I wish to make a contribution, but Deputy Shortall was in possession.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Second Stage (Resumed)
The following motion was moved by the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, on Wednesday, 16 June 2010:
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
Dáil Eireann declines to give a second reading to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 having regard to the failure of the Government to ensure that measures to activate jobseekers and lone parents have been backed up by genuine job opportunities and access to quality training, education and literacy improvement, child care, and relevant health supports, and further expresses concern that without these measures the cuts in support levels may simply have the effect of further impoverishing people who are already on subsistence levels of income.
—(Deputy Róisín Shortall).
Very good. Deputy Shortall had only about three minutes left.
I am pleased to be able to speak on this Bill. The Minister for Social Protection is making important reforms to the social welfare system. My only disappointment with the legislation is that it is not part of a wider reform package, although I know this is under way and the Minister is doing much work in this regard. The public, and recipients of social welfare, are crying out for this type of reform.
Social welfare assistance must be seen as an opportunity rather than an end in itself. It must be a means to reach the objective of employment, so that people can improve their participation in the State, as citizens, and in the economy. Whatever benefit a person is on, apart from the old age pension, the expectation must be that it will at some stage lead to something better and more productive in terms of the economy. This will benefit the person concerned even more, as he or she will be able to enjoy a higher standard of living.
The Minister has introduced important proposals for jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. In section 17 — this is one of the key provisions——
On a point of order, Members were delayed by the Minister for Social Protection at the Select Committee on Social and Family Affairs. We tried to leave.
I was aware the Deputy was the speaker in possession, with three minutes left, but unfortunately——
I am more than happy to yield to the Deputy. I indicated to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that Deputy Shortall was in possession.
If the House is agreeable, the Deputy may yield to Deputy Shortall. Alternatively, Deputy Shortall may want a few minutes to get her breath back, and I could call her after Deputy Byrne.
If Deputy Shortall wishes to make some other arrangement, that is fine.
I would like to make my contribution.
Will I call the Deputy now or after Deputy Byrne?
After Deputy Byrne.
Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The Deputy might note that I did indicate that she was in possession.
Section 17 provides for a reduced rate of payment to jobseeker's allowance claimants under certain circumstances, including where a claimant refuses to participate, without good cause, in a course of training or measures under the national employment action plan. Modest reductions are proposed for people in those circumstances. This is an excellent proposition against which I cannot see any recipient of jobseeker's allowance arguing. However, it confers an obligation on the Government to ensure that training and other measures are provided to recipients of jobseeker's allowance. If they are to have the chance to accept such offers of training, the training must be there. It is absolutely reasonable that persons over the age of 24 who refuse such reasonable offers will see a reduction of €46 in their allowance, while those aged 22 to 24 will see a reduction of €35 and those aged 18 to 21 will see a reduction of €25. It further emphasises the Government's obligation to provide the training and activation relevant to the beneficiaries of jobseeker's allowance. I cannot see how any reasonable person would disagree with the proposition made by the Minister. Section 17 provides for specific disqualification where a person refuses an offer of suitable employment. That is reasonable and I am not sure anyone can find difficulty with it. The problem is that the suitable offers of employment may not be made. It is important we have a welfare system that will be of benefit to the economy and welfare beneficiaries in the future as well as at present. The Minister must cut back at the moment even though he does not want to do so. Who would want to be in the position of cutting social welfare? I have often made that comment in committees and in the Dáil Chamber. No one wants to do so but we want to achieve best value. The recipients must also receive best value and opportunity. This must be at the heart of the debate.
I see lone parents every time I hold a clinic. Most Deputies have the same experience because lone parents are more likely than most sectors of society to be in poverty or to have social problems or difficulties. Most lone parents do an heroic job against the odds and I will never sit in judgment on single mothers and I condemn those who do. However, that does not mean the Minister's proposal is not reasonable or beneficial to society and the families.
I commend the Oireachtas Library & Research Service on the fantastic research on this legislation. This is one of the best items of research we have received and all are of a very high standard. I commend the researcher. OECD figures show that 56.5% of one parent families in Ireland were not working in 2007 whereas the OECD average was 37%. That is a stark figure that must be borne in mind and it relates to 2007, when we had full employment. The Labour Party often told us the root cause of the difficulties in Ireland is unemployment. If we examine the OECD figures presented by the Oireachtas Library & Research Service, the problem with one parent families is that the parent is not working or cannot work for whatever reason. This may be because of a poverty trap created by the social welfare system, lack of motivation to work — which I am not sure about — or the lack of child care facilities. We cannot stand over our record. Countries such as the United States do not have fantastic social services or child care services yet only 23% of lone parents do not work, which is half of the rate in Ireland. I refer to countries that are less developed than Ireland in respect of social services, such as Spain. I do not know what additional services or protection the UK has. Scandinavian countries have vastly superior services but they pay for that with their taxes. Time and again the Irish people have told us they do not want to do that. Any party that supports an increase in tax, for whatever purpose, will not benefit.
The Minister is trying to encourage work. Whenever a proposition like this is made, some of the voices of complaint claim we will leave lone parent families without any payment but that is not true. It applies when the children grow older. The change gives the payment for the status of one parent family and now the payment will be made in return for jobseeker's allowance. We will encourage people to work. It is critically important that it is done.
We have a good model of community child care in our towns and villages and the Government has supported this over the years. To comment that the Government was going to let 13-year-olds sit at home on their own while we force their lone parents to go to work was not fair. It is not reflective of the Government's position. Ireland has a record of lone parents not working that we cannot stand over and we must get these people out to work if employment is available.
What is the answer to that?
Deputy Shortall made a number of good suggestions that I have since discussed with the Minister. There needs to be reform of rent supplement. I agree with the measures implemented by the Minister last week. Deputy Shortall made a further case for reform and I will ask the Minister to examine this reasonable proposal. I also seek reform of the back to education allowance. Hopefully the Minister will make an announcement on this in the near future. The same applies to the mortgage supplement. No one can stand over the system of mortgage supplement. I urge the Minister to change this. Whatever changes the Minister makes, and I hope they are radical and to the benefit of the country and people in receipt of social welfare, he will be opposed by Fine Gael and the Labour Party. That is guaranteed. Even if the Minister proposes exactly what Deputy Shortall has suggested today, he can be guaranteed that some lobby group will express disagreement and the Labour Party — no lobby group left behind — will oppose the Minister.
