Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 6 Jul 2010

Vol. 204 No. 1

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Ba mhaith liom a rá ar dtús báire go n-aithním go maith na riachtanais atá ag na daoine atá dífhostaithe faoi láthair. Tuigim go maith freisin go bhfuil go leor dreamanna eile ag brath ar an mbuiséad leasa shóisialaigh — daoine le míchumas, cúramóirí agus pinsinéirí. Ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú don Teach go ndéanfaidh an Rialtas ár seacht ndícheall chun aire a thabhairt do na daoine leochaileacha sa tír. As Minister for Social Protection, I am very conscious of the needs of unemployed people. I also fully understand a wide range of other groups such as people with disabilities, carers and pensioners depend on the welfare budget for vital support. The Government, in a very tough budgetary environment, will continue to do its utmost to protect the most vulnerable in society.

The requirements of the Department of Social Protection highlight just how important it is to have the finances stable. In the next five years the Department will spend over €100 billion, all of which will have to be raised by taxation or, in the short term, by borrowing. Obviously, any borrowings will have to be repaid by the taxpayer at some time in the future. It is clear that if the Government failed to ensure the finances were sustainable, the Department with the largest Vote and its clients would be the first to suffer. The Government will make sure we will provide this money and support. It is up to other parties to explain how their policies would maintain the same level of commitment to social welfare clients.

The Government is proud of its unrivalled record in increasing the level of social welfare payments. Over the past 12 years, we have increased pension rates by about 120%, unemployment benefits by almost 130% and child benefit payments by over 330%. The cost of living has increased by about 40% over the same period. We extended coverage, removed barriers and increased entitlements such that the level and extent of social support payments has been transformed beyond recognition.

Continuing to reflect the trend of recent years and reaffirming Government's commitment to all those in need of support, €20.9 billion will be spent by the Government in 2010 on social welfare provision, some €500 million or 2.45% more than 2009. One of the priorities I have been given in my Department 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. The biggest concern in many households around the country is the issue of jobs. Job activation and the provision of meaningful work activity for unemployed people are a central part of An Taoiseach's reasons for setting up the new Department of Social Protection and the amendments involving the work schemes and employment services moving into a single Department form part of our commitment to targeting the day to day needs of unemployed people.

In that regard the Bill provides for the transfer of the rural social scheme and the community services programme to me as Minister for Social Protection. It also contains provisions to endow me as Minister for Social Protection with the necessary statutory powers on employment services and community services programme of FÁS, and subsequently to transfer the related funding.

There are changes to jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit and supplementary welfare allowance in certain circumstances. Unemployment among the young is a particular concern for the Government. We want to encourage them to stay close to the labour market while at the same time providing a rate of assistance that compares very well with other jurisdictions, particularly with payments in the counties of Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. The Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement announced the introduction of certain targeted changes in jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. Specifically, he announced that the rate would be reduced to €150 per week where job offers or activation measures have been refused.

In order to incentivise participation in training and education programmes and programmes provided under the national employment action plan, referred to as the NEAP, the rates of jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit and supplementary welfare allowance are being reduced where a person, without good cause, refuses to participate in a course of training arranged by this Department or FÁS, or refuses to participate in any NEAP process. When commenced, these measures will work in tandem with the integration of FÁS functions into my Department, and other initiatives such as customer profiling, as part of a strong focus on employment. The Government's aim is to ensure that, despite the high number currently on the live register, long-term systemic unemployment and welfare dependency will not be allowed to take hold.

Under the measure a penalty of €46 will be applied to the individual's headline rate of jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit or supplementary welfare allowance if he or she refuses or fails to avail of a suitable activation measure. Penalty rates of €35 and €25, respectively, will apply in the case of younger jobseekers already on reduced rates of €150 and €100 per week. The application of this measure to those under 25 may appear harsh but clear evidence is emerging that the reduced rates have been very successful in incentivising young people to take up training and education. Therefore, I want to ensure the small but significant cohort which refuses these opportunities cannot continue to remain outside the activation process. It is essential that these young people avail of training and employment opportunities and therefore we are increasing the financial incentive for them to do so.

In keeping with the focus on activation, I stress these rates will only apply where the primary social welfare payment relates to jobseeking and no other schemes come under the scope of these provisions. In addition, primary payments only are affected and rates for child and adult dependants, where payable, remain unchanged if a claimant is subject to a penalty rate. I am also bringing forward a new provision for full disallowance where a jobseeker has refused an offer of suitable employment. This provision is intended to strengthen the existing legislative provision whereby full disallowance may be imposed if the recipient is not genuinely seeking work. This will not alter the position of the majority of jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit recipients. I am also providing a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's benefit where the person is attending a full-time day course of study. This mirrors an existing disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's allowance where a person is attending a full-time day course of study.

The Bill also provides for changes to the one-parent family payment. The Government believes that the current arrangements, whereby a lone parent can receive the one-parent family payment until the child is 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. Despite improvements made to the one-parent family payment over the years and significant spending on supports to lone parents, a large proportion of lone parents and their children are still experiencing poverty. The child of a lone parent is four times more likely to be in consistent poverty than the population overall.

In general, the best route out of poverty is through employment. We recognise that work, and especially full-time work, may not be an option for parents of young children. However, we believe that supporting parents to participate in the labour market, once their children have reached an appropriate age, will improve both their own economic position and the social well-being of themselves and their families.

The Department has undertaken a comprehensive review of the one-parent family payment and developed proposals which are designed to prevent long-term dependence on welfare and facilitate financial independence, recognise parental choice with regard to the care of young children but the expectation is that parents will not remain outside the labour force indefinitely and they include an expectation of participation in education, training and employment with supports provided.

To meet these social policy objectives, I am introducing the changes outlined to the one-parent family payment in section 25 of the Bill. For new customers, from 2011, it is proposed that the one-parent family payment will be made until the youngest child reaches the age of 14. The Bill, as published, provided that the one-parent family payment would be made until the youngest child reached the age of 13 but having given the matter further consideration and having listened to the contribution of Deputies during the course of the debate on the Bill in the Dáil I decided to change the age to 14. The majority of new customers for the one-parent family payment are parents of new born babies; therefore the changes in the payment from next year will not affect them until 2025, when their youngest child reaches his or her 14th birthday.

For existing customers there will be a tapered six-year phasing out period to enable them to access education and training to prepare them for their return to the labour market. Therefore, the age 14 cut-off point will only come into effect for existing customers six years from now in 2016. For existing customers, the age 18 cut-off point will remain for 2011 and 2012. In 2013 it will be 17 years, in 2014 it will be 16 years, in 2015 it will be 15 years and in 2016 it will be 14 years.

If the child is in full-time education there is also a special provision for existing one-parent family payment recipients. In this case, payment will continue until the end of the 2012-13 academic year or until the child reaches age 22, whichever is the earlier. To encourage participation in education and employment, from the enactment of the Bill up to the end of 2016, existing customers who leave the scheme to take up employment or a course of education will be allowed back on the scheme under the new age conditions of the phasing out six-year period if they subsequently lose their job or their scheme of education finishes. When the youngest child reaches the age of 14 years, if the parent is still in need of income support, he or she could claim jobseeker's allowance or another appropriate income support payment, or if in employment, family income supplement. Under the reformed scheme, there will be a special provision for families with children, for whom domiciliary care allowance is paid. They will receive one-parent family payments until their children reach 16 years of age, at which point the children can claim disability allowance in their own right. There is also a special provision for married and cohabiting persons who have been recently bereaved and who have children aged 14 years or older. These individuals will receive the payment for up to two years or until their youngest children reach 18 years of age to enable them to come to terms with their changed circumstances.

