Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Apr 2015

Vol. 239 No. 6

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015: Second Stage

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

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys.

The main purpose of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015 is to provide for the introduction of the new back-to-work family dividend to help jobseekers with families and lone parents to return to work or to increase the number of hours worked. This measure will complete the implementation of the budget 2015 package of social protection improvements, which also included increases in child benefit and the living alone allowance which came into effect from the beginning of the year. The Bill also provides for an extension of the one-parent family payment to lone parents who are eligible for carer's allowance until their youngest child reaches 16 years of age and an extension of the jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangements to apply to all lone parents where the youngest child is between the ages of seven and 13 years. All of these improvements have been made possible as a result of the many sacrifices made by the people and the difficult choices made by the Government to successfully tackle the unprecedented economic and banking crisis. This has delivered an economic recovery that is gaining real momentum and we are now seeing the benefits.

The Exchequer statement for the first quarter of the year confirms the progress that has been made in restoring order to the public finances. With tax revenues nearly 5.5% ahead of target, this is real evidence of the increase in the number of jobs being created.

The Central Bank has estimated GDP growth of 4.8% last year, with a further increase of 3.8% this year. The recovery in the economy has become more balanced in the past year, with the beginning of a recovery in consumer spending, which is showing signs of gradually strengthening.

The quarterly national household survey figures published earlier in the year show that the number of people in work has increased by 90,000 since we introduced our strategies to create jobs and reduce unemployment. A particularly welcome aspect of this increase in employment is that it is largely made up of full-time work. There was an increase of almost 40,000 people working full time last year alone. Total employment now stands at well over 1.9 million, the highest level in five years.

The latest live register figures for March show a continued decline in the number of people out of work, as the unemployment rate fell to 10%. This represents the lowest number of people signing on since February 2009. Most encouragingly, the latest figures show that the number of long-term unemployed has fallen to just over 160,000, a reduction of nearly 11% in the past year. However, unemployment remains too high and we still have progress to make in getting people back into employment.

Helping people return to work is probably the key goal driving everybody in this House. Having a job is the best protector against poverty and I am particularly encouraged by the fact that the vast majority of people returning to work are returning to full-time jobs. The longer one is out of work, the harder it is to get back into the workforce. Every new job for someone who has been out of work is a new future for his or her family and a boost to the community. The recent quarterly national household survey figures clearly demonstrate the continuing success of the Government's twin-track approach to creating jobs and helping people return to work.

Pathways to Work is ensuring as many as possible of those newly created jobs go to those on the live register, especially those who are long-term unemployed or at risk of becoming long-term unemployed. Through the provision of return-to-work supports, training and education, those on the live register are ready to avail of the growing number of jobs being created every month. The Action Plan for Jobs is helping accelerate that transition to a sustainable, jobs-rich economy.

The Pathways to Work strategy sets out a comprehensive reform of the State's approach to helping unemployed jobseekers return to work. Since its inception in 2012, the Pathways to Work strategy has seen the State's employment and entitlement services being brought together into one-stop shop Intreo centres.

Group information sessions and individual profiling are fully operational in all of the Department's offices. Last year, the Department provided group information sessions for 186,000 jobseekers, including 56,000 long-term unemployed jobseekers. It also conducted initial one-to-one guidance interviews with 169,000 jobseekers. In addition, we have introduced and enhanced a range of schemes and programmes in recent years to assist those out of work. These include the introduction of the JobsPlus and Gateway programmes, as well as the development of the First Steps youth development initiative and JobsPlus youth programmes which are specifically tailored for young unemployed people. Since 2012, 62,000 long-term unemployed jobseekers have moved into employment and we are on track to reach our 2015 target of 75,000.

As Minister of State with responsibility for employment, community and social support, I have a particular focus on reducing the number of people out of work for over one year. In this regard, my Department continually reviews its supports for jobseekers to ensure they do not act as a disincentive to taking up work or increasing the number of hours worked. The Department's engagement in this area has clearly demonstrated the great majority of social welfare recipients have a strong financial incentive to take up employment, disproving the misconception that one is not financially rewarded for going back to work. These findings are supported by the work of the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, which confirms that work pays more than welfare for almost six out of seven unemployed people. These findings hold true even when in-work costs such as child care and travel to work are taken into account. This evidence clearly shows if we can create jobs, people will leave the welfare system to take up work. However, it is reasonable that families who have been struggling while out of work for long periods will be concerned about the potential implications of moving from welfare to work, particularly when they have children. This is where the back-to-work family dividend comes in. Put simply, the scheme will allow a family returning to work to retain the child related element of their welfare payment, known as the qualified child increase, for two years. The dividend will be paid at a standard weekly rate of €29.80 per child, subject to a maximum overall weekly payment of €119.20 per week in the first year. The rate payable in the second year will be half the rate payable in the first year, subject to a maximum overall weekly payment of €59.60. Accordingly, over the two-year payment period, the dividend will be worth €2,324 in the case of a one-child family, €4,649 in the case of a two-child family, €6,973 in the case of a three-child family and €9,298 in the case of a family with four or more children. This will mean, for example, that with the support provided through the family income supplement and the back-to-work family dividend, a person with a partner and four children who gets a job paying the minimum wage will be better off by some €304 a week, or €15,790 a year, by moving from jobseeker's allowance into employment. This is a highly progressive policy. The back-to-work family dividend scheme will operate during the period of economic recovery and will cease to operate with effect from 1 April 2021. The dividend will be tax free and will be payable in addition to any family income supplement entitlement that the person may have.