There is no chance of that.
However, I and Fianna Fáil will support further reforms of social welfare to cut costs and to give people better opportunities in life and a sense of hope that they will be able to exit from welfare dependency.
I understand an arrangement has been arrived at in respect of Deputy Shortall's speaking time. There is no provision for a Member to speak twice on a debate but, in view of the fact that the arrangement has been agreed, we will allow it this time. However, it is important not to see this as precedent setting.
I appreciate that. The reason I was late in arriving was that the Minister was attempting to force through an Estimate at the committee without debate. That is why I was delayed.
That is not accurate.
That is not the way to do business, where a social welfare Bill is being debated in the Chamber and Estimates are being debated in committee.
Sections 15 and 20 introduce new measures that undermine the independence of the social welfare appeals office. Section 15 makes all decisions of the chief appeals officer appealable by the Minister to the High Court. What is the point in having a chief appeals officer if the Minister can decide to challenge his or her ruling? The previous Minister strangled the Combat Poverty Agency to death. In section 15 the new Minister is muzzling the social welfare appeals office. Section 20 allows the Minister to appoint any person at his or her discretion to become an appeals officer. I recognise the need for additional appeals officers because the delays in the appeals system are undoubtedly costing the State money. However, the wording of the Bill allows the Minister to appoint anyone at his discretion, not just retired appeals officers. This is wide open to abuse. Under the wording used, the appointee could be a political aide, a person with a vested interest or someone with no background in social welfare. The appointment is particularly open to cronyism by a Minister leaving office. It further undermines the independence of the social welfare appeals office. The Minister should change legislation to put the office on a statutory basis and guarantee its independence. The Labour Party will table an amendment in this regard.
I hope the Minister read the recent Forfás report on youth unemployment. There are many lessons to be learned in it. There is a need for a national guarantee of training, education or work for every unemployed young person. The detail of the lack of educational achievement is the key to tackling the problem of youth unemployment. That must be addressed. The Labour Party will seek to amend the payment of child benefit so that both parents can receive the payment split between them where both have custody and both maintain the child.
The National Youth Council of Ireland expressed concern about the proposal in respect of young jobseekers. Those aged between 18 and 19 years are currently in receipt of €100 a week. In the case where they do not take up a reasonable offer of employment or education, their benefit will be reduced by €25 week. This decreases further as the jobseeker's age increases. These changes were made on top of cuts for young jobseekers introduced as a result of the past two budgets. Is the Government really saying the strategy for youth unemployment is to cut income support to €75 week?
It is a far more complex issue and needs a much greater and thought through response.
I call Deputy Seymour Crawford. The Deputy from Cavan-Monaghan has 20 minutes if he wishes to exercise them.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is clear there must be new structures and changes in the area of social welfare from time to time and I agree there must be a keen watch to ensure that young people are encouraged towards rather than away from employment. However, in page 2 of his speech, the Minister referred to the other jurisdiction, Northern Ireland, in order to make comparison with its social welfare schemes. I have no problem with that but we must also check on the other supports that exist there. For example, the medical card is not an issue in Northern Ireland because there is a free health service but in this jurisdiction that can be a major problem for a young person on social welfare at a low level whose parents do not have a medical card. We must be clear what we compare and whether we compare like with like.
I came across a figure the other day which I mentioned in committee earlier, namely, the fact that 7,000 young people who were in the apprenticeship system have been made redundant. That is a major issue and one we cannot ignore. It is all right to talk about rectifying this by social welfare but we must have a planned structure for young people who want to find employment and have a skill in order to proceed into the workforce whenever jobs become available or, if they must emigrate, that at least they will have some kind of certificate in order to find a job at a certain level. When we talk about encouraging young people back into the workforce by means of cuts in social welfare we must look at the alternatives we offer them and see whether we are making a real effort. A total of 7,164 apprentices have been made redundant since 2008, a figure provided in this House by the Tánaiste and Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Coughlan. We cannot ignore such figures and must ensure that these young people are helped in whatever way possible and that they get alternatives. I appreciate it is a result of the end of the construction boom that jobs no longer exist for plumbers, electricians, etc, but surely the Government and the Department must find ways of dealing with this type of crisis involving young people.
Job creation is vital. In my constituency, in County Monaghan, 400 jobs were created by outside companies in past years despite the fact that we suffered serious problems over a 30 year period, with the Troubles in Northern Ireland. These have been over for the past ten or 15 years but no effort has been made to bring about outside employment so that young people in the area who are highly educated get an opportunity to stay there. I hear middle-aged parents talk about seeing their sons and daughters on Skype in Australia, New Zealand, Dubai and such countries simply because we have allowed 100,000 young people, at minimum, leave during the past two years. At present we do not seem to have any alternative.
It is fine to bring in this Bill to curtail costs with, as stated in sections 17 and 18, a reduction of €46 for those aged over 24 years of age, €35 for those aged 24, and €25 for those aged 18-21. Many from those age groups come to me, as I am sure they come to every constituency office, under severe pressure and not knowing where they will get the next penny because they cannot find jobs although they want to work. If those people apply over and over for jobs and go to their social welfare office showing documentation — if they can get it from the employers — to prove they have tried to get jobs, unsuccessfully, it is not fair they should be cut off. There must be a balance so that we do not force people into certain situations. We do not like to talk about suicide but when one looks at areas such as County Leitrim at present one must accept that some of the suicides in that county are linked to economic problems. Although there are suicides in my own county, the figure is not to the same extent, thank God, and one wants to ensure this does not happen.
On several occasions, I raised the issue of the self-employed and farm assist and the problems the people concerned have in getting payments at a reasonable rate. There is a note about farm assist and spouses in the Bill. Section 4 provides for an amendment to the definition of spouse to include different sex cohabitants or couples as spouses for the purpose of farm assist and pre-retirement allowances.