The Government is conscious that many lone parents will need access to education, training and enabling services such as child care provision in order to acquire the skills they will need to gain employment. A wide range of education and training opportunities are available through my Department, the Department of Education and Skills and FÁS to lone parents to strengthen their qualifications and skills base and thus maximise their chances of gaining employment.

With regard to child care, the Government invested €1 billion during the past decade in developing a child care infrastructure. As a result, some 65,000 child care places will be available this year. A revised community child care subvention scheme is due to be introduced in September. This scheme will have a labour activation focus and strengthen the child care supports available to lone parents. Importantly for lone parents, after-school services and homework clubs are to be included in the services provided.

Internationally, there is a general movement away from long-term and passive income support. In the United Kingdom, for example, lone parents are required to seek work when their youngest child reaches ten years of age. From October, the minimum age will be further reduced to seven years. In Norway, Sweden, Germany and Italy there is a work obligation when the youngest child reaches three years of age. It was initially proposed in the Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, published in 2006, that a parental allowance would continue until the youngest child reached the age of seven years. However, 14 years is considered to be a more appropriate age for this change because the need for child care will lessen from that point as a result of children entering secondary school. This change to the one-parent family payment will bring Ireland's support arrangements for lone parents more into line with international provision. It must be noted that countries which achieve the best outcomes in tackling child poverty are those which combine strategies aimed at facilitating access to employment and enabling services with income support.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 3 sets out the rules to determine with whom a child normally resides for the purposes of social welfare payments, with the exception of child benefit. Section 4 provides for an amendment to the definition of spouse to include different sex cohabiting couples as spouse for the purposes of farm assist and pre-retirement allowance.

Section 5 provides for the inclusion of health contributions in the definition of contributions for the purposes of the four year limit on the return of contributions. Section 6 confers power to make regulations to provide for the conditions under which a person is regarded as being incapable of work for the purposes of qualification for the payment of illness benefit.

Section 7 provides for a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's benefit where the person is attending a full-time day course of study. This mirrors an existing disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's allowance where a person is attending a full-time day course of study.

Section 8 corrects an omission from the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2009 and provides for the restoration of the full rate of payment for recipients of incapacity supplement who are aged 66 years and over. Sections 9, 11 and 13 clarify the provisions for the assessment of means where jobseeker's allowance, pre-retirement allowance and farm assist — dealt with in sections 9, 11 and 13, respectively — are in payment and where the claimant's spouse or partner is in receipt of family income supplement.

Section 10 provides for a number of technical amendments to section 142 of the principal Act to ensure consistency in treatment with regard to the increase payable for a qualified adult. It also provides for the deletion of obsolete provisions.

Section 12 provides for a technical amendment to section 211 of the principal Act to delete an obsolete provision in relation to disability allowance. Section 14 amends section 220 of the principal Act and sets out the rules to determine with whom a child normally resides for the purposes of entitlement to child benefit. Section 15 provides for an amendment to section 320 of the principal Act which deals with decisions of appeals officers.

Section 16 removes the limitation on the scope of the appeals process and provides that the Minister has the power to appeal a decision of the chief appeals officer to the High Court on a point of law. Section 17 is a technical amendment to Table 2 of Schedule 3 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to remove obsolete references.

Sections 18 to 20, inclusive, provide for the payment of a reduced rate of jobseeker's allowance or jobseeker's benefit or supplementary welfare allowance where a person refuses to participate in an appropriate course of training or a programme under the national employment action plan. Sections 18 and 19 also provide for a specific disqualification from receipt of jobseeker's allowance or jobseeker's benefit where a person refuses an offer of suitable employment. Section 21 clarifies the circumstances in which the reduced rate of jobseeker's allowance is payable in the case of 18 to 21 year olds.

Section 22 allows the Minister to appoint persons other than serving staff to be appeals officers. The section will allow for the employment on a temporary basis of retired appeals officers as appeals officers to clear backlogs in the social welfare appeals office. The section gave rise to some concern on Committee Stage in the Dáil. In that context, I assure Senators that it is being introduced purely to enable me to employ on a temporary basis retired appeals officers to clear backlogs in the social welfare appeals office. There is a significant learning curve for appeals officers, when assigned. They must become familiar with the entire social welfare code and other legislation which may impact on entitlements such as employment law, administrative law, case law and EU law, as it affects social welfare entitlements. Experience shows that it takes up to two years for a new social welfare appeals officer to develop sufficient experience and knowledge to allow them to deal with most cases at full productivity. I am satisfied that the employment of retired appeals officers on a temporary basis is the most effective way to clear backlogs in the social welfare appeals office. Section 23 provides that the chief appeals officer and the deputy chief appeals officer must be officers of the Department.

Section 24 provides for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the principal Act, including the deletion of references to early child care supplement where they appear. Early child care supplement ceased to be payable on 1 December 2009.

Section 25 provides for the reduction, from 2011, of the qualifying age for receipt of one-parent family payment to when the youngest child reaches 14 years of age. It also provides for various transitional provisions for current recipients of the payment. Section 26 amends the provisions relating to domiciliary care allowance to ensure the operational practice is correctly reflected.

Molaim an Bille don Teach agus tá mé ag súil le bhur gcuid tuairimí a chloisteáil maidir leis na míreanna atá ann. I commend the Bill to the House. I look forward to having an informed debate on it and hearing Senators' views on the measures it contains.

I wish the Minister well in his new portfolio. This is the first occasion on which I have dealt with him face to face since he moved to his new Department. I thank him for the revisions he made in respect of farm women. In making these revisions he displayed both compassion and insight.

The Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 introduces reduced rates of jobseeker's benefit, jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance which will apply to claimants who refuse to participate in appropriate courses of training under the national employment action plan. The Bill also provides for a reduction in the qualifying age for receipt of one-parent family payments.

Section 18 provides that the rate of jobseeker's benefit will be reduced in certain circumstances. In such circumstances is it fair and legal that the payments made to people who have worked for 20 to 25 years and made social welfare contributions during that period can be reduced? Do the individuals concerned not have an expectation that they will receive their full entitlements? Will people be offered courses that could prove to be unsuitable in the context of their qualifications and interests? Forfás recently published a report on the appropriateness and availability of the courses on offer. Does the Minister accept that FÁS courses must be radically changed to cater for the many talented individuals who are unemployed?

Over 450,000 people are unemployed, but the Department only employs 63 facilitators who are responsible for the activation of over 90,000 one-parent families and over 100,000 people in receipt of disability and illness payments. They are involved in various activation measures, including those provided for in the Bill. As the Minister rightly said, work rather than income support is the best route out of poverty. However, the lack of appropriate courses and facilitators does not inspire me with confidence in the Minister's activation measures.