Two improvements will be introduced in this Bill to enhance the supports available to lone parents. The first improvement will extend entitlement to the one-parent family payment to lone parents who are also eligible for the half-rate carer's allowance payment until their youngest child reaches 16 years of age. This measure acknowledges the special situation and, in particular, the commitment of lone parents who are caring for people other than their own child such as a parent or sibling who requires full-time care and attention. The one-parent family payment scheme already provides for lone parents who are caring for children under 16 years of age and who are in receipt of the domiciliary care allowance.

This entitlement is not affected by the ongoing changes to the one-parent family payment scheme. The amendment that is now being proposed will mean that the same level of support will be provided for those caring for someone other than their own child. This measure is expected to impact positively on approximately 1,800 people, including the 800 individuals who were due to lose entitlement to one-parent family payment and half-rate carer's allowance from 2 July this year. The balance is made up of those who have lost entitlement since July 2013, as well as lone parents who will qualify for one-parent family payment for the first time when their youngest child is seven years of age or older and who are in receipt of carer's allowance.

The second improvement provides for an extension of the jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangements which were introduced in July 2013. These transitional arrangements currently apply to lone parents who have been in receipt of one-parent family payment within the last three years and where their youngest child is aged between seven and 13 years. Under the transitional arrangements which apply until the youngest child reaches 14 years of age, such lone parents are exempt from a number of the conditions applying to the jobseeker's allowance scheme such as the requirement to be available for and genuinely seeking full-time employment. The measure being provided for in this Bill will extend eligibility for the jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangements to all lone parents where their youngest child is aged between seven and 13 years, whether that person has been in receipt of one-parent family payment. The jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangements allow lone parents with children aged under 14 years to balance their caring responsibilities and, significantly, this reduces their requirement for child care.

This Second Stage debate of the Bill will be followed immediately by Private Members' business dealing with the changes to the one-parent family payment introduced in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012. While I do not want to pre-empt that debate, I would like to say a few words about the operation of the one-parent family payment scheme and the reforms introduced. Despite significant levels of investment, the one-parent family payment scheme has not been successful in preventing lone parents from being significantly more at risk of consistent poverty than the population as a whole. For instance, in 2004, during the height of the boom and when the economy was doing particularly well, lone parents were more than 4.5 times more likely to be at risk of consistent poverty than the population as a whole. A significant reason for this was the passive nature of the one-parent family payment and the limited engagement by the State with recipients. For many lone parents, this has meant long-term social welfare dependency and associated poverty and social exclusion for both themselves and their children.

Social transfers have certainly provided an important buffer in reducing poverty and social exclusion among lone parents. Despite the strong level of income support provided for lone parents over the years, they have remained especially at risk of poverty. This is why I believe the reforms to the one-parent family payment scheme are much needed. The best route out of poverty and social exclusion is through adequate and fairly paid employment. I want to end the expectation that lone parents may remain outside of the workforce indefinitely. As their children grow older, the focus must be placed on providing lone parents with the education, training and employment supports that will enable them to reach their full potential. The primary aim of the one-parent family payment scheme reforms is to reduce long-term welfare dependency and improve lone parents' access to education, training and employment supports. Improved access to these supports will enhance their skillset and job readiness which, in turn, will assist them with their transition to the workforce and their subsequent attainment of sustainable financial independence.

I have outlined the significant changes in the Bill which I commend to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for outlining the rationale for some of the changes in the Bill which we will not support. While we are not opposed to the back-to-work family dividend as a key measure of the Bill where families will retain the full qualified child increase, it is important to note that the Government has not gone far enough in some of the measures to row back on previous cuts to lone-parent payments. We will oppose the Bill, but we will table amendments on Committee Stage with a view to improving it.

The Minister of State has outlined the activation measures and we all want to ensure all parents, but lone parents, in particular, get an opportunity to go back to work. However, the changes to eligibility introduced by the Minister for Social Protection in the past three social welfare Bills that were enacted targeted this sector for cuts, with significant decreases in lone-parent payments. While the proposed changes are welcome, they will affect about 800 families, but another 10,000 families have been negatively affected under previous legislation because of changes in eligibility. More than 10,000 families are already working and are due to lose a substantial portion of their income - about 25% of income for a lone parent working 20 hours on the minimum wage. The Minister wants to give other lone parents the opportunity to get back into the workforce - I agree with this - but why penalise those who have already gone back to work by cutting their payments?