With all due respect, the big problems with farm assist are first, that those who deal with it do not seem to understand farming and, second, there has been a real loss to the farmer. This was especially the case in 2009, which was extraordinary. In case the Minister does not believe me, independent Teagasc figures state the average drop in farm income over the two and a half year period was 40%. In areas such as mine, Cavan-Monaghan and Leitrim, etc, where land structures are difficult and the weather was extraordinary, the drop in income was much more dramatic and yet the figures, issued by the Department today in committee, show that the level of money spent on farm assist has not increased dramatically and that numbers have increased by less than 700. Major questions have to be asked, not about the spouse issue but about the actual structures being used to allow people such as farmers and others who are self-employed to get their just cause.
There is a young family whose case I have quoted several times. Last June, the family's application was shown to give them an income of €6.50 for a husband, wife and two children. That case has been on appeal since and the family still has not had any outcome. We tried to get a review of the case but it has not brought about any change. I can tell the Minister, from my own farm experience, that the milk cheques to that farm were down by one third while the meal bills and everything else were up dramatically but the reviewers could not see that. Yet we are talking about spouses of different sexes. Where are we going? It is crazy. We must get down to reality and ensure that people like this are allowed to survive. That is all we ask.
Another young farmer was getting €14.60, or some such figure. In January when the budget was implemented he was handed €2 across the counter.
Another young farmer getting €14.60 went in the day after the budget last January and he was handed €2. That was the cut he received in his farm assist. I could go on and on. It is so annoying and so perplexing.
I have seen grown people cry due to the extraordinary pressure they are under. They have to go to co-operatives and elsewhere to get money in advance to put food on their table. While I agree that we need to have clear structures and clear systems in place, these figures show that what I have been saying for the last 12 months was 100% correct. The increased numbers for the farm assist scheme were limited and the budget did not increase significantly, in spite of the fact that the income to farmers was down 40%. No other group would accept that situation and it was no different for those that had been in the building industry and found themselves without any jobs at all. One family received €390 per week from January 2009 until February of this year, but without any consultation, that was suddenly cut to €97. It is crazy. The man in that family simply does not have an income.
The back to work allowance is extremely important and the second last figure referred to the need for change in this area. There certainly is a need for change because if we are to encourage people, we must allow them back to work as quickly as possible. Some changes have to be made to the amount of time a person must be on the dole to receive that allowance, in light of the fact that we are cutting social welfare benefits. The quicker we can get people back to work, the less danger there is of them becoming long-term unemployed.
About 900 staff have accepted redundancy offers at the Quinn group on a phased basis over the next few months. Promises were made that a great back-up service would be given to them, and to be fair, they were given advice at their place of work. I came across one case the other day in which the person involved wants to go back to education. There are all sorts of difficulties in the way that person's grants are structured and so on. In extraordinary situations like that, everything should be done to ensure people get their chance to go back to education and that they do not have to be on the dole for six months, as that would not be fair. Some of these people took redundancy because they wanted to go back to education. One of them had only been working for four years, had a basic degree, but wanted to go further in education, so it is important that we give such people every encouragement to do that.
There are around 440,000 people unemployed at the moment. This means there has been a major increase in the demand for back to work clothing, footwear and so on. I have heard through the grapevine that there may be a major problem in community welfare offices in having people there to issue the cheques to parents. If that is the case, it is absolutely crazy. It was raised in national newspapers that people who are well connected had been given jobs in other counties, but it seems that the difficulty to which I referred still exists in County Monaghan.
I have spoken about the appeals structure to the Minister and he has promised that extra people will be brought into the system to ensure that appeals are heard more quickly. I question how well advised are the people conducting the appeals. If they do not understand the situation themselves, the social welfare inspectors who made the first decision will be much better educated and much more able to put forward their case than, say, farmers who need the support but who would not have such knowledge. It is absolutely vital that whoever the Minister appoints to these positions, they are people with a background knowledge so that they can be capable of doing a proper and just job straight away. We cannot stand over a situation where appeals are not being heard for more than 12 months, as is the case at the moment.
Deputy Shortall spoke about the power given to the Minister under section 15 to appeal a decision of the chief appeals officer to the High Court on a point of law. I hope the Minister will try to work in favour of the person that needed the social welfare and that it will not be used to get at somebody, but I worry about a person of political standing getting involved in something like that. When the Minister is summing up, perhaps he can explain what he is trying to do in this section, because it is quite worrying.
Where young unemployed people do not take a job or a course, they are penalised. There are 3,500 people in Cavan looking to get into a third level college in the county next year, but there are only 1,200 spaces available. What happens the other 2,300 who will not be able to get into those places? Will they be considered or will they lose money because places are not provided? From talking to representatives of the VEC in Cavan, I understand that they are in a position to rent some of its buildings and make sure that spaces are available. There are also many teachers available and we need to look at cases like these very carefully. When people are eager to receive education, it is important to ensure they get an opportunity.
Some changes have been made to rent allowance. I support the need for changes in that area. We have a great number of houses lying idle in half built estates all over the country. Through the NAMA structures or whatever, efforts must be made to ensure those houses are made available at the minimum cost to the State. The State has spent enough money on NAMA already. Nevertheless, it is hard to justify providing high rent allowance to so many people when there are so many houses lying idle at minimum value.
We have heard tell of personnel in the financial services speaking about taking bulldozers and levelling down some of these estates because they are not needed. They may not be in the right place but they need to be looked at very carefully to ensure that people are housed at the minimum possible cost. It would be much better for families if they were in a house of their own in that type of structure. I fully understand why efforts had to be made to curtail the cost of social welfare but I ask that the Minister be sure that a genuine effort is made on job creation and education to minimise the numbers in long-term unemployment.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I listened with interest to the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, when he outlined the main provisions of this important Bill. The work of the Department of Social Protection impacts on almost every person in the State. It is a proactive Department, and I am very familiar with its working, as is every Deputy, because of the amount of queries and contact we have with it on a daily basis. In addition to its income support responsibilities, the Department is also actively engaged in co-operation with a range of other Departments and agencies in supporting those who are unemployed, lone parents and people with disabilities and providing them with opportunities to get back to work. It is also involved in education and training to assist them to participate fully in society.