Under sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Bill, it is proposed to reduce the rates of jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit and supplementary welfare allowance paid to those who have "without good cause refused to participate or to agree to participate in a course of training which is considered appropriate". As I have said, Fine Gael believes in activation. Research has proved that there is a strong rationale for introducing activation policies which combine positive and negative incentives. A report prepared by Dr. Anne Daguerre and Dr. David Etherington in 2009 found evidence that the most effective activation measures relied on elements of incentive and compulsion — the carrot and the stick. If a person refuses to participate in a course of training, his or her payment will be cut by €46 if he or she is over the age of 24 years. Those between the ages of 22 and 24 years will see their payments cut by €25. The Minister should clearly outline what he means by an "appropriate" training course. There are no data available to support his activation measures. I do not know what courses he is talking about. Nothing has been documented anywhere I have looked to outline the new courses and ways about which we are talking as we try to support those who are unemployed. In the absence of proper investment in the provision of suitable training places, this proposal is nothing but a crude cost-saving measure that will force claimants to depend on social welfare for a longer time.

Some stakeholders have expressed concern about the impact the Bill will have on certain groups, especially lone parents. Ms Candy Murphy, a policy and research manager with One Family, has argued that the reduced payments will make it increasingly difficult for lone parents to access employment and training. The new proposals, when taken with the other reductions in welfare rates and the loss of the early child care supplement announced in budget 2010, will make bigger the already insurmountable poverty traps encountered by lone parents. The Minister rightly referred to such traps. The head of the social and justice policy division of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has also highlighted the combined effect of the cuts outlined in the budget. Measures such as the cancellation of the Christmas bonus, the cuts in rent supplement and the increases in local authority charges will all have an effect on vulnerable groups. As the Minister said, the children of lone parents are at the highest risk of living in consistent poverty.

It has been brought to my attention that some people are no longer entitled to both the back to education allowance and the maintenance grant. I am concerned about how such persons will be able to survive. I understand a person has to sign on for nine months before he or she is entitled to receive the back to education grant. Will the Minister comment on this? I am also aware that the back to education grant is paid on a once-off basis only. It cannot be used for more than one course. Many young highly educated graduates are in need of activation. They need to be able to undertake further courses, but if they do so, they will not qualify for the back to education allowance. One cannot attend an educational course while in receipt of jobseeker's allowance because one needs to be available for work.

As I said, one-parent families are more at risk of living in poverty than any other household. CSO figures for 2009 show that one third of one-parent families are "at risk of poverty", which means they are living on less than 60% of average income. One fifth of one-parent families are on such low incomes that they are unable to afford basic necessities such as food, clothing, school materials and household goods. In this day and age families should not have to go without such necessities. The greatest challenge faced by the head of a one-parent family is in trying to get back into the workforce. The availability of child care services, a serious issue, hinders this process. The reality is that there are very few affordable child care services available. The Minister has mentioned that single parents in Sweden, Germany and Norway are obliged to go back to work when their child reaches the age of three years. I remind him that the best child care services in the world are provided in such countries for free. I ask him to respond to this point. The lack of child care facilities in this country acts as a disincentive for lone parents to go back to work. It is a damning indictment of the Government that lone parents who are willing to go back to work cannot do so because they cannot afford child care. It is no wonder that lone parents comprise 90% of social welfare claimants. This is all due to the inept and ill-conceived policy decisions of the Government. Professor Dan Finn and Ms Rosie Gloster have argued that one of the most significant barriers facing lone parents in many countries is the lack of viable child care options.

Matters are complicated by school hours. We all know that FÁS courses start at 8.30 a.m. each day. I wonder if the Minister can comment on this.

OECD calculations take into account that, in contrast to couples, lone parents have to rely on one wage to cover their child care costs. Where is the incentive to go back to work? If a mother goes back to work and finds that her child care costs are almost as much as the weekly wage she earns, how can the Government justify her decision to go back to work? It believes she will be able to do so when her child reaches the age of 14 years. The problem is that the practicalities of this approach have not been thought through. What should a mother do until her child reaches that age? Should she idly remain on social welfare in the hope she will be able to get a job on her child's 14th birthday because she cannot afford to return to work before the child reaches that age? When the child reaches 14 years, will she have to compete with newly qualified graduates?

The system, as it stands, gives lone parents no incentive to enter the workforce. I emphasise that the majority of the heads of one-parent families want to work. They are willing to contribute to society and pay their own way. They are hard workers who want to provide adequately and comfortably for their children and give them educational opportunities and career prospects. They sometimes require the assistance of the State to help them find their feet. We all accept that this assistance, in general, does not last forever. Those lone parents able to obtain and secure relatively well paid jobs do not seek to rely on the State or the one-parent family payment. However, it is the duty of the State to activate such persons in the workforce and provide a standard of living that does not see them live in consistent poverty. Section 25 of the Bill aims to end the entitlement to one-parent family payment when the youngest child reaches the age of 14 years. This will not assist certain families to get out of poverty traps. The transitional arrangements that will be in place until 2016, mentioned by the Minister, do not take into account the practical details of child care and transport which I have mentioned. When a child reaches the age of 14 years, his or her lone parent will no longer receive this payment. Such a parent will be expected to join the workforce with graduates and young professionals.

The lack of consultation between the Minister and the bodies responsible for highlighting lone parent issues which would like to contribute to the debate on the Bill is a sad indictment of the approach being adopted. The director of OPEN, Ms Frances Byrne, has said some of the activation proposals can and possibly will stigmatise certain sections of the population.

She states there is an unfortunate underlying assumption that the current social welfare system acts as an incentive for the formation of one-parent families. That assumption is wholly unacceptable and is a fallacy. In practice, most one-parent family claims last for much less than the 22 years of a child's full-time education, while 30% of claims last no longer than three years, 20% last for between four and five years, 25% between six and eight years and only 15% for longer than ten years. This shows the efforts one-parent families are willing to make to stay in the workforce. The Department estimated that more than 60% of one-parent families are working.

In 2009 the fraud savings target was €616 million but, sadly, was not met and only €484 million was achieved. At a time when the Exchequer is under so much pressure, the Government should increase that target and seek to exceed it. Instead, it goes softly on people who are robbing the State and hits one-parent families, disabled people, carers and blind people. Social welfare fraud is estimated to cost €2 billion.

I find it laughable that the Minister plans to introduce a system whereby claimants of social welfare might sign on by text message. Last year a spot check found that up to 10% of dole claims were fraudulent, with most of those claims made by or in the name of people living outside Ireland. At that time, the former Minister, Deputy Hanafin, introduced photo ID, a long overdue measure. The only way in which a person can prove he or she is the person as claimed is by such ID.

As Oireachtas Members, it is our challenge to devise legislation that acknowledges the diversity of women's lives and working patterns while at the same time recognising a woman's right to work in paid employment and that she should be able to make choices regarding parenting and child care. We must seek to empower society rather than an economy.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, to the House and am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Bill, reforming legislation that emphasises the importance of learning, upskilling and retraining in our social welfare code.

When I heard of the formation of the Department of Social Protection, I admit I was a little sceptical, believing it merely gave another name to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. As I see it being rolled out, however, and the action, energy and thought the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, brings to his new Department, I believe this is an excellent and far-seeing move on the part of the Taoiseach. It brings a more holistic and joined-up approach to the areas of social welfare payments and benefits, job activation, employment schemes and the national employment action plan. Included under this Bill are measures to transfer the rural social scheme, community service programme and necessary statutory powers in regard to FÁS to the Minister's new Department. The Department now has a clear, two-pronged approach to protect the vulnerable and needy, pensioners and those who cannot work because of disability, disablement or other personal circumstances, and to support unemployed people who, unfortunately, have lost their job, prepare and incentivise to get back to work those who can and would work if they had a job but who have become used to passive income support. We must acknowledge this is being done in challenging times and, therefore, the resources are not as readily available as they might be in some years' time when the plan is fully rolled out and working very well.