The Minister has failed to address the plight of lone parents who are in the middle of studying who, from July 2015, will lose their entitlement to a grant awarded by SUSI, with losses ranging from €45 to €113 per week. At the time of their introduction in April 2012, the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, referring to the changes as reforms, said they were introduced to encourage the activation of lone parents into employment and education. Again, she failed to explain why these reforms punish only those lone parents who are already fulfilling that objective, that is, those who are already working. She said she would not proceed with these changes until they were accompanied by what she termed the Scandinavian child care model, which we do not have. There have been no additional child care supports and the Minister is proceeding with the changes.

We have no difficulty with some parts of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, but we have to take a stand against the changes that have been made already. The Minister of State mentioned figures going back to 2004, showing that lone parents were more at risk of deprivation, but from the research that groups such as One Family and SPARK have conducted, more than 60% of lone parents and, by extension, their children are experiencing deprivation and poverty. The measures in the Bill are a way of rowing back on some of the cuts that have been introduced in the past four years. At the time I could not understand the reason the Department of Social Protection focused specifically on lone parents, cutting the benefits repeatedly, changing the criteria for eligibility as well as reducing the age of children who will be eligible. The changes from July are way out of kilter with many other cuts made by the Government. The Minister refers to them as reform and while I agree with him on one point, that everybody should be given the opportunity to work, why change the existing payments for those who are already working and are doing what the Department wants?

We will be tabling a significant number of amendments on Committee Stage and will debate them at that stage. Before the previous budget, we made a very strong pre-budget submission in order to help ease the transition of people who were long term unemployed and faced losing their benefits on returning to work. We proposed allowing persons in receipt of jobseeker's allowance for more than one year to retain increases for qualified children for a period of one year following their return to employment.

We have put forward proposals which I intend to put forward, with my colleagues, on Committee Stage. We will debate them in more detail at that stage.

I thank the Minister of State for coming and outlining some of the rationale behind the changes being brought forward. The initiative that will positively affect 800 families is welcome. However, we do not support the Bill because the Government has not gone far enough to redress some of the very unfair and disproportionate cuts it has brought forward over the past four Social Welfare Bills. To recap, we will deal with the amendments on Committee Stage and I thank the Minister of State for his attendance.

I welcome the Minister of State.

I welcome the legislation and the introduction of the back-to-work family dividend scheme. The need for this scheme was highlighted in 2011 in an academic study compiled by Hugh Frazer and Maurice Devlin from NUI Maynooth. One of the findings to emerge most strongly from recent EU work on child poverty is that the work intensity of households is a key factor in explaining Ireland's level of children at risk of poverty. For instance, the social protection committee report showed that in 2006, 42% of children at risk of poverty in Ireland lived in households where no one was working. This compared with an EU average of 26%. The risk of poverty for this group of children was 74%. There was also a 52% risk of poverty for children living in households where the work intensity was 0–0.5.

The TARKI 2010 research showed that the Irish child poverty rate was high when both parents in a couple were jobless and this group constituted 21% of all poor children. While the risk was much lower where one partner worked full time and one was jobless, they made up 23% of all children who were poor. By contrast, it was striking that when both parents worked full time the risk of poverty for children fell to 3%, and when a lone parent worked full time it fell to 8%. However, when both partners worked part time or a lone parent worked part time the poverty risk for children was quite high.

The role of unemployment or low work intensity in child poverty is reinforced by earlier Irish research, Layte et al in 2006. The study demonstrated that children in households where parents were unemployed or inactive in the labour force had a higher risk of spending time in poverty than children in households where two parents were employed. Analysis over an eight-year period showed that where neither parent was employed, nearly all children spent some time in income poverty. Where both parents were employed, children spent no time in poverty.

While the figures contained in these studies might have changed slightly in the past few years, they are still startling. It is simply the case, in poverty eradication terms, that employment is everything. Even during times of supposed full employment this country suffered from very high levels of jobless households and consistent child poverty.

Recent studies have shown that households with no employment suffer significant rates of consistent poverty and more so in households with children. The difficulty is that those children are very much at risk of intergenerational child poverty. This phenomenon has been present in Irish society for generations and it must be tackled. Innovative ideas are needed to ensure that the cycle of intergenerational unemployment, poverty and poor life outcomes is not continued into the future. In that light, this initiative is to be very much welcomed.

During the so-called boom the amount of social welfare expenditure multiplied at vastly greater rates than our inflation rate. What did that achieve? It helped to create a cycle of welfare dependency and poverty, thus ensuring that work simply did not pay. While throwing money at problems has long been a hallmark of previous Governments, the Government cannot afford fiscally or morally to continue the cycle.

In the 2013 and 2014 budgets the Government gave assistance to lone parents to re-enter the workforce with the afterschool child care scheme and the community employment child care programme. The absence of affordable child care is still a huge issue for families right across the country. I would welcome any measure in the forthcoming budget that would address this matter. The solution to ending intergenerational poverty is employment and ensuring work pays.