I mentioned lone parents, and this afternoon I wish to speak to the proposed changes in this area. What struck me in particular is the fact that statistics show that many lone parents still live in poverty. This is despite significant State spending by successive Governments and Fianna Fáil Ministers in the recent past. As well as improvements made to one parent family payments over the years we also had a substantial increase in child benefit allowance and other allowances. However, the latest EU figures show that in 2008, 17.8% of lone parents experienced consistent poverty compared to 3% of two parent households and 4.2% of the population as a whole.
The cost of one parent families has significantly increased in recent years. In 2009 it was €1.12 billion, an increase from €835 million in 2006 and €338 million in 1997. When other related supports and entitlements are taken into account, including child benefit, rent supplement and family income supplement, the total expenditure in this area is more than €2 billion per year. It amazes me that after all the investment we still speak about lone parents being in a cycle of poverty. We have to change the way we assist them and improve their quality of life.
In general, we all agree that the best route out of poverty is through paid employment and it is recognised that work, particularly full-time work, may not be an option for parents of young children. However, it is believed that supporting parents to participate in the labour market once their children have reached the appropriate age will improve their economic situation and social well-being and those of their family.
The current arrangements, whereby a lone parent can receive the one parent family payment until the child is aged 18, or 22 if in full-time education, without any requirement for them to engage in employment, education or training, are not in the best interests of the parent, the children or society. Under the new proposals, the one parent family payment will be paid until the youngest child in the family reaches the age of 13. The 2006 Government discussion paper on supporting lone parents originally proposed continuing the parental allowance until the youngest child reaches seven years of age. The Minister and the Department consider that 13 years of age is a more appropriate age for this change, and the need for child care lessens from that age.
The requirements in the United Kingdom will change in October, whereby lone parents will required to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of seven instead of the present cut-off age of ten. In Norway, Sweden, Germany and Italy there is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches the age of three.
The cut-off age of 13 is probably a bit too young. The Minister made the point that child care is probably less needed but a youngster of 13 still needs some form of child care rather than coming home to find his or her parent is out working. The age should be increased to 15 or 16 years. Will the Minister seriously look at increasing it to junior certificate standard of education? Many junior certificate students are approximately 15 years of age. From knowing young people in my area they require a certain amount of guidance and support at 13 years of age rather than coming home to find no one in the house.
I am not against what the Minister is doing if it will improve the quality of life and the standard of living for lone parents. Deputy Crawford made a point about the houses throughout the country which are lying idle. Many lone parents live in rented accommodation and some of the rent they pay is exorbitant. There are unscrupulous landlords who, if they know a lone parent is in receipt of rent allowance, tend to seek high rent from them. The lone parent must then try to make up the difference between the rent allowance and the amount sought by the landlord. This causes a certain amount of poverty also and is an area which the Minister needs to examine.
If the Minister is to implement these major changes, and he spoke about getting people back to work and onto training courses, FÁS schemes and post leaving certificate courses, it is important to have adequate availability of these courses. I am not sure that some FÁS courses being run at present are relevant to lone parents. There is a need for specially designed courses relevant to job opportunities available. The Minister spoke about the social inclusion model and this is important. Recently, I had discussions with the new chairman of FÁS, Michael Dempsey, and pointed out to him the need for a new way of thinking in FÁS, to design courses not only for lone parents but for every sector of society to reflect the job potential in an area. There is no point in training carpenters, brickies and roofers at present because the building industry is not thriving. It is important that FÁS examines other areas.
In my home town, Enniscorthy Vocational College provides post leaving certificate courses attended by numerous lone parents and married mothers. Its capacity is 300 even though this year it had some 500 applications. It may be an area the Minister for Education and Skills can examine. Some of the budget FÁS now has could be transferred for extra PLC courses in the vocational sector. People could go on to do hairdressing, child care, beauty care and all of the different courses that are provided. The principal of the school to whom I recently spoke told me he had 60 applications for hairdressing but only 30 places. It is an area which could be examined. Rather than paying people jobseekers allowance or whatever other allowances are in place, they should be entitled to get jobseekers allowance and go on training courses such as FÁS or PLC courses.
The other area the Minister needs to examine is how people can go from social welfare to a part-time or temporary job for one, two or three months, and then return to social welfare. As Deputy Connaughton and the Minister of State know, if one gets a job for two or three months and then one wants to return to social welfare, one is put through the process. The social welfare inspector has to call out and more than likely one will end up with the appeals officer and will not get an appeal for six months. There should be more flexibility in that area.
When I tell people a job is available for three or four months they say if they take it they will not receive social welfare. One should be able to take a part-time or temporary job and receive social welfare again without the rigmarole of the social welfare officer calling out to assess one in one's home, etc. If one is not there when he or she calls, the assessment cannot be done and it is likely the officer will accuse one of working or doing some illegal operation in the employment area. It goes on and on. This is something the Minister needs to examine.
The late Séamus Brennan introduced a pre-retirement scheme. When one reached 57 years of age one received a pre-retirement booklet and did not have to sign every week. When we had almost full employment in the good times the then Minister decided to abolish the scheme. I ask the Minister to consider reintroducing it for people aged 60 years of age and older because the chances of people of that age acquiring a job in the current climate are low. They should not have to go to the local exchange every week or month to sign on. They should be put on a pre-retirement scheme. If they find a job, that is well and good and they can leave the scheme, but people aged 61 or 62 should not be dragged through the local social welfare office.
Anybody who is 60 years of age and is on a FÁS scheme should be left on the scheme until he or she reaches retirement age or can receive the old age pension. I know several people in my area who were on FÁS schemes at 62 and 63 years of age who were let go and told that their two or three years had expired. They returned to the non-work environment. They had been doing tremendous work in the local community with the local parish council or whatever and all of a sudden they were dumped back onto the dole queue with no focus in life. For the life of me, I cannot see why we cannot continue to keep such people on a FÁS scheme because they will be paid social welfare payments for doing nothing. This is another area which should be examined.