As the Minister outlined, the Bill provides for a number of measures, including specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's allowance when a person refuses an offer of suitable employment. There is a reduced rate of jobseeker's or supplementary welfare allowance for those who refuse to participate in an appropriate course of training or in a programme under the national employment action plan. Some people have questioned who will decide what is an appropriate course of training and concerns exist in that regard, as Senator McFadden highlighted. This is especially the case when many very qualified people are on jobseeker's allowance. Perhaps we should consider some tie-in with universities to give such people a greater challenge in further study. That step is being considered by the Minister for Education and Skills and some work is being done in that regard. It may be an additional prong for the Department of Social Protection and would assist to challenge people. I spoke to a highly qualified person recently who seeks work in the area of media and public relations. He was very happy to say he had been offered a relevant course in new media training to include Facebook, etc. Older people would not have the same level of expertise and confidence in that area as the emerging generation and those qualities were very important for that type of job. He was delighted to take up the course.

Another worrying point raised concerns the high level of appeals, with 48.2% of appeals being granted in 2009. This means that almost half of first decisions are overturned at appeal. Such instances do not all relate to appropriate training but the Minister is examining this issue and actively dealing with it. We must provide more diverse training courses, especially in rural Ireland where there is no such choice. I am reminded that when I was in secondary school, all the girls in my class were told to become teachers or nurses. One cap does not fit all and we need to individualise the way in which we deal with the new unemployed who are highly qualified individuals and who have had a great deal of work and life experience in different strands. They probably never thought they would face unemployment and actively pursue a jobs policy to try to ensure they escape that net as soon as possible. We must individualise the way in which we deal with people. More training may need to be given to social welfare officers to deal appropriately with such people. I acknowledge that officers are under enormous pressure but very many of them have formed certain views of claimants and need further training. I welcome that the Minister is bringing in retired appeals officers who have experience. This is a temporary measure and will help clear the log jam that has developed. One hopes it will reduce the backlog of appeals in future.

For too long, the problem of long-term and passive income support has remained unchecked by the Legislature. As we move now to incentivise job activation with supports, we must recognise it is not healthy for any person to become social welfare dependent at a young age without having any incentive to upskill or retrain. We must strive to prevent long-term dependence on welfare and facilitate financial independence. The only way to do that is through work and the best way to obtain employment is to be suitably trained. The penalties for refusing training, up to the ultimate penalty of disqualification for refusing a job, sends out the message that in this country we will take care of our needy but not those who decide there is no incentive to work because they are too well off on the dole, those who thank us but say they would prefer not to take the job on offer. The Government is the custodian of taxpayers' money and we can no longer stand idly by and condone this passive culture where claimants have no intention of working and have made a career out of claiming for every entitlement. They know more about available entitlements than even the Minister does. These are the very people who, if they have families, will march their child down to the social welfare office the minute they turn 18 years of age. This behaviour cannot be encouraged and it must stop.

The other major change in this Bill is the phased changes to the one-parent family allowances. As the Minister stated, it is not in the best interests of the parent, the children or society to allow one-parent families to become so dependent on social welfare. In the Bill the Minister is to limit the lone parent allowance in favour of participation in job seeking or retraining when the youngest child reaches 14 years of age. In the UK the age of disqualification is to be seven years. In Ireland, however, we recognise the right of a mother to care for her young children and to have that choice. For that reason, the Minister has set the age to 14 years, higher than the international norm. This regulation is to be phased in so the existing lone-parent allowance will not cease until 2016, and for new claimants in 2025. I ask opponents of this measure why we should not empower women away from the lone-parent allowance books and back into independence. As a working mother, I believe the measure helps children to see their mothers working.

The child care predicament Senator McFadden outlined will only kick in when a child is 14 years of age. The Minister has said that homework clubs and holiday care will be provided as the need arises. It is to be hoped a child of 14 years of age would be involved in various other activities and the one thing he or she does not need is a mother mollycoddling him or her from the age of 14 to the age of 18.

The reality is that although we have invested substantial resources in this area, one-parent families are four times more likely to be caught in a poverty trap. Enabling services are the key to success and the key to lifting one-parent families out of the poverty trap. The homework clubs and community child care subvention scheme, which will be implemented in September, all have a role to play. However, this needs to be phased in and a balance struck between the right length of time for such support versus unfair disadvantage against families struggling on low incomes. I note the proposal for supporting lone parents by introducing a parental allowance, which would support all low income parents. That is a measure we need to examine and move towards introducing in the future as we move away from the concept of lone parents and one-parent families.

Every child has two parents. We will probably discuss this area tomorrow when we deal with the Civil Partnership Bill. We need to be realistic and aware of the prevalence of young girls in certain areas who get pregnant and perceive it to be a path towards having their own house and moving out of the family home.

No, I do not accept that.

Most young girls who get pregnant do not want to be pregnant but some do and if we ignore that, we will not be realistic about the need to tackle such dependency. We also need to examine the lack of accountability of fathers. Various Senators, including myself, have called for debates on the rights of unmarried fathers. We need to consider giving fathers real guardianship rights and responsibilities in respect of their children and, if they are not paying maintenance, we need to seek an attachment of earnings order in respect of them. That will involve an administrative burden for District Court offices but we need to examine that and also to incentivise declarations for mothers. I have seen it happen all too often in the District Court that many people get maintenance which is not declared.

Senator McFadden said the Government was going soft on fraud but I do not believe that is the case. If the Senator checks the record of the previous Minister, Deputy Hanafin, and the current Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, on cracking down on fraud in this area——

I said the targets are not being met.

——she will note that they have done more than any of their predecessors to introduce measures to deal with it.

Targets are not being met.

Pleae allow Senator McDonald to continue, without interruption.

I thought the Leas-Chathaoirleach had said I had only one minute remaining.

I was trying to keep order in the Chamber.

Go raibh maith agat agus tá bron orm.

I have not spoken yet.

We need to examine the work the Minister is doing in this regard. It is one thing to crack down on those working and claiming and that is an easier task than cracking down on the not so lone parent whose boyfriend stays over so often that they are a de facto family. We also need to examine the fact that the Supreme Court decided last week that we do not have de facto families in Ireland. We need to bring our laws into line with the reality of the situation. Many families in this country exist outside the family structure provided for in our Constitution. We need to introduce laws to deal with that. If we deal with that properly, I believe the notion of a lone parent would very much dissipate.

That is not to say there are not great women, as Senator McFadden outlined in her contribution, who lift themselves out of the poverty trap, pursue further education, etc. They are fantastic women and they should be acknowledged. I was speaking to one such woman last week and this is a point I wish to raise with the Minister of State. Much of what we are talking about in this debate involves the day care of children but many of the meaningful courses one can pursue to obtain a degree or a diploma are run at night time. We need to examine the provision of child care such as babysitting arrangements, etc. for people who wish to pursue such courses who do not have that type of support. Those women exist and that support needs to be given to them because they more than anyone want to get out of the poverty trap. As we all know, the benefit of an education is fantastic.