The Minister of State is welcome, as always.

I will support the Bill, but I will look at amendments put forward on Committee Stage. I would prefer if we could go further with payments and restore them to the fullest extent.

We shall debate a motion later in this House and, therefore, I shall mainly deal with my issues regarding lone parents later. However, there are issues around child care, other supports and the difficulties of knowing what is and is not within the remit of the Department. As we know, children do not live in any one Department or within any one remit but interconnectiveness is important. I must reiterate, and we have already dealt with the following in the House, that at the first sign of the economy turning we increased child benefit. Why was that funding not invested in child care services? When the cuts were made we were told that just increasing transfer payments was not the answer and we needed to invest in services. What are the priorities? How will we ensure that they are prioritised?

In regard to the back-to-work family dividend, Senator Naughton has eloquently outlined the importance of work. She outlined the links between jobless households and child poverty and how both factors are interrelated. I echo and agree with everything that she has said. Part of me does wonder, but again this matter is outside the remit of the Department, why Ireland is exceptional in not allowing those in direct provision to work? I do not understand such a policy, particularly as Senator Naughton has clearly outlined the importance of work. Even the discipline of work provides a role model for a child. Being part of a family and children seeing people going out to work is critically important. The Senator also mentioned the generational outcomes and how work fed that path.

I am also concerned about supports. Perhaps we will deal with the issue more later when we discuss the motion on lone parents. I am also concerned about the lack of regulation and guidance for afterschool child care. It is good that there is a scheme, but I do not want the same thing to happen when early years education was introduced. Following talk about early years education a scheme evolved, but now we are trying to unpick it and re-channel energies. I hope, in this instance, that we could sit down and draft clear regulations.

I raise an issue that relates to the Gender Recognition Bill introduced by the Department of Social Protection in this House. As the Minister of State will recall, when it came through the House in January and February - particularly in February - I raised issues concerning the silent treatment of trans and intersex children and young people in the Bill. I stated in my correspondence sent to the Minister of State and the Tánaiste that I would return to the issue when we debated the next Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and stipulated a timeline of three months. As the period has not elapsed, I shall not raise the issue but just note it and put down a marker. The Minister of State may recall that I offered to engage constructively with the Department's officials. There must be a workable legislative solution. Malta has brought in laws to deal with the issue. We have a lacuna because the Bill does not provide the mechanism for legal, even temporary, recognition of the gender for trans and intersex children under 16 years, even though all parties are in agreement that it would be in the best interests of the child. I was encouraged by and heartened to see the Dáil debate on the issue. Deputies right across the House raised similar issues which were echoed in the debate. It is firmly incumbent on us, the Legislature, to ensure we have proper provisions that uphold the rights of trans and intersex children and prioritises their best interest, and that we do not put the issue on the long finger. I ask the Minister of State to give us an update on the matter given that I plan to raise it when we debate the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

I welcome the Minister of State. I always feel that when he attends the House, he takes on board what we say. He has the good trait of listening attentively to what all Senators have to say.

The Bill contains some positive proposals which I welcome. On the other hand, there are a number of proposals that I wish to discuss in further detail with the Minister of State. One of the most positive aspects of the Bill is the introduction of the back-to-work family dividend scheme which was announced in budget 2015. The introduction of the scheme will create an incentive for people to move from welfare to work. It will also widen the gap between an individual's disposable income when working as opposed to income received while he or she is on social welfare.

I have said many times in social welfare debates that nobody should be better off unemployed than working. We must always incentivise people to return to work and the introduction of the back to work family dividend scheme is a step in the right direction. However, I ask the Minister of State to explain why it has been decided to limit the back-to-work dividend to four children. There are many families with more than four children, yet they can only claim it for up to four children. I do not understand the thinking behind this and ask the Minister of State for his thoughts on this matter.

It is a well known that many people struggle with the decision of whether to take up a job, if it will be worthwhile and if they will they lose benefits such as the fuel allowance, rent supplement or, for many, most importantly, their medical card. If they lose the medical card, they are anxious because they may not be able to afford health care and if they live in the country they will lose their entitlement to free school transport. I have never believed school transport should be free just because one has a medical card. It should be free to those who simply cannot afford to pay for it and it should come under the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport or the Department of Education and Skills, not the Department of Social Protection or the Department of Health. This is of great concern to people and one can understand the reason.