I ask the Minister to also examine the appeals system. He announced that he has taken on a number of retired appeals officers to try to speed up the appeals system. I do not know the situation in the rest of the country but in Wexford it takes from six to nine months for a person to acquire an appeal. It is not acceptable in this day and age when so many people are losing their jobs, are not being approved by social welfare inspectors and then have to appeal to have to wait six or nine months. I would not bring back retired appeals officers. There are enough professional people at the current time who are unemployed. We all know there are solicitors, qualified nurses and accountants and others with professional qualifications who are not able to get a job and who would be able to carry out the duties of an appeals officer for six or nine months. The Minister's point is that a retired appeals officer will know the ropes and be able to make a decision but it would not be a major effort to train a person to be an appeals officer and the Minister should seriously consider giving unemployed people an opportunity to acquire such temporary jobs.
I am glad the Minister has taken on some of the areas of FÁS. I am sure he will have a major input and is examining ways of developing a more flexible system and how one can get organisations, groups and sporting clubs to take on unemployed people and include them in the same type of scheme as a FÁS scheme. The local GAA club or organisation would pay the difference between the payments from social welfare and FÁS. I welcome that move on the part of the Minister. It is a more flexible way of looking after people who are on social welfare and would allow them to enter FÁS or community schemes.
People on jobseekers benefit should be allowed to sign up for courses. People have told me they signed up for courses only to be told by staff at their local exchange offices that they could not attend them because they would not be available for work. It is better to have people attending courses from which they may get a qualification which will increase their chances of getting employment down the road than having them sit at home every day and get €188 in jobseekers allowance. I have spoken to the Minister about this and he is seriously examining how we can have more flexibility in that area.
The Minister is also taking over the rural social employment scheme which is being availed of by rural GAA clubs and sporting organisations. My club in Enniscorthy, an urban setting, has a person who in is receipt of farm assist payments and is doing a great job. I ask the Minister to increase the numbers on the rural social employment scheme and make sure that people who are in receipt of farm assist payments are able to get opportunities in their local communities, GAA or soccer clubs or local sporting organisations.
I wish to raise another issue before I conclude, namely, that of people with special needs. When the Minister refers to 13 years of age as the cut-off point — I suggested it should be 15 or 16 years — he stated that under the reform scheme there also will be special provision for families with children in respect of whom domiciliary care allowance is paid. Will he clarify that further? A lot of people are not in receipt of domiciliary care allowance but because they have special needs they need one parent to look after them. A special needs child could reach the age of 13 and the payment could be cut off under the Minister's regulation. That special needs person might not be in receipt of a domiciliary care allowance. It is very difficult to get that allowance from the HSE at the current time. However, they would still be regarded as special needs children requiring constant care and attention from their parents. I ask the Minister to provide in the legislation for an increase in the age limit to 15 or 16 where medical evidence indicates that the child requires constant care and attention. It is important that the Bill be flexible in this regard because legislation is often too rigid. We have seen in the case of special tax rates on adapted cars for persons with disabilities that it is difficult to qualify if one does not meet the threshold of missing two arms or legs despite having strong medical evidence of need. I am the parent of a child in a wheelchair and, while I was able to get a domiciliary care allowance at one stage, I am aware of many others who were unable to qualify.
While I welcome the Bill, I feel strongly that the 13 year cut-off is too low and should be increased to 15 or 16 years, or junior certificate stage. I recognise that other countries have different policies but we in Ireland have always prided ourselves on being a caring society. It is important that we maintain this caring attitude by considering an increase in the age limit.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010, although I would need two hours to address it in its entirety. It is an important Bill because, unfortunately for all our sakes, 440,000 people are unemployed. Social welfare was never more relevant to the lives of our citizens than today. In all my time in politics, I never met anybody who wanted to be on social welfare. In the part of the world from which I come, people would prefer to get a part-time job or training. That should be the central principle of this type of legislation.
I agree with some aspects of the Bill but I wish to raise a matter which it does not directly address. I cannot understand why certain anomalies have not been fixed over the past two years. One of these relates to the eligibility assessment for jobseeker's assistance for the self-employed. Last Saturday, I met two constituents who did not know the location of the social welfare in their area. They were lucky in the past that they never needed to know where it was located.
One of the individuals was a small-scale builder who four or five years ago had to employ an additional labour unit to do the books because his business was going well. He employed his wife, as he was entitled to do under the legislation, and kept his contributions up to date. Unfortunately, the business began to fail and the time came when there was just enough work to keep the husband employed. The wife applied for jobseeker's benefit but was refused on the grounds that her husband was a sole trader. I previously raised this issue in a parliamentary question because I find it difficult to understand. The official rationale is that the wife is statutorily excluded. In case somebody claims this is an internal family matter or questions whether the job in fact existed, there is clear evidence that the job existed, that contributions were paid and that the wife was actively seeking employment. The remarkable aspect of this story is that a partner, son or daughter would not be ruled ineligible. If that is not discrimination against a married couple, I do not know what is. I have encountered five or six similar cases in Galway East and I ask the Minister to address the issue.
There appears to be a bias against self-employed people who have no income. I know of one small-scale builder who did reasonably well in the best of times, although he never employed more than two people, and like every other family around the country took out a mortgage to buy his family home. However, he was also building half a house and had to take out a large mortgage to do so. One would think that the half house would help his assessment because of the mortgage but under the method of calculation used for social welfare payments, it was regarded as an asset. I do not doubt the house will become an asset some day, at which point it can be sold for money. This person should not be entitled to social welfare on the basis of the house but it is not making money and, as his wife said last week, the family cannot eat a brick from it. Social welfare benefits should be closely tracked to ensure they are not paid to people who should not get them but an asset that cannot be converted into an income should be taken into account. The asset should be noted on the claim with a view to revisiting the issue within one year. If the building has been completed, let or sold in the interim, a new assessment should be made. People want income from social welfare now, however, and this provision is causing havoc.
The further information sought in this area alone requires applicants to consult auditors, accountants and so forth. In most cases, the applicants owe their accountants money and cannot obtain further information from them.
In one household with four children, the family's only income is a disability payment of €210. The Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, was born and reared in the same part of the world as me. She should try to rear four children on €210 per week.