This area needs to be reformed and such reform has started today. I welcome it. In short, we must incentivise learning and working and not a culture of earning while at the same time we must continue to protect the needy and vulnerable in our society. I would be interested to know how the needs of individuals will be met in respect of individuals pursuing a proper training course. Such a person should not be assigned a waitressing job when he or she really wants to be an artist. I know that is an extreme example but I would be interested to know how provision will be made for the needs of individuals. I acknowledge that this will be difficult and this is a delicate balance to strike. The measures in this Bill are a good start . We are following a path that is commendable. I commend the Minister on his energy and I commend this Bill to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House once again. We seem to be seeing her a little more often than we have previously.

Senator McDonald made an interesting point regarding the new title of the Department and of the Minister. She doubted whether the new title of the Minister — Social Protection — meant anything rather than merely being a play on words. I believe it is fairly clear that it is a good title and the change of title is good because the new title means so much. The effort to ensure we protect the worst-off in our society is worthy and is something about which we should be happy.

We must ensure anything we do in this area does not act as a disincentive to work. An interesting article was written by Andy Pollak from the Centre for Cross Border Studies regarding a seminar that was held on 20 May in the North and in which article Mr. Pollak gave some interesting figures. One speaker at the seminar spoke about the disincentive facing unemployed people in the South who might want to work across the Border. He gave a few examples. He said an unemployed single man in Donegal will automatically get €196 a week versus the minimum wage in the North for a full week which is £231. The gap is such that there is very little incentive for a person to cross the Border to work there. That speaker said that a one-parent family allowance south of the Border is €196 per week plus €29.80 per child while the equivalent allowance in Northern Ireland is almost a third of that. There are measures of which we can be very proud in terms of looking after those who are not well off. That speaker also made the point that a person on a low income in the Republic is better off in the South because he or she has a medical card, free general practitioner visits, free public hospital services and free medication. Mr. Pollak gave a nice quote in his article:

So the next time you hear somebody like me (until this month!) warning that one reason a united Ireland is off the cards is because the South couldn't afford to pay the cost of covering the gap in welfare payments, remember these telling financial facts. It's no coincidence that one of the main issues officials in the two government departments dealing with social welfare talk about when they meet on an annual basis to discuss matters of common concern is cross-border ‘welfare tourism' [a term I had not heard previously] the bulk of it now consisting of Northerners making fraudulent claims [south of the Border].

That interesting point was one that came to mind last week when we read that the number of social welfare claimants reduced dramatically during the recent volcanic ash crisis. It is assumed they were from eastern Europe and that it appears they were not able to return to make their claims for jobseeker's allowance or whatever social protection allowance they were seeking.

Given our financial situation, we cannot afford to pay any more than we have to and this has to be reconsidered. The country has to be run like a business if we are to have any hope of a recovery and a return to prosperity. There are some very legitimate concerns with this Bill related to how payments are structured in terms of parents' relationships. For instance, those single parents who are bereaved are offered better support for their children than those who have suffered from relationship breakdown or those who have been forced from their homes owing to domestic violence. It is certainly a difficult question but we need to take action in the area of one-parent family payments. Under this legislation, if an individual refuses to take a job or a training course that is deemed appropriate, his or her unemployment assistance will be reduced. This has been criticised as unfair but it is worth noting that evidence, particularly from America, has shown that while many people begin work in minimum wage jobs, they do not stay in them for very long. Once in employment, people move up the earnings ladder rapidly and the spaces below them are filled by newer recruits. Taking up work is still the best route out of poverty.

During the week there was a row when Bill Cullen of It’s a Long Way from Penny Apples fame said it was better for somebody to work for no pay than not to work because he or she could prove himself or herself and move up the ladder, something with which I agree entirely, even though he was criticised for saying it. I am aware of a young woman in Limerick who qualified as a solicitor. When she could not get a job, she offered her services free to a solicitor there. She worked two days a week for him and within two months he could not do without her. If it is possible to create confidence, I encourage people to start at the very bottom, even if it means working for no pay because if people believe in themselves, they can prove they can be of value to an employer. This thought process is worthy of consideration.

It is thought by some that the natural process of moving out of poverty through employment is hindered by Government policies designed to protect the poor such as tax credits which some say have the effect of subsidising low wages and make people less inclined to move up the earnings scale for fear of losing their entitlement to credits. We have to strike the right balance. Given that the European countries which are achieving the best outcomes in tackling child poverty are the one which are moving away from the provision of passive income support and supporting schemes aiming at facilitating access to employment and services such as child care through the provision of income support, it is appropriate for us to consider moving in that direction.

Let me make a comparison between Switzerland and Ireland with regard to child benefit. The rate of child benefit payable in Switzerland is dependent on the region in which one lives but is usually €150 per child per month, roughly the same as the rate payable in Ireland. However, in most regions in Switzerland after two children the payment of child benefit is stopped for the third and subsequent children. I understand there is a similar system in the United States. It may be the case that during the years it has developed a policy of not encouraging people to have more children. In Ireland a parent with eight children could take home €1,422 per month in child benefit, while in Switzerland a parent with the same number of children receives approximately €300. This is the policy which was recommended, accepted and adopted. It might be one which we could consider adopting. Let us be aware of the figures involved.

In Switzerland there is an entitlement to receive child benefit if at least one parent is in gainful employment or drawing benefits from the unemployment insurance fund. The benefits are paid by the employer or, in the case of unemployed persons, the unemployment insurance fund. If one works part-time, one may only receive partial benefits or possibly none, depending on the region in which one lives. It is not as if Switzerland cannot afford to pay child benefit, but it seems it has made a conscious decision not to incentivise people to have more children. I am not suggesting we adopt such an approach, rather I am drawing attention to the fact that there are alternatives and that there are different views around the world. We have independence to consider this issue and determine what is the right thing for us to do. The steps we are taking are necessary to make sure the economy is able to provide in the correct manner the social protection needed by those who are worst off. Let us make sure we continue to examine the issue. To keep the economy healthy the Bill is a step in the right direction. Therefore, I support it.

We have to understand where we stand on social welfare payments which now account for 40% or more of public expenditure. On whether we are raising the money through tax receipts or borrowing, the amount being spent accounts for more than two thirds of all the taxes collected. There has been some discussion of the fact that the social insurance fund has recently moved into deficit having been in surplus for many years. That has always been a conceit because it has been in deficit for many years and social welfare payments have been largely met from taxation receipts. When the Minister for Finance presents the budget in December and adopts a dual track approach to taxation in amalgamating levies and having a set rate of social insurance, we will begin to see the reality all the more clearly. That said, the proposal to cut the level of social welfare expenditure in last year's budget was obviously politically unpopular, although necessary in the context of controlling public expenditure. This Bill considers the areas in which we need to make decisions in that regard, how they should be informed by principles and how we can address the effects of the decisions made in the last budget.

The issue flagged in the Bill is that of lone-parent payments. When a comparison is made with processes and procedures in other countries, one comes across surprising examples, in particular in the Scandinavian model. In Sweden which has long been identified as having the social welfare model we should consider a lone parent is transferred to a jobseeker's payment when the child reaches three years. I understand this happens in Norway and Denmark when the child reaches the age of ten years. Under the Bill it is proposed to do this here when the child reaches the age of 14 years.