The Bill also puts in place jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangements for those who are on the one-parent family payment and whose youngest child has reached the age of seven years. We will be discussing this issue in much more detail in the Private Members' motion this evening. However, I welcome the fact that people who are parenting alone and who are transferring to jobseeker's allowance do not have to satisfy the full-time availability for work clause and need only be available for work during school hours until their child reaches the age of 13 years. I also welcome the Minister's decision to allow those on the one-parent family payment, who are in receipt of half-rate carer's payment, to retain the one-parent family payment and the half-rate carer's payment until their youngest child reaches the age of 16 years. I was very concerned about this when the changes to the one-parent family payment were introduced. I thank the Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, for addressing the issue, which I have discussed with the Minister of State and the Minister on numerous occasions and also at the Oireachtas committee. It is welcome that this will impact on those who lost entitlements since 2013. Will the Minister of State clarify if they will be backdated or reinstated from the date of passage of the Bill?

Another matter I have discussed with the Minister is the issue of those on the jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangement who are in education, or wish to take up education, and if she would consider the introduction of what I call a back to education allowance transitional arrangement, which would allow them to claim the registration fee and maintenance under the third level grants scheme. When in receipt of the one parent family payment, they were eligible to claim it but when they transfer to jobseekers transition allowance, they are no longer eligible and will go on to the back-to-education allowance. I am aware the Minister is working on this issue but I ask that it be dealt with as quickly as possible for the new school year.

I welcome the introduction of additional medical assessors for the Department. Invariably people who apply for carer's, invalidity and disability allowance wait a considerable time before the medical assessor deals with the application. This waiting causes a lot of stress for people, with the uncertainty as to whether their application will be successful.

Section 4 deals with the operation of the carer's benefit, allowance and respite care schemes. It was my opinion that all of these schemes were always assessed on the criteria that the person being cared for needed full-time care and attention from the carer and that the caree required continual supervision and frequent assistance throughout the day in connection with normal bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself or herself. However, a carer does a lot more than just supervising a person's medication or helping with bodily functions. Most carers do everything from supervising the person to bathing, assisting with toileting, shaving, and helping the caree to live safely and comfortably in the community rather than having to live in residential care. That entails much more than just seeing to their bodily functions. A carer can come in and shower or bathe a caree, and assist them to the bathroom and then leave the house, but that does not mean the person can live on his or her own. They need help with everyday things such as collecting prescriptions, attending doctor or hospital appointments, cooking, cleaning, putting down the fire or changing beds, all of which takes time. They really do need someone to help them. As we are all aware, home help hours have been cut so much that this kind of work no longer comes under the criteria of home helps. As it is all about personal care now, if people wish to continue living at home in their community and in the environment where they have always lived, many need a carer. If caring is restricted to normal bodily functions or continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself or herself, many people will not be eligible for a carer and a nursing home subvention or the fair deal is a far more expensive option for the Exchequer.

I note that the current legislative provision is that a person will be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention where the nature and extent of his or her disability or incapacity has been certified by a registered medical practitioner. To be honest, I wish that really was the case, because I have just gone through numerous appeals for people whose medical practitioner says that they are in need of a carer, yet the Department will not accept this. We spend weeks and weeks fighting their cases with reviews, appeals and oral hearings. We are successful with some but not others. It certainly does not come down to a GP or medical practitioner saying the person has a disability and needs a carer. There is much more to it than that. I was of the opinion that the deciding officer always had a say in it. I do not think this legislation is going to change that because it is already happening. I trust that this deciding officer will be a medical officer who will know when the person, medically, needs help.

I commend the Minister of State for the crackdown in fraud within social welfare which has resulted in millions of euro being saved and that the social welfare spend has been reduced by €83 million as a result. I welcome this as it means there is more money to go around and it can be targeted at those who need it and not those who are fraudulently claiming from the Department. The only negative point I have to make is that the Department is requesting an excessive amount in repayments in many cases. While I agree the money has to be repaid, sometimes people just cannot afford to repay the amount demanded by the Department. Even though one appeals it, the Department still insists that they pay it. If a recall correctly, a social welfare Bill provided that the amount of the repayment would be around €28 per week but in many cases the Department is demanding in excess of that amount.

Overall, I welcome the Bill. As I said, we will speak in more detail about one-parent families during the debate on the Private Members' motion which follows.

I welcome the Minister of State. It is evident in any discussion we have today about any change that there are two issues involved. One is that because we do not have the money to do what we would like to do, how can that money be best used, while the other is how we can improve the lot of people. This is what is important because at the end of the day we have to find a balance between those two positions. Any person who is genuinely involved in this debate will have to start it in that way.

Most of us live at the coalface when it comes to single parent families. We all know the challenges for such families and also for those parents. It is not easy at any stage. There is a major responsibility on them. At times we feel exceptionally inspired by them. Clearly, the income to the house has been eroded over a period, putting significant stress on those households, including the children. It was difficult enough when things were reasonably good but then families find themselves in a competitive situation. Children have to go out and meet their own peer groups and those who are better off in life as against those who now find themselves exceptionally distressed. It is no secret that the stress often causes terrible depression for families that extends from the parent to the children. The children who should be protected, nourished, cultivated and helped have an added challenge. We often see the results of this in society. One wonders whether we are making savings in the long run by eroding family income and adding those extra pressures when we see what comes out at the other end and the expenditure which is often involved in looking after the traumatic cases.