I have made a practical proposal to change the social welfare code. Checks and balances are in place to ensure people are not in receipt of a payment to which they are not entitled. I note the Minister, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív who introduced the rural social scheme, has entered the Chamber. I expect a major expansion in the scheme, which does everything right for everyone at every level.
Accessing social welfare is akin to climbing Mount Everest. It is a matter of scaling the obstacles placed in the way of those who, through no fault of their own, have been forced out of employment and into reliance on the Department of Social Protection.
I am pleased to note my colleague, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, is present. Of the 440,000 unemployed in the State, almost 16,000 of them reside in the Longford-Westmeath constituency I and the Deputy share. More than 5,000 of them are in County Longford and more than 10,000 in County Westmeath. This is a significant number of people in a sparsely populated, rural constituency.
The social welfare system does everything possible to defer to the latest possible moment, payments which are entitlements rather than hand-outs. This approach increases the stress and economic hardship of those who are the unwilling victims of the Government's mismanagement of recent years. The Bill will increase that hardship.
While it is important to encourage claimants to engage in training or participate in programmes under the national employment action plan, it is extremely punitive to reduce the jobseeker's allowance, which is already set at a subsistence rate, as the Government did in the most recent budget. The argument from the Taoiseach and Minister for Social Protection that the new rules, in particular the rule pertaining to the qualifying age for the one parent family payment which will no longer be paid when a child reaches 13 years, are part of an anti-poverty policy rather than cost-cutting measures is about as ludicrous as one could hear from this shameful and heartless Government. Given the ever widening rich-poor divide under the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government, the justification of such a position is lost on me and many others. Let us call a spade a spade and a cost-cutting measure a cost-cutting measure. Cloaking the new rules in the guise of an anti-poverty measure is, even by the standard of the Government's spin, a highly unusual social welfare theory.
On reading the Bill, I could not but be reminded of the expression, "the deserving poor". The English poor law, which was extended to Ireland in 1838, was viewed by the British as a cost-effective means of coping with the high level of poverty in Ireland. Unfortunately, there was a perception that many of the so-called poor were not poor and, therefore, assistance would only be given to "the deserving poor".
When one goes back further to 1563 we find that the poor were divided into three different categories, namely, those who would work but could not to do so, those who could work but would not do so and those who were too old, young or ill to work. Although a basic approach, it was nonetheless effective for the time. I hoped that we had advanced a little since the 16th century, if not by making "cradle to the grave" provision, at least by making an equitable level of provision. Such provision is absent in the Bill and the Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government has not advanced much beyond the 16th century. It is extremely upsetting for those who work in the area of social provision and those in receipt of social assistance that retrograde steps are included in the Bill. Not surprisingly, the legislation has been described by many as "heartless".
There has been a major shift among welfare states in recent years as countries move from adherence to cradle to the grave provision and passive labour measures to active labour measures. While this new departure is in many ways a positive development, it must be tempered to the social and economic climate. This change of direction has resulted in a move from passive measures — in a broad sense, the provision of income supports — to active measures which encourage claimants to enter the workforce through the utilisation of various policy tools. While this is a welcome move, the decision to time such policies to coincide with a period of recession is debatable.
Promotion of work activation involves the use of measures which aim to activate claimants to enter the workforce or engage in education or training through support, encouragement or obligation. The obligation element is worrying in this time of recession. I am in favour of people returning to work as quickly as possible but social provision has been fraught with pitfalls for those entitled to assistance. While such limitations may mean an Exchequer saving, I question whether they are well timed.
Schemes such as the back to education allowance introduced in 1990 and back to work allowance introduced in 1993 gave the unemployed an opportunity to work or study while retaining some payments and benefits for a specified period. In a positive move made in 1994 some leeway was introduced in the then lone parent's allowance when the retention of benefits was permitted in cases where a recipient found employment. These positive moves stand in stark contrast to the punitive measure introduced against lone parents in the Bill.
Supposed activation of various age banded young unemployed people resulted in FÁS interviews and proposals that they be given an option of training, education, employment or guidance. The effectiveness of this measure in increasing the motivation to work or return to education is debatable. The main danger in this respect is that decisions will be uneven as each deciding officer interprets the clause which stipulates a reduction in payment if a claimant fails to take up an offer of training, and so on, "without good cause".
However, when it comes to social provision and the Department of Social Protection, one can only throw one's eyes up to heaven. The Department, which apparently tightened up on fraudulent claims by insisting that claimants should produce photographic identification, is now, against all logic, planning to permit claimants to sign on by text, which is a joke. Even by the farcical nature of the current Government's ill-conceived ideas, this takes the biscuit. Not only will claimants sign on——
Deputy——
The Minister will have his opportunity. Not only will claimants sign on by text, they apparently——
There is no question of people signing on by text.
That is what the Minister has said. He can come in and deny it this evening if he likes.
My Department never claimed anybody could sign on by text.
That is what the Bill offers.
No, it does not.
Of course it does. The Minister should not contradict me. It is there in black and white.
We could have a breakdown.
The Minister's officials might have prepared the Bill, but he has not read it.
I have.
It is there in black and white.
Could we——
What the provision-----
Will I be protected, a Cheann Comhairle?
Yes. I am anxious about that.
On a point of information——
The Minister should not get ratty or hot under the collar.
It will be done by voice recognition by mobile phone and not by text. The Department never claimed it would be by text. Unfortunately the media jumped to conclusions and because we said we would use mobile telephony they presumed it was text. The voice recognition will be done in such a way that if somebody rings in and it is not that person's voice the very sophisticated software will recognise that. It will also be locational and therefore will not work with somebody ringing from outside Ireland as we will know immediately the person is outside and will cut off.
As I read it, it is certification by the mobile phone.
Yes, by the mobile phone but not by text.
The Deputy should be allowed to continue anyway.
This is surely the definitive example of spending pounds to save pence. As recently as April, a Department spokesperson stated that new claimants for jobseeker's payments are now paid through the post office. This requires them to attend the post office weekly, confirming their residency in this country.