We need to consider the social provision for which we can provide, how it compares with that made in other countries and how it meets the level of social protection which needs to be offered. When we examine the budget for next year, we will need to make a distinction in the general rates of social welfare benefits and the need to restore particular payments at a faster rate. Payments to persons with a disability and-or who are blind should be increased ahead of other payments. We should send this signal which I hope will be given active consideration when we come to examine the budget. There is a need for a very clear signal that the rates of all social welfare payments, following the decreases in last year's budget, will be frozen. If there are savings to be achieved — they would still be unwelcome — they should be made in secondary benefits, through the qualifying criteria for receipt of social welfare payments and merging and amalgamating payments. We cannot send a further signal that social welfare rates are likely to decrease, particularly now when we have started to see signs of economic growth earlier than anticipated. The signal has to be that when the economy grows, the first ones to benefit will be those in society who have least.

In the long term we need to consider the social welfare model we should use. It is not good enough that in 2010 we are still using a largely Victorian model of social welfare, in which people have to prove they are living in poverty or have a disability to guarantee receipt of a particular payment. I see hope in the provision included in the programme for Government at the request of the Green Party under which there will be integration of the tax and social welfare systems. One example is the proposal made by Social Justice Ireland regarding tax credits for the working poor and the lower paid. It is a simple idea. It is suggested those who gain maximum benefit from tax credits are those on relatively high incomes. Those on low incomes may not benefit at all. Where this is the case there should be a refund in order that the lower paid would gain to the same extent from tax credits as the higher paid. It is a simple concept that has been unnecessarily opposed by the Department of Finance. It can be easily accommodated within our tax and social welfare systems and I hope it receives active consideration given it is included in the programme for Government.

The other side of the integration of the tax and social welfare systems is that a social welfare payment which is part of an overall income should be liable for tax. This is a balancing mechanism and, while it would probably be subject to strong political opinion, it is not unusual in other jurisdictions. In the Swedish system, which is upheld as a model of social protection, all income is taxable. Even though most Irish income earners cannot avail of tax credits, they are not caught by the tax net until a higher level than most other European countries. The tax rate in Britain starts at £10,000, whereas it is €30,000 here. The tax rate starts at zero in Sweden. If we are to integrate the tax and social welfare system, we have to proceed on the basis that all income is taxable and all welfare payments, whether paid directly or in the form of tax credits, apply to everyone equally.

We need to have this debate if we are to understand the idea of universality and allowing people to benefit according to their means. These issues arose to a certain extent in last year's debate on child benefit. The chosen budgetary mechanism of graduated cuts at certain income levels was based on legal advice. I remain convinced that the best way to deal with child benefit would be to make it taxable. The argument has been made that most of the direct beneficiaries are women and many are not in the tax net but I do not see this as a problem if they are issued with tax credits. The likelihood is that the tax return would be small but the benefit to women and children would be more direct. This is a more honest way of dealing with the problem.

In considering the measures in this Bill, we need to decide where the debate should proceed.

The Senator has one minute remaining.

I have one minute to change the social welfare system. I am grateful for that.

He was doing so well.

I am glad he only has one minute.

If we are serious about getting the best bang for our public buck or having the greatest degree of social protection, we need to recognise that the present system gives too little protection to the people who need it and too much to those who do not. The mixed messages sent through our tax and social welfare systems need to be addressed. I hope steps towards these goals can be made in budget 2011.

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection. The Minister for Social Protection stated: "It is up to other parties to explain how their policies would maintain the same level of commitment to social welfare clients". The Labour Party has proposed a PRSI holiday for employers who take long-term unemployed people off the dole and a graduate and apprentice programme which would guarantee relevant work-based training and opportunities to obtain new qualifications for all young people out of work. I also note the proposals for job creation and investment over the next five years.

It is estimated the Bill's provisions for reform of the lone parent's allowance will add 12,000 people to the live register over the next six years. Under Government activation plans from 2011, the one-parent family payment, which is not currently counted for live register purposes, will cease once the youngest child reaches the age of 14. According to a reply to a recent parliamentary question in the Dáil, the Minister expects this reform to yield Exchequer savings of €1.1 million in 2011, €5.5 million in 2012, €12.3 million in 2013, €20.7 million in 2014 and €26.2 million in 2015. The change will affect 900 parents in 2010 and 12,000 by 2016.

What employment creation does the Minister envisage for single parents? We are told that unemployment will remain at 13% for the next 18 months and every person unemployed costs the Exchequer €20,000. The types of jobs which are suitable for single parents include special needs assistants and home carers, areas which have been subject to Government cuts. These people want to return to employment and to make a contribution to the Exchequer. They do not want to be seen as sponging off the State but, with more than 450,000 people on the dole, they are finding it difficult to accept that €22 billion could be thrown away on zombie banks when their allowances are being cut as an incentive to get them back to work. I have met many people in my clinics who provide valuable services as special needs assistants. They make a positive impact on their schools and the children for whom they care. Their role is wider than that of classroom assistant. The loss of 12,000 of these posts does not bear thinking about.

The Minister stated the measures in the Bill will work in tandem with the integration of FÁS functions. We have had a jobs crisis for the past two years but it did not take that much time to help bankers and developers. Any savings made through these measures will be paid out by community welfare officers because they too have reached crisis point. Some people I know have had to wait several weeks for a response to their application for unemployment assistance because the system is overloaded. It appears that insufficient staff were allocated to deal with the unemployed.

In regard to cutting budgets generally, what jobs are available through the jobs activation programme? What advice can I give someone who presents at my clinic regarding where to seek employment, how they can qualify and how they will be assessed? If they go to work, what arrangements will be put in place to mind their children? Will a subsidised scheme be introduced? How much will the job creation programme cost?

The Government is proposing various schemes but for genuine job opportunities people need access to training, education and literacy improvement; drugs rehabilitation; child care; services for people with disability; and mental health services. The proposed reforms disadvantage large sectors of the community. I ask for answers on the issues I have raised.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady. One of the reasons I am enjoying the debate is that it provides parties with an opportunity to outline their ideas to the House. One of the best reasons to join the Green Party is that it is full of ideas and clearly examining the issue of transformation.

The Senator is looking for a new party.

It is important when criticising a Government to be clear on what one is offering as an alternative. I found Senator Boyle's contribution inspiring. Clearly the Green Party has thought carefully about what needs to be done. Unlike Senator McDonald, I found the decision to change the name of the Department of Social and Family Affairs to the Department of Social Protection inspiring. It indicates an intention to return to the original purpose of the Department, namely, protecting those most in need.

It is often lamented that we blew the benefits of the boom and that we have nothing to show for it. I was tempted to raise a point with Senator Buttimer on the Order of Business but declined to do so. However, I will do so now. This morning the Senator and I spoke about our good road infrastructure. This is one example of how we did not blow the benefits of the boom. As the Senator informed me, one can now travel swiftly between our large urban centres.

We also tend to forget the significant increases in social welfare benefits. As the Minister noted, in the past 12 years pension rates, unemployment benefit and child benefit increased by 120%, 130% and more than 330%, respectively. The list continues. We also tend to overlook the fact that, while Anglo Irish Bank received €22 billion, the social welfare budget for 2010 is €20.9 billion.