In addition, the principle of what is work and what it means to be in employment is important. For a while we said that a parent at home rearing children had a passive and not an active life, but that is not true. I cannot think of any more important work than looking after children, particularly in the case of a lone parent, and what a lone parent does is definitely work. A lone parent has more to do than a couple, although a couple also has difficulties. It is work which is also beneficial to society and to the State coffers because parents who stay at home ensure responsibility does not pass on to an agency of the State, which would have to pay an amount way above the money involved in what a parent does.

We often misrepresent the carer in this matter. All of us have seen the work of carers and what they have to do is absolutely mind-boggling. We have seen television programmes about their work and it is very deflating to see what a carer in a household has to do for 24 hours a day. It is not as simple as counting out tablets in that very often the people concerned give up their own lives to look after somebody in the household. I speak in generalities because sometimes the generalities are lost in the specifics.

The second thing I have noticed in cases that have come to public attention and have been shown on television is how magnanimous these people are. The manner in which they accept their responsibilities and duties is inspiring. I often try to imagine how I would be if I found myself in that position. I wonder if I would have the tenacity the people concerned display. We have to make their lives as easy as possible.

The idea of easing a single woman or single man back into employment is laudable in itself but we also have to be very careful to consider what will happen to children. The idea of a seven-year cut-off point for a child will not convince many of us as not much changes between the ages of six and seven years, or even eight for that matter. However, as that is the yardstick we are using, it is important to ask if it is practicable and if it will continue to ensure children are looked after. Even if a single parent is eased back into employment, many extra costs come back onto the household for numerous reasons, because children do not have their parent for X number of hours every day.

I am involved in a centre in Cashel where we have had the benefit of community employment. In better days when they were able to maximise their income, single parents came in and I could see what it meant to them. It obviously gave them a sense of worth but, above all, it gave them a certain amount of ease as it got them away from the pressures in the home. A lot of that has changed and I wonder if society will be the loser in the long-term.

The reason we must consider and debate legislation like this is the money which used to be there is no longer available. Therefore, we must decide what we prioritise. It would be very easy if we opposed every debate on economic issues just for the sake of it, but that is not what I am doing. I am talking about what the priorities are and which people should be privileged when money is being expended. I say lone parents and children who are more vulnerable than in normal circumstances should be the priority and should have privilege but others should also get priority and privilege.

I will not open the debate now, but there is a proposal to give free GP care for those under the age of six years, even if the parents are millionaires. I do not take a position on that particular case, but we need to take care on where the priority should be.

I welcome the Minister of State. A lot of work has clearly been done on social welfare reform and this is yet another step on the journey. I welcome the Bill, particularly in the context of the Fine Gael making work pay policy, which was recently published.

When considering the Bill we must also consider the backdrop against which it is set. There is no question that, even during the years when we had full employment and rapid economic growth before the economic implosion, Ireland has suffered from high levels of jobless households and consistent child poverty. The long-term unemployed, one-parent families, those with disabilities and others who found it difficult to access work were simply abandoned on the dole queues until the Government started to overhaul the social welfare system.

There can be no question that the prioritisation of benefits over services has resulted in a culture that has locked in consistent poverty and poor outcomes for people. For example, Ireland pays out one of the highest rates of child benefit in the developed world, yet it still has one of the highest rates of child poverty. How can this be? Why do some want to maintain the status quo? We should be working to create a society in which work pays for families. Recent research has revealed that households with someone at work make up 9% of all those who are categorised as being in consistent poverty. This is not acceptable and it is vital we all ensure that work always pays. In that context the main purpose of the Bill is to provide for the introduction of the back-to-work family dividend scheme, announced in budget 2015 and discussed by other Senators, in order to help jobseekers with families and lone parents return to work.

The provisions in the Bill which are attracting most attention deal with the introduction of the new back-to-work family dividends. The rationale behind this is to ensure families getting back to work do not find themselves financially at a disadvantage in the short-term. As such, the back-to-work family dividend will help jobseekers with families and lone parents to return to work by allowing them to retain the element of the social welfare payment which they receive for their children for up to two years. These payments can vary over a two-year term and could be worth €2,324 in the case of a one-child family, €4,649 in the case of a two-child family and so on. Nevertheless, the intent is clear - to ensure no family is at a disadvantage as a consequence of going back to work.

The authentication and verification of a person's identity when they appear to collect their payment is something that has been brought up regularly during the last decade and the Bill seeks to address it. This has been perceived as a significant issue in recent years and I am satisfied that the Bill seeks to remedy some of the weaknesses. For example, it will distinguish a person presenting at a post office for payment on his or her own behalf from a person who has been nominated to collect a social welfare payment on behalf of another person and a person who has been appointed to act on behalf of another person who has been certified by a registered medical practitioner as being unable to manage his or her own financial affairs. From now on, where a person presents for payment on his or her own behalf, that person must provide identification at the post office in the form of a valid passport, current driving licence or other identity validation document.

