Instead the heavy hand of the Government has merely come down with a harsh and probably counterproductive decision, most likely to hurt those who can least afford it.

Another issue which my party will be raising in Private Members' time is the decision to cut the Christmas bonus to all social welfare recipients. I intend speaking on the motion, but suffice to say that while I know it does not need legislation and is not contained in the Bill, this is a sneaky and underhand move which will cause misery for many people at the most expensive time of year.

The decision to cut the jobseeker's allowance for under 20s to €100 is another poor decision. The Government's pedigree of such sweeping decisions is not good. No one wants people to graduate from school onto the dole. However, there must be opportunities for everyone and they must know those opportunities are available and the places exist. We have yet to be presented with a concrete plan to show that anyone under 20 who wants to continue in education or training will be able to do so. As the number of courses in the PLC colleges is capped, where are the places likely to arise? There is no certainty that everyone who wants to will have access to an appropriate course or training programme. I have already received e-mails on the capping on the number of places on PLCs which, of course, have been in place for a long time. It means that people who want to get onto those courses now will not be able to do so. I hope more concrete plans are in place in that regard.

The Social Welfare Bill offers nothing to protect the most vulnerable and does nothing to help people who have lost their jobs. Instead it seeks to reduce access to entitlements such as mortgage interest supplement or to scrap others such as the Christmas bonus and the early child care supplement. At the same time, those who profited most are being bailed out by NAMA.

A second budget in a single year is virtually unprecedented. Likewise a second Social Welfare Bill is virtually unprecedented, especially coming after the pensions levy that was imposed earlier this year. Two budgets and a pensions levy have stripped the taxpayer of a huge tranche of income in the past six months. One would have expected the Social Welfare Bill to go in the opposite direction and enhance the entitlements of social welfare recipients, the less well off, the unemployed, senior citizens and the children of the nation. However the opposite is the effect of the Bill. Either there is a reduction or a loss of social welfare entitlements or a few miserable crumbs are thrown in the direction of the growing legions of the unemployed.

The PRSI earnings ceiling is increased by 50% for employees. The jobseeker's allowance, supplementary welfare allowance schemes and the early child-care supplement are all addressed in the Social Welfare Bill in a negative way. There is a direct attack on young people who become unemployed by reducing their jobseeker's allowance to €100 per week, half what an adult over 20 is entitled to. The early child care supplement is more than halved to an annual €498 from 1 May 2009 and will be abolished on 1 January 2010. There is an increase in the rate of the health contribution as well as a lowering of the earnings threshold. Earnings emoluments and income are all aggregated for the purpose of calculation of the contribution. What a mean and miserable series of amendments to the social welfare code are contained in this Social Welfare Bill.

Unconscionably, mortgage interest relief for hard-pressed families, is abolished after seven years. The minimum contribution to rent supplement by a tenant has increased by a third in this budget, having already been increased in the previous budget in October. At the same time all existing rent supplement payments have been reduced by 8% on the somewhat questionable expectation that landlords will voluntarily decrease their rents. What will happen if landlords do not do so? What will the community welfare officers do about that? What instructions will the Minister give to ensure people are not evicted or become homeless? The Minister cannot just rely on the good will of landlords to reduce their rents in accordance with the provisions of the Social welfare Bill. It just does not happen like that in the real world.

The unkindest cut of all is the abolition of the Christmas bonus double payment for all social welfare recipients. This was the little bit extra that provided some cheer for hard-pressed families and allowed presents to be purchased for children to make Christmas a memorable time. It also provided senior citizens with that bit extra that helped provide a welcome buffer against increased heating bills, food and medical costs and a present for the grandchildren. Scrooge will once again stalk the family homes this Christmas. I received an e-mail on the matter from the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament and of course it will be discussed later in Private Members' time. It is more than 50 years since the Christmas bonus was introduced in 1955, particularly to benefit old-age pensioners. Naturally the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament is disgusted that such a measure should have been rescinded in the budget.

The security scheme for the elderly has been suspended by the Minister.

No, that is not my Department. It is the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

She has been ably aided and abetted by her Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. That scheme provided older people with personal alarms, security lighting, door locks etc. and was operated by voluntary groups. It is shameful that a couple of million euro would be cut off when it provided such a valuable service and peace of mind to so many elderly people.

The Minister for Finance has disproportionately attacked the low paid and middle earning taxpayers in the budget. Now the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has savaged the entitlements of those who have paid their dues while they worked but are now unfortunately unemployed through no fault of their own. The Government's answer to the economic crisis is to pile taxes and levies on the taxpayer and reduce the payments to the unemployed.

The Government has no vision, no leadership and nothing to offer. There is no strategy to keep working people in employment. There is no initiative to support firms who are experiencing operational and trading difficulties. There is no attempt to combine social welfare payments and part-time or reduced working hours or working days to keep a company afloat and maintain jobs. There is an unhealthy and dangerous obsession with the banks — guaranteeing recapitalising and supporting the toxic debts at home and abroad of all the Irish banks. At the same time the dysfunctional boardrooms of all these banks remain virtually unchanged.

Some 200,000 jobs have been lost in the past two years. If the small and medium-sized enterprise sector, which is haemorrhaging jobs at present, was supported in a holistic and integrated fashion by the Minister's colleagues, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, to see what interventions could be made to make credit flow available to those enterprises, which employ 50% of those employed and 64% of the entire private sector, there would be many fewer recipients of social welfare. However, there is no strategy to intervene and provide the necessary assistance or the credit flow which represents the lifeblood of those enterprises.