While immediate saving may be made in terms of staffing, we can only sit back and watch the number of fraudulent claims mounting and the costs skyrocketing. Last year's figures showed up to 10% of dole claims were fraudulent, mostly relating to people outside the country. I would like the Minister to stand back and watch that statistic grow.
Where are the provisions for job creation? We are seeing doubtful welfare reforms, but the Government is ignoring the need for a focus on job creation. As a first outing this Bill very much calls into question the highly suspect new title for the Department of Social Protection. Who is being protected from whom? Is it the Government from the social welfare claimants or the other way around? Whatever it is called, the truth is undoubtedly that the Government is not too hot on protecting the social needs of the unemployed and single parents.
I am glad to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I commend the Minister on bringing it forward and commend the title of social protection, which is suitable and modern, and will do much for the Department. Deputy Bannon referred to 1563. Usually I very much like historical allusions in this Chamber because I used to be a student of history. However, referring to what was put upon the people in 1563 is remarkable when one considers that in the past 12 years the Government in various guises increased pension rates by 120%, unemployment benefits by 130% and child benefit payments by more than 330%.
On a point of order——
I never said anything to bother the Deputy.
Was that before or after the cuts in the last budget?
The cost of living has increased by approximately 40% over the same period. There is no point in people saying we are way back in 1563. It is an absurd allusion in the present context. During that 12 years we extended coverage, removed barriers and increased entitlements such that the level and extent of social support payments has been transformed beyond recognition. In 2010 the Government will spend €20.9 billion of taxpayers' money on social welfare provision, which is €500 million or 2.45% more than in 2009. Even when the word "cutbacks" is introduced, the cutbacks manifest themselves in an increase in payments -clearly an increase in claimants or where various other social measures came into play and in so doing accrued to themselves various social benefits.
I note the Minister said that on Committee Stage he would introduce an amendment to provide for the transfer of the rural social scheme and the community services programme to the Minister for Social Protection. He will also introduce an amendment to give him the necessary statutory powers regarding the employment services and community services programme of FÁS, and to subsequently transfer the related funding to the Department of Social Protection. In effect that gives voice to the concerns of the Government particularly for those in long-term unemployment and the very young unemployed to allow them to take up activity under the transfer of those. Between that and the skills element transferring to the Minister for Education and Skills and the FÁS budget to go with that, it is a very meaningful change.
The Minister stated that one of his priorities is to place a particular focus on job activation. The new Department brings a joined-up approach to looking at job activation in its wider context with income support. I knew that the rural community schemes were following the Minister into his new job which pleased me because I have found him very innovative and open to ideas about what we call the rural social employment schemes and I hope more can be done through that. While I accept the Minister stated it in his press release and it is addressed in the Bill, until I heard him speak on Second Stage, I did not know he was also taking over the community services programme of FÁS, which is very good. That provision is extremely important for us as a Government. At our parliamentary party meetings and in public in different places the Taoiseach has said he wanted to put a focus on job activation. Therefore, the removal of dependency and firming up on activation programmes is very important in how we provide for that employment activation.
Of course, the biggest concern in many households today is the issue of jobs. When I first stood for the Dáil I might come to a house in Athlone or Mullingar with three, four or five people unemployed in the household. It is not at that level now but it is fast approaching it. When one goes out to visit people one finds there are many people unemployed or becoming unemployed in households.
One of the main good points to be noted is that over 80% are now in third level education, which was unheard of years ago. We should be delighted by this.
On Monday night a young woman came to see me in Athlone who had received first class honours in her three-year science degree in Athlone Institute of Technology. The total marks in her subjects averaged 85%, which was a brilliant result. She is from another nation, as we like to say, having come here and started attending primary school in fifth or sixth class. She had to learn English from the beginning and is clearly brilliant. I asked her what she would do and she told me she would do a master's degree.
There is a clear acceptance in many young people that jobs do not exist now but they will equip themselves with as many qualifications as possible so that when the job markets open fully, they will be properly equipped. That woman is an example. This woman achieved a remarkable result having studied while working part-time in McDonalds for three years, on Saturdays for three hours and Sundays for four hours. I commend her on working hard, earning a few bob for her pocket, while at the same time steering her way through college.
The Minister indicated that part of the Taoiseach's reasons for setting up a new Department of Social Protection relate to the amendments that will be brought in for work schemes and employment services moving to a single Department. That is the correct action.
Deputy Enright is the current spokesperson for social welfare issues but there will be a shake-up; we can afford to smile about it here. She would know that young men in particular want to go to college as mature students. They may have done a leaving certificate but as jobs presented, the lure of a pay packet at the end of the week would have been very strong for everyone. Some years ago they would have taken that path but many are now going to Galway and Athlone to do the Access programmes, which the Minister knows about. Having done a year in the programme they may be told they will be taken on by the National University of Ireland, Galway, the IT in Athlone or the university in Maynooth. They follow up the Access programme. Students may have their first year in science, social science, arts, engineering etc. and have a chance to continue the education.
There appears to be a burgeoning difficulty but I do not yet have my head around it. I do not know if it involves the Minister for Social Protection or the Minister for Education and Skills. These people may be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance but want to go into full-time third level education. They may also qualify for the higher education maintenance grant but if they get this they cannot get their jobseeker's allowance. All these people would qualify for the maintenance grant.
Many of these people are young men with families, either married or partnered. They may have young children. There was an idea that the allowance and grant from the local authority could be combined; I know this was in the budget as I looked it up in the Estimates. As of now the major payment is the jobseeker's allowance and people opt for that as payments cannot be combined.
The Minister for Social Protection or the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Coughlan, should deal with the issue. The measures in the Minister's speech and the focus within the Department is on retraining and allowing people back into the work force. I have separately met with 24 or 25 such people, mostly coming from Galway. I am sure they would not normally pass the Minister's door. There were also people from around Athlone. All received in the past number of weeks notification of transfer from the Access programme to first year in a chosen discipline in college, which is great. With one exception, those I met were young men in their early to mid 20s and are mature students qualifying for either the higher education maintenance grant and jobseeker's allowance, although not both.