This is a worthwhile provision and, in addition, where a person has been nominated to collect a social welfare payment on behalf of another person, the person presenting for such a payment must provide evidence that he or she has been nominated to receive the payment on behalf of that other person, while also being subject to the requirement to provide the public service card and other relevant documentation. The Bill is well thought out legislation that will modernise the social welfare system. The long overdue transformation of the social welfare system into a modern work activation service is a good thing. All jobseekers should have access to the best available support to aid their return to work. The Bill accomplishes it and I am happy to support it.

I welcome the Minister of State who has had a long day in the Seanad. I also welcome the Bill. Its primary purpose is to make provision for the new back to work family support. This is a welcome measure as it allows those moving off social welfare payments to hang on to child-specific portions of social welfare payments for one year and half of it for a further year. After four years of harsh social welfare cuts, with indirect costs to many social welfare payments and cuts from the previous Government, it is some acknowledgement by the Government of the cost of engaging in work and the poor quality and low-paying nature of many jobs. Many in-work poverty traps are known about and must be dealt with. This is a small, but welcome, measure. From the establishment of the Low Pay Commission and all the reports published by EUROSTAT, the OECD, TASC and others, we know we have a problem with low pay. There is a difficulty with people on low pay moving from unemployment to employment. The lack of access to public services, whether it is health care, education or supports for children of workers and child care, creates problems for people on low pay. There are many such people.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú has correctly said that as we bear the fruits of any upturn, we must spend the money wisely and ensure the extra revenue available to the State is used in a way that makes sure we deal with poverty and inequality rather than going off on political tangents and engaging in auction politics with tax cut promises that seem attractive in an election. In reality, we must make sure we put money back into these supports and, critically, areas of public service provision where it is necessary to lift people out of poverty.

Ireland has one of the highest rates of low pay in Europe and the number of people in part-time work continues to increase, with 13% more workers employed on a part-time basis since 2007. According to the OECD, we have the third highest rate of underemployment in the EU-28 and over one third of workers will earn €20,000 or less in 2015, yet the Government has taken no serious action to tackle the prevalence of low pay. Quite late in the day, the Low Pay Commission was set up but it is narrow in scope and does not deal with the contributing factors that create in-work poverty. Wages are only one element of it and the minimum wage, while only one small element, affects only 5% of the workforce. Many people above the minimum wage but on low pay must also be supported. We know the problem with precarious work and low-hour contracts. The Minister of State is supportive of doing something about it and there will be a debate in the Dáil during Private Members' business based on a motion tabled by Sinn Féin. It is a concrete, practical, realistic and deliverable proposal supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and will help workers who want to work more to go from part-time to full-time work to end the exploitative nature of many of these low-hour contracts where we have profitable companies paying their workers low wages on low-hour contracts. In the case of some retailers, 70% or 80% of workers are on low-hour contracts for years. This is clearly exploiting workers.

Much more needs to be done, even in terms of labour activation measures. We must look seriously at what works and what does not work. JobBridge is not working is and it is a clearly exploitative scheme. I welcome the call by IMPACT to scrap it. Sinn Féin has also published proposals. While I criticise JobBridge, I commend the Government for introducing JobsPlus which is a much better scheme and work-related. It is of great benefit and we welcomed its introduction and expansion in recent times. It involves real jobs, real pay and terms and conditions. The Minister of State shook his head when I referred to JobBridge and the Government is very defensive about it. I have a difficulty with it and some of my family members have gone through it and were critical of it. I have spoken to many people in the constituency in which I live who have not had a good experience, although some have. If there is room for employers to exploit it, they will do so. A survey by Indecon showed 30% of employers who used the scheme said that, in the absence of the scheme, they would have taken on someone. That is a high figure.

One of the provisions of the Bill which is an area of concern for us and has been raised by other Senators is section 3 concerning the eligibility of caring payments. I am concerned at the section of the Bill in respect of family carers. In the submission on the Bill, the Free Legal Advice Centre, FLAC, and Community Law & Mediation called for the deletion of the section, arguing that it doid nothing but make it more difficult for carers to access income supports. They describe section 3 as negative law making, introducing a presumption of ineligibility for the payment, which the applicant must overcome. The applicant must demonstrate an entitlement and the deciding officer then makes a decision from a position of neutrality and objectivity. The submission notes that the outworking of the change will see more eligible applicants having to go to the appeals office to secure their entitlements. Our vast experience of dealing with people who must appeal social welfare or benefit claim is that it can take a long time. If we can prevent appeals having to be made in the first place, it is better for those who benefit from it. I welcome the provisions of the Bill and look forward to supporting it.