The Minister referred to the obligation to use taxpayers' money in the most efficient manner possible. This is brave legislation because it is unpopular to reduce allowances. As Senator Boyle noted, it marks the beginning of real social change. I hope the Minister will continue in this vein in the new Department by transforming the way in which social welfare payments are made and the purpose for which they are given.

It used to depress me to hear a certain individual from CORI constantly lament that the year-on-year increases granted in the budget were insufficient. I always thought the person in question did not care about people's souls. Why should someone on social welfare be allowed to believe he or she is entitled to receive payments indefinitely? More is required of those in receipt of payments. The reason I applaud the Bill is it recognises that people need to be prepared for a lifetime of independent living. Many recipients of social welfare payments, particularly lone parent families, remain in poverty indefinitely. The changes in the Bill ask why this should be the case. We must ask the reason people remain in poverty, despite the comparatively generous supports offered. It is not simply a matter of money but also one of lifestyle, education and expectations. Nothing could be more depressing than preparing people to remain on social welfare indefinitely.

A work ethic can be instilled in young people before they become dependent on social welfare. Under this legislation, young people will be encouraged to go to work and taught the value of a euro. As everyone knows, one does not appreciate what one receives for free. When I first started to work, one knew how long it took to earn £1 and one was loth to spend or give it away. One valued what one earned, whereas people do not value what is given to them for free. I welcome the steps being taken to transform our social protection measures.

We need to be courageous. The working poor are the most overlooked group in society. These are people who are struggling to raise families on low incomes and do not receive any of the benefits afforded to those on the dole or in receipt of other social welfare payments. It takes a person of strong character with a good work ethic to choose not to enter the social welfare system. As Senator Quinn noted, many of those on low pay will eventually move into higher paid employment. However, many of them will conclude that, having paid for meals and transport to work, they are not much better off than neighbours in receipt of social welfare. We need to be honest about this because if we continue to incentivise people not to work, we will not get the best out of them.

This legislation is a step in the right direction. I hope we will all work together on this issue because it is in everyone's interest to get the best value from our social welfare system. For this reason, we need to integrate the taxation and social welfare systems to ensure all income is taxed. This would be a fair way to expand the tax base at a time when it is necessary to raise money. Those in genuine need of supports will continue to receive them.

I am pleased an earlier speaker referred to the ease with which people could fly in and out of the country to collect social welfare payments. This was highlighted at the time of the volcanic ash cloud over Europe when the number of claims declined. We must examine this issue to ensure the money available is targeted at the vulnerable and those most in need.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. This is a necessary and welcome debate. I recognise that the Government has increased pension rates by 120%, unemployment benefit by 130% and child benefit payments by 330%. These are welcome increases which all of us support and salute. The Bill, however, is a savage attack on those in receipt of social welfare payments.

What do we mean by the term "social welfare"? While preparing for this debate, one of the definitions I found was "governmental provision of economic assistance to persons in need". That is the position at one level.

I agree with Senator O'Malley in asking why so many people live in poverty. Is it down to Government policy? Is it down to the condition and culture we have allowed to develop? At one level the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill would be welcome if the provisions and supports were put in place at the same time. I refer to child care, education, housing and a movement of people away from reliance on social welfare. I fully agree with Senator O'Malley in referring to the working poor as now being possibly the most vulnerable group in society. The Bill is about the most vulnerable. It is about the imposition of a cut, in whatever shape or form one likes, affecting those who are most dependent. I am concerned that we are accentuating the divide in society and creating a new poverty trap that further embeds people in social welfare dependency.

I listened to Senator Boyle's contribution and found it difficult to disagree with much of it. I believe we must put a value on work. As a director of adult education in my previous incarnation before my election to this House, I understand the importance of education, retraining, upskilling and giving people an avenue, in particular single mothers who have great potential to increase their benefit to society through education. Senator Boyle should clarify the thought process he is going through. At one level he is talking about reversing the social welfare cuts imposed in the last budget which cut social welfare to the people who most need it — the disabled and the blind. What is social welfare about? What are the barriers to creating employment? There does not seem to be consistency in Government policy or a willingness to tackle the issue of putting a value on work and rewarding entrepreneurship by rewarding entrepreneurs in the creation of employment. Last week the Minister announced PRSI changes which have been Fine Gael policy for 18 to 24 months. This year — in 2010 — the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin, spoke about a range of measures that were envisaged.

My difficulty is with the people who are not saved from the cuts. In the past two budgets the Government has targeted the most vulnerable. If we are to have reform of the social welfare system, we need to get people away from welfare and into jobs, and put a value on those jobs. In hundreds of local authority housing estates there are people who are idle, getting money as lone parents or through unemployment benefit, and there is a culture of dependency. They have medical cards, houses and there is a begging bowl mentality. That is the culture in which they have been raised and no attempt has been made to change it over the years. We have not changed the culture and given them a cause for hope, and that spiral continues. When I meet people in my clinics or on the canvass, the same issues arise all the time. We need a complete rethink and revamp on the budget.

It behoves the Government in the next budget not to make cuts affecting the poor, who are the most vulnerable. Senator Boyle spoke about the levels of income exemptions across the world. In this country exemptions are applied to public sector workers earning up to €30,000, which is a very fair figure. Senator O'Malley referred to CORI. What is Fr. Seán Healy saying? He is saying we must look after people. In many cases, whether because of the education system or the social welfare policies we have adopted over the years, people do not know any better and cannot find the mechanism to get out of it. If they do, they are being clobbered because there are no jobs.

We need a major debate on the role of FÁS, which the Government has hived off to different Departments. We need a major review of the role of FÁS. While I do not completely subscribe to the Michael O'Leary viewpoint, we need an honest debate on how we might make FÁS more effective and how we can retrain and educate people. When out canvassing last Saturday, I met a young man who had completed three years of his apprenticeship. The company that employed him folded. He has one year of his apprenticeship left and he cannot complete it, which does not make sense. Why can the local authority not take him on for the final year of his apprenticeship and allow him to be involved in working on upgrading or fixing houses that are vacant throughout Cork city and county? There are hundreds of such people who have not been able to complete apprenticeships.

I believe Bill Cullen is right. I would rather work than not work. I remember my first summer job and I remember how damn hard it was to get that money, a point on which I agree with Senator O'Malley. We must put a value on employment and reward entrepreneurs, otherwise we will find ourselves in a spiral of decline and will not go anywhere in the future. Irrespective of politics, I believe this Bill will have a profound impact on those most affected by it. As the unemployment level has increased, activation, about which Senator McFadden spoke in her fine address, has become the core issue. The problem is that the Government does not have a jobs policy or a back to work programme to get people off the live register and into employment. The courses are not available and the Government is making it more difficult for people to go on courses. We are not supporting those who are most in need.

Senator McDonald spoke about the social welfare culture, but what happens to people if we do not have social welfare? Where do they go? Do we want to become like America? I hope not. Therein lies the problem. We have no supports. In his address the Minister spoke about the new child care provision. What does he mean by the new child care provision? We already had a debate on the community child care subvention scheme, which is to be revised in September. The Minister speaks about labour activation focus. What will it do? He has not spelled it out. He has given us a nice soundbite that sounds well. Where are the after-school service and the homework support clubs? Where is the money for these? Who will roll them out? This is the same Government that is tackling community development programmes and taking their powers away. The Minister, Deputy Pat Carey, will not meet the community development programme umbrella body, yet we are expected to listen to a Minister speak about all this.