The Social Welfare Bill pays lip service to helping the 200,000 newly unemployed. A mere 25,000 places in welfare schemes of one sort or another for the unemployed are being provided, which is less than the average monthly job loss in recent months. As Deputy Upton said, the post leaving certificate courses have been capped. Very little can be done in that area unless they are uncapped. Courses have been capped also in the National College of Ireland in my constituency. Therefore, we cannot provide the courses that would be ideal for the unemployed, with various schemes aimed at retraining, upskilling and furthering their knowledge.

This is a very poor Social Welfare Bill. It adds further to the dismal contribution made in the budget by the Minister for Finance and will make for a dismal year for all social welfare recipients.

At this time of economic turmoil throughout the world, the fact that we have managed to maintain the majority of our welfare payments must be commended. Nobody involved in public life likes making changes, particularly to the welfare system which affects people's standard of living on a daily basis and their prospects for future improvement. In the current crisis every effort must be made to protect the most vulnerable in society. In order for us to do this, all sections of society must adapt and adjust to the times in which we find ourselves.

In the past decade successive Governments have managed to improve people's living standards, whether they were working, unemployed, old-age pensioners or on illness or invalidity benefit. Rates of payment have increased yearly for many years, while waiting times in processing claims and appeals have reduced year on year. The efficiency of the Department of Social and Family Affairs has improved over time, due in particular to the use of technology. We have seen a rapid and dramatic increase in the number of claimants. This increase is unprecedented in such a short period of time and is due to a number of factors, including the increase in the population and the new communities who have come here in recent years to take advantage of the progress made in the economy. We must take these issues into consideration when dealing with our current problems. The Bill goes some way towards doing this.

The number on the live register at the end of February 2008 was approximately 190,000. This figure increased by 165,000, or 87%, to 355,000, approximately, at the end of February this year. As the Minister stated, these numbers represent families and individuals who must deal with the spectre of unemployment. This is shocking for them. Having worked in an employment exchange I have seen at first hand the effect of having to seek social welfare assistance for the first time on people who have been employed and had a certain standard of living. Having to go through that experience is extremely traumatic. Every effort has been and is being made to ensure those experiencing unemployment for the first time are given priority and dealt with as efficiently and sensitively as possible. The increase in staffing in the Department and the reallocation of resources are designed to ensure this happens. Behind the figures and statistics there are families and individuals who must be catered and cared for. It is said a society can be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members. Every effort is being made to look after the vulnerable.

Despite the remarkable increase and the speed of the increase in the numbers looking for social welfare payments, the system cannot change overnight. It must adapt and be adapted. All that can be done is being done in order that the resources available will be used properly and efficiently to ensure as quick a turnaround as possible and to ensure those most in need are provided with the basic means to live from day to day. Some of the changes required are being made in this legislation. The Minister has pointed out that, putting aside borrowing, the social welfare expenditure provided for in the budget is expected to account for 60% of anticipated Exchequer current revenue from tax and other sources. This is a significant amount of money. We will spend almost €22 billion this year on our welfare system. There are not many countries of the size of Ireland that are either willing to do, or capable of doing, the same. Credit must be given for the fact that we will maintain the system in the current climate.

Some hard decisions had to be made in the the current economic environment. Nobody in public life likes making harsh decisions that affect people on a daily basis. The decisions made on the welfare system by the Department were not taken lightly or easily, but they were made in the best interests of ensuring the resources we have available and can provide are used fairly and efficiently to ensure those who need help most receive it.

Some of the changes to be made are to the rent supplement scheme. For many years high rents have been paid to landlords for substandard accommodation, as I have seen in my constituency. Advantage has been taken of people in the market. Some of the changes proposed in the legislation will ensure landlords take their responsibilities seriously and take account of the changes taking place in the rental market. Rents are changing daily. The Department must ensure those landlords receiving rent supplement on behalf of tenants provide an adequate standard of accommodation at a reasonable price. The market will dictate this and the changes being made in the legislation will ensure it will happen. It is in the interests of tenants that standards improve and rents are adequate and fair in the current economic environment. Housing authorities, particularly in major cities, are not in a position to provide emergency or short-term rental accommodation. The only alternative, therefore, is for the State to step in and provide people with the means to find accommodation. Some of the changes being proposed in the Bill will ensure standards and the efficiency of the rental supplement system will improve.

It is also proposed to increase the minimum contribution made by individuals and families towards their rent. One of the reported impediments to the transfer of rent supplement claimants to the rental accommodation scheme is the significant difference between the contribution required of the tenant under the rent supplement scheme and that which they are required to pay under the differential rent scheme. This has been an issue. I understand from the Minister's contribution that a commitment has been given to ensure there will be a transfer of a significant number, up to 1,000 people, to the rental accommodation scheme. While this system has been slow in taking off and difficult to implement in some areas, it will prove itself in time. Co-operation is needed from landlords to ensure the system is successful. The onus is on local authorities to ensure the rental accommodation available is adequate, of a decent standard and at a decent price. Some of the changes proposed in the Bill will ensure that will happen.

New measures to improve processing times for claims are being introduced, including a streamlined process for those who have made a claim in the previous two years.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share