Of these people, one man had three children, one had two children, another had one child and another had no children but was running a home. They all wanted to keep their avenue to full-time education open. I know it would be an enormous issue across the country and I am only considering the effects in two college areas that include NUIG, Galway IT and Athlone IT. That would surely be replicated in UCD, Maynooth and various other colleges. I expect there are replicas of all those people across Ireland who will be thwarted in their laudable ambition to return to college. Perhaps they should not have left education but did so because there were jobs for everyone. These people know they need qualifications for jobs, with the more qualifications, the better.
This problem is becoming quite acute as up to now they were awaiting the result of the Access examination and to hear if they would get a place. Most of the people I spoke to appear to have been successful and must move to the next phase of their application, taking in either the jobseeker's allowance or the higher education maintenance grant. I hope the Minister here tonight and the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Coughlan, will set up a meeting to thrash this out. Otherwise these problems will thwart the ambitions of people going back to education to promote better job opportunities.
The Minister may indicate it has nothing to do with his Department and it may not. I imagine the Department of Education and Skills would have a responsibility but I will follow up on the matter. I would like the Minister to revert to me because I intend to raise it on the Adjournment. It is a very important issue that could ignite any day soon, becoming a nationwide problem. I am quite sure the Minister has come across it already, as has Deputy Kathleen Lynch in Cork. There is no doubt that I am just giving expression to what we have all heard from people we meet during the course of our duties. We hear the real stories.
I note there is a strong urge in well motivated, well read and literate people to argue that Deputies should not bother with constituents' troubles. That is a ridiculous argument. How are we to know our thoughts on legislation and what should be done if we do not meet people who will, in effect, take the pain of measures coming down the road?
Last week, I read an article in one of what might be termed the "posh" newspapers which indicated that Deputies should spend all their time in the Dáil dealing with legislation. I contribute to the proceedings of the House each week, so I believe I am doing my bit as regards legislating. It would be very silly if we did not meet our constituents and others because otherwise how would we know about what to talk if we did not hear the concerns of those who come to see us? I hesitate to use the word "clinic", which I hate, in this regard because people are not sick when they come to see Members. Those to whom I refer come to talk to one and to seek advice and it is wonderful that they do so. The trust that is built up between the elector and the person he or she uses his or her vote to elect is fine and proper in nature.
There has been a great deal of comment with regard to the age limit of 13 in respect of the allowance relating to children of one-parent families. In 2006, this matter was debated with the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs in the Seanad and people reckoned that the age should be ten.
It was seven.
It will now be 13. I am of the view that social welfare moneys, in whatever form they take, are meant to be active rather than passive in nature. People are not meant to just accept such moneys week after week and do nothing in return. Doing nothing is undignified and it saps people's confidence and their ability to do something about their circumstances. Having said that, I acknowledge that it is not always possible to adopt a get-up-and-go approach to life, particularly in light of current economic circumstances. The age limits which apply in Germany, Italy, Sweden, Norway, the UK and two other countries are four and five. I accept that the age which will apply here will be 13 but we must question whether child-minding services are necessary when children reach that age.
I wish the Minister well in the Department of Social Protection and I look forward to working with him in the future.
I wish to share time with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I wish the Minister well with his new portfolio. When times are good, not many people are interested in social welfare. However, when times are bad — which is when it is needed most and when there is less to distribute — people have an acute interest in it.
I am conscious of the fact that I do not have much time and that I probably have too much to say. My first point relates to the delays of up to three or three and a half months which people in Cork city are experiencing when they apply for jobseeker's benefit. Such delays are happening despite the fact that departmental officials are working flat-out and are doing their very best. Under the Bill, the Minister is granting far too much discretion in respect of those who qualify for jobseeker's allowance. I have worked with people in the Department of Social Protection for over 20 years and I have major respect for them, their opinions and their judgment. As in other walks of life, one comes across those who are over-zealous and others who are not sufficiently zealous. Under the legislation, it will up to deciding officers to evaluate whether people take sufficient steps in respect of finding employment.
Everyone is aware that the majority of those who are unemployed live in areas where there are no jobs of offer. If jobs were available, those to whom I refer would not be obliged to seek the assistance of the Department of Social Protection. These people have sought jobs but cannot find them. I, therefore, have a major difficulty with this aspect of the Bill.
Various provisions in the Bill relate to jobseekers losing their allowances or benefits if they do not accept a reasonable offer of employment or training. I do not understand why these have been included because they are already contained in existing legislation. This appears to be an exercise in window dressing. What is significant is the fact that the Minister intends to grant himself power to appeal the decision of an appeals officer following an oral hearing and to take the matter to the High Court on a point of law.
I have been involved in more oral hearings than I have had hot dinners. Most of the deciding officers I meet each week are better versed in social welfare law than any High Court judge. I do not understand why the Minister is trying to usurp their power. I am not aware of any decision taken by an appeals officer which could have been challenged on a point of law. I know from experience that these officers are extraordinary people and they make very good decisions. I do not know from where the Minister is coming in respect of this matter and that is a cause of some concern to me.
I am particularly concerned with section 24, which I am sure we will discuss at length on Committee Stage and which I believe will be challenged successfully in the courts. We are about to put to the people of Ireland a constitutional referendum on the rights of the child. However, the Minister proposes, by means of this Bill, to introduce into law a provision that will give rise to an element of discrimination relating to how certain children enter the world and which will influence how they progress in life. A distinction is being made in respect of the relationships relating to one type of child and another type of child. I thought we had engaged in that argument a number of years ago and that it was now out of the way.
It is the other way around.
No, it is not. I have always argued that widows under the age of 66 are probably the most neglected and badly treated group of people in this country. Under the Bill, a situation will be created whereby if I am a widow and I have a child, he or she will, in the event that he or she enters third level education, be in receipt of the dependant element of my payment until he or she reaches the age of 22. If, however, I have a child and am in a relationship but am not married and if I am deserted, abandoned or if my partner dies, my child will only receive the payment until he or she reaches the age of 13. Apart from the marital status of their mothers, what is the difference between the two children to whom I refer? I am frightened by the fact that we appear to be reintroducing this concept of difference and I am sure it will be successfully challenged.
Debate adjourned.