While I may draw the ire of Senator O'Malley, which I do not really want to do, the Government has created latch-key children as a matter of policy. I grew up in a house where my mother, God bless her, gave up work to stay at home and rear us. When we went to college she went back to work so that she could help us pay for our fees because it was my parents' philosophy to look after payment for our education. There are other families that cannot do that. The Government's policy has not helped. Nothing in what the Minister said today indicates there will be a different mentality from 2011 onwards.

I wish to make one final contentious point. I wish people would stop suggesting that single mothers are deliberately getting pregnant. I do not believe the majority of lone parents want to be where they are today.

I will conclude. Every week I meet many women who do not want to be in a position of dependency on child benefit or the social welfare system in general.

They and others need a Government that takes care of them. Social protection is about protection. It is about looking after, minding and encouraging people to get off welfare, to get a job and to have a society where we reward employment and entrepreneurs and where we treat all our citizens equally. I do not know whether this Bill achieves that, but I would love to have a real debate on social welfare. We should have that debate collectively so that we can do what is best for our citizens.

That is why the Senator should support the Bill. It does what is best for our citizens.

I would support the Bill if I saw the colour of the Government's money in the Bill on child care, community welfare, afterschool care and job clubs. That is not there.

I will conclude. This Bill——

Everything the Senator mentions is included in the Bill, yet he will vote against it.

We have no policy on activation, as the Senator knows well. As someone who has often voted differently from what she should have done, I will not take lectures from Senator O'Malley on how to vote on this Bill.

The national employment action plan is the main welfare to work measure under which all persons between the ages of 18 and 65 years who are approaching three months on the live register are identified by the Department of Social Protection and referred to FÁS for interview, with a view to helping them re-enter the labour market. The provisions contained in the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 will enhance the operation plan in two key areas. First, to incentivise participation in training and education programmes provided under the plan, rates of jobseeker's payments and associated rates of supplementary welfare allowance are being reduced where a recipient unreasonably refuses to participate in a course of training arranged by this Department or FÁS or fails to avail of an opportunity to participate in the plan. Second, the one-parent family payment scheme is being amended with a view, inter alia, to providing lone parents with greater access to education, training and enabling services such as child care provision to allow them acquire the skills they will need to gain employment.

These measures will work in tandem with the integration of FÁS functions into the Department of Social Protection and initiatives such as customer profiling as part of a strongly activation focused welfare system. In addition, the existing rural social scheme and community services programme will shortly transfer to my Department. Taken together, these will ensure that long-term systemic unemployment and welfare dependency will not take hold. In providing for these measures, we are determined that reductions in jobseeker's payment rates will only apply where there is a clear lack of engagement by the welfare recipient with an appropriate activation intervention. Any decision made in this area will be open to the independent appeals process.

In light of increased demand, the Government is now providing, through FÁS, a total of 128,000 training and activation places for the unemployed this year. This is a substantial increase on the approximately 66,000 places provided last year. There is a wide range of education and training opportunities available through this Department, the Department of Education and Skills and FÁS for lone parents and jobseekers to strengthen their qualifications and skills base to maximise their chances of meeting the requirements of the modern labour market and gain employment.

When lone parents claim jobseeker's allowance, they will actively engage with the national employment action plan, with a referral to FÁS and access to the range of employment and training services offered by FÁS. They will be supported in this by the new scheme recently announced by the Minister of State with responsibility for children and youth affairs. This new child care education and training scheme will provide free child care for those attending FÁS and VEC courses. It is not anticipated that these measures in the Bill will lead to significant costs.

The Department is fully committed to the timely and accurate processing of customer claims and to delivering the best possible service to its customers. To this end, operational processes and procedures and the organisation of work are reviewed in all areas of the Department. These reviews are supported by modern technology, the potential of which is continually harnessed. Claims are processed in the most efficient and expeditious way possible, having regard to the eligibility conditions that apply to each scheme.

Processing times vary across schemes owing to the volume of applications and the differing qualification criteria. For example, means assessments are required for all social assistance schemes, medical examinations are required for some illness related schemes and customers must also satisfy the habitual residence conditions. In the case of insurance-based schemes, it may be necessary to ascertain details of foreign insurance records.

Many factors outside the Department's control can impact upon claim processing times, such as the supply of relevant information by the customer, employers, other EU countries or other third parties. Plans are in train to begin devolving certain decisions to branch offices on a phased basis. The process will begin in three or four of the larger branch offices and will identify if there are training or other issues that need to be addressed before being rolled out to all branch offices. The process will require some level of training for branch managers. The branch offices will deal with four categories of claims: jobseeker's benefit claims with full contribution histories, unlimited payments between 65 and 66 years of age, credit cases, and second or subsequent children where the full or half-rate has already been established.

While every effort is made to decide on entitlement for any individual person as close to their eligibility date as possible, there are cases where delays will necessarily be experienced. In situations where customers find themselves suffering financial hardship while awaiting such a decision, the facility to receive supplementary welfare allowance funded by the Department and administered by the Health Service Executive is available. In April 2010, more than 96% of basic supplementary welfare allowance applications were decided on and paid within a week.

The national average processing times for jobseeker claims during May was 2.43 weeks for jobseeker's benefit and 6.58 weeks for jobseeker's allowance. This compares with processing times of 2.33 weeks and 6.92 weeks, respectively, in April. The total number of jobseekers awaiting a decision on their claim at 29 May was just over 45,000. This is a reduction of more than 3,000 compared with the figures one month earlier on 24 April 2010, and represents 9% of the total jobseeker claims load nationwide.

Many speakers have made known their views on this Bill, but we are all of the same opinion that we have a section of society which needs the support of the Government, the reasons for which are often outside the control of that section of society. They are not in a position to gain employment and, therefore, the State has a responsibility to ensure this is provided. It is a well-known fact that the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, has always taken an holistic view on issues that are important to communities and to persons. I have no doubt he will develop that inside the Department as he becomes more engaged in the matter.

People should not try to misinterpret any statements the Minister made on social welfare. He said there are no plans for any changes and budgetary matters are for the budget and not for earlier announcements. That said, I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 22.

  • Boyle, Dan.
  • Brady, Martin.
  • Butler, Larry.
  • Carroll, James.
  • Carty, John.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Corrigan, Maria.
  • Daly, Mark.
  • Dearey, Mark.
  • Ellis, John.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Keaveney, Cecilia.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • MacSharry, Marc.
  • McDonald, Lisa.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Ó Brolcháin, Niall.
  • Ó Domhnaill, Brian.
  • Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • O'Malley, Fiona.
  • O'Sullivan, Ned.
  • Ormonde, Ann.
  • Quinn, Feargal.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Cannon, Ciaran.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Cummins, Maurice.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Hannigan, Dominic.
  • Healy Eames, Fidelma.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Norris, David.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Prendergast, Phil.
  • Regan, Eugene.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Niall Ó Brolcháin and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Nicky McFadden.
Question declared carried.

Arising from the omission by Senator Doherty to vote, the result of the division as shown on the display board has been amended, with the agreement of the Tellers for both sides. The amended result will appear in the Journal of Proceedings of the Seanad. When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

On Tuesday, 13 July.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 13 July 2010.
Sitting suspended at 3.25 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.
Top
Share