I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate on Second Stage and the spirit in which the contributions were made, which was constructive in the majority of cases. In the Bill we are providing further help for welfare dependent families through the introduction of the back to work family dividend to help jobseekers with families and lone parents return to work or increase their number of hours. We are also enhancing the support for lone parents through the extension of the eligibility for jobseekers allowance transition arrangements and the changes in eligibility for one-parent family payments, where lone parents are also providing full-time care and attention for another person. All of these improvements have been made possible as a result of the many sacrifices citizens have made.

I would like to respond to some of the specific points because we will debate the provisions in detail on Committee Stage. Senator Darragh O'Brien welcomes the back-to-work family dividend. I acknowledge this. Both he and Senator Marie Moloney mentioned the SUSI grant. We will work through it and I will provide further information on Committee Stage.

Senator Hildegarde Naughton referred to jobless households, which is one of the most disappointing elements. Through the Celtic tiger, households with no one employed were continually caught in the spiral of poverty. Money was thrown at the problem, but there was no improved outcome.

The Government, with limited resources, has been trying to realign the social welfare system into a positive engagement process that will help people back into employment.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout referred to the gender recognition legislation which I brought through the House in February. I approached it in many ways as possible and listened to the various issues raised in the debates on the Bill. I tried to amend and adjust the legislation accordingly. That is why I took on the whole idea in the Seanad of the two-year review of the legislation. The role of general practitioners and how it should operate in the system was also expressed strongly here and in the other House. We received correspondence from the Royal College of Physicians when the Bill was taken in the Dáil. I thought it was right of me to hold back before it went to Committee Stage to discuss the issues raised with the college. That has happened and correspondence has been exchanged. I hope to make progress on this matter in the near future. I know that the matter deeply concerns Senator Jillian van Turnhout and she explained the lack of research and information available on how children are affected by gender recognition. From that, we have organised an initial meeting on 28 April with interest groups such as TENI, Transgender Equality Network Ireland, the Minister for Education and Skills and other education stakeholders including boards of management, principals and, I hope, parents. I have conducted some research on the matter and listened to alternative views. Everyone wants to do the right thing for the children in question. The first approach is to engage with the education stakeholders to ensure the children's experience in the education system is good. This consultation must go on for some time to be built into a substantial proposal. Above all, we need to get this right. There is a need for research into it. I am at the beginning of this path and hope I can help to advance it.

Senator Marie Moloney asked why the back to work dividend stops at the fourth child. There is an element of resources and costs of the scheme. While we have made significant progress and turned the economy around, as Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said, we are still quite constrained. These are choices that Governments find they have to make, resulting in them having to put in a qualification basis. There have been changes to how medical card eligibility is assessed for those going back to work which the Department and the Health Service Executive can explain further to the Senator.

Changes contained in section 4 will have no impact on how these schemes are operated or on how eligibility for these schemes is determined. Much of this is about resolving issues around the language used in previous Bills and rectifying other changes.

I acknowledge Senator Catherine Noone’s contribution. These Bills have been introduced against the backdrop of the economic crisis and emergency with which the Government had to deal. We have been able to make much progress in this area and in reforming social welfare schemes. This is the first budget in which we are giving money back to taxpayers to keep economic growth.

Senator David Cullinane made many remarks about the Government’s policies. It must be remembered the Government’s first action in the middle of an economic crisis was to reinstate €1 to the minimum wage that had previously been taken away. The Senator referred to various reports. but one report he did not mention was the ESRI one that showed the Government’s social welfare policies and social transfers have prevented many people from falling into poverty and that the safety net worked. There were many people in distress who were not on social welfare but by keeping the core social welfare rates in place the safety net worked. It was difficult for everybody.

Senator David Cullinane also referred to IMPACT’s report on JobBridge. I was at the launch of that report and spoke at it. Dr. Mary Murphy did acknowledge in the report that JobBridge helped many. The Indecon report on the scheme contacted over 4,000 participants of which over 53% responded. Over 60% of those who participated in JobBridge moved into employment subsequently. It is extremely important that we were able to help people back into employment. If we had to wait to get the scheme perfect, we would still be waiting, as would the 60% of participants who have moved into further employment. One cannot wait until one gets the perfect scheme. JobBridge has operated well. With the economy recovering and changing, the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection believes it is time to revisit and review the scheme to see if it can be improved. I will be talking to the many stakeholders, including IMPACT, about this matter. Figures are always thrown about, but the Indecon report showed the scheme caused displacement. However, it was only at the rate of 4%. When one considers that 30,000 people received an opportunity in the scheme, 4% represents a tiny marginal effect.

I thank Senator David Cullinane for his remarks on JobsPlus. This has been an extremely good initiative from the Government, already helping 5,000 people back into employment by this quarter. Up to 60% were unemployed for two years. It is doing exactly what it says on the tin. The reason it has worked so well is that it is simple for the jobseeker and the employer to draw down the money. We will be promoting the scheme further. The Government is determined that those who have been on the live register the longest will have the best opportunities to get back into employment. JobsPlus is serving the State well and working very well.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21 April 2015.
Sitting suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 6.45 p.m.
Top
Share