SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Committee Stage

Vice Chairman

I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, and his officials.

Before we commence business, I need to reach agreement on sitting times. Is it agreed that there will be a lunch break from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m? Agreed.

I draw the attention of members to the following typographical error in amendment No. 34 in the name of the Minister. At the end of paragraph (c), the word “and” should appear. It will be incorporated in the next printing of the Bill.

The list of amendments to be grouped has been circulated. It is proposed to group the following amendments for the purposes of debate: amendments Nos. 3 and 4; 9, 10 and 11; 18 and 26; 20 and 25; 29 to 32, inclusive; and 33 to 35, inclusive. All other amendments will be discussed individually. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I convey the apologies of the Chairman, Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae. I will chair the meeting in his absence, by agreement.

SECTION 1

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) The Labour Services Acts 1987 to 2009 and Part 3 and section 33, insofar as it relates to Part 3, may be cited together as the Labour Services Acts 1987 to 2010.”.

This is a technical amendment to the collective citation.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I give notice that I will table an amendment on Report Stage. It will be what I term a groundhog day amendment. The suggestion is that at this Part of the Bill a clause or section be inserted which would suggest that sections 17, 18 and 24 shall be repealed or shall stand repealed unless a resolution is passed with debate by both Houses of the Oireachtas, resolving that the necessary activation supports and services, and job opportunities, including those referred to in section 1(3) exist in sufficient numbers to allow for the safe operation of those sections. We will deal at a later stage in greater detail with the sections relating to changes to jobseeker's allowance and changes to one-parent family payments. Through the use of such a clause we need a continual review to measure the activation, as in jobs, and meaningful and appropriate training or educational opportunities. While what has been proposed may be welcome, it is only welcome if all the opportunities are available otherwise the changes being suggested are punitive. As I said on Second Stage, the jobs, education courses or appropriate and meaningful training courses aimed at future jobs for a future new economy are not available.

Question put and agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the potential yield of each of the following revenue raising measures:

(a) requiring insurance companies to compensate the Minister for illness or disability payments where they have admitted liability and where the value of social welfare entitlements are deducted from the gross claim settlement;

(b) changing Charge PRSI on rental income on PRSI classes A, B, C, D, E, H & S;

(d) applying PRSI to share based remuneration and share options on PRSI classes A, B, C, D, E, H & S;

(e) withholding payment of Mortgage Interest Supplement until proof is provided that a bank has declined a payment-free period, an interest-free period, a partial write-off, an extension of the term, or any other reduction in the cost of the mortgage to the mortgage-holder and use the saving to improve the means-test for Mortgage Interest Supplement and modernise the rules including the deletion of the “30 hour rule”.”.

I again draw attention to the frustrating aspect of an Opposition spokesperson having any input into legislation. As Opposition Members we are precluded from making any proposals on any matter that will result in a cost to the Exchequer, which limits our role as Opposition Members. Not only that, but we are also precluded from making any proposals which would result in savings being made to the Exchequer, which is nonsensical. I really wanted to engage with the Minister on this legislation and on his general work in the Department. The Labour Party has already outlined a range of measures that could be implemented and would result in significant savings in the Department of Social Protection. However, unfortunately under Standing Orders we are not allowed to table amendments that would result in savings being made, which is ridiculous and seriously curtails the role of Opposition spokespersons and Members generally.

We have no option but to resort to this mechanism of tabling amendments seeking reports to be produced, which is what I have been forced to do on this area. I had hoped the Minister would consider a range of reforms that were necessary in his Department, the main ones being in the pension area. The Minister has responsibility for pension policy. There is potential for significant savings to the Exchequer by changing pension policy. In particular I refer to the exorbitant reliefs available to rich people and the fact that people can have pension pots up to €5.4 million tax free, from which they are allowed to withdraw 25% on a tax-free basis. Under the current law and Department of Social Protection policy, wealthy people can take approximately €1.3 million tax-free on retirement. There is no justification for allowing that to continue at a time when the Government is cutting the incomes of the people on the very lowest incomes. Last year the Government cut the Christmas bonus for a range of social welfare recipients. It is indefensible to cut the incomes of people at the lowest level while allowing the very rich to get away scot free in many respects in the pensions area. Current pension arrangements for the wealthy are indefensible.

I call on the Minister for Social Protection to take action to bring some equality into the pensions area. It is in his power to do something in this area. He is responsible for the policy. To date he and his predecessors have failed to rationalise the area of pension tax relief for the wealthy. I ask him to review that area as a matter of urgency to bring about reform. Exchequer savings of hundreds of millions of euro could be made by changing the policy in that area.

The amendment also proposes that the Minister would prepare a report on how he could make savings in the PRSI area, a number of which I have listed. He should seek to apply PRSI on rental income in certain classes, on capital gains for certain classes, and on share-based remuneration and share options for certain classes of PRSI payers. It is not just me saying that. Those three proposals to extend PRSI to rental income, capital gains and share-based remuneration came from a recommendation of the Commission on Taxation. I do not know why the Minister has not accepted that recommendation. If he is serious about making savings in social welfare and serious about social protection, he would seek to make savings by getting more from those who can best afford to contribute more. Unfortunately he chose not to do so in the Bill as he could have done. He could have adopted the recommendations of the Commission on Taxation. For some reason he decided not to go down that route.

I wanted to make amendments to this legislation to provide for that but was precluded from doing so through Standing Orders and so I am now asking the Minister to agree to prepare a report on the implications of extending the levying of PRSI on those other forms of income, which would undoubtedly result in significant savings accruing to the Department of Social Protection and allow the Government to avoid having to cut the incomes of those on the lowest levels of income and who depend solely on social welfare.

I want insurance companies to compensate the Department of Social Protection for illness or disability payments where they have admitted liability and where the value of social welfare entitlements are deducted from the gross claim settlement. At the moment it seems the Department is letting insurance companies off the hook in these circumstances. I do not understand why the Minister is allowing that to continue. The amendment seeks to secure cost savings for the Exchequer on disability-type payments by withdrawing the effective subsidisation of insurance companies in compensation awards. In recent times a number of cases have been brought to my attention which underlines what is involved. For example, if a pedestrian has his foot crushed by a truck, the driver of the truck is at fault and the insurance company will admit liability. However, the man who has been injured spends several months undergoing surgery and recuperating. He is out of work for this time and claims illness benefit. The case is settled and the man is awarded a substantial payment for his loss of earnings. However, the value of his illness benefit is subtracted from this payment. In this instance the State is effectively subsidising the insurance company and the Department does not pursue it for retrieval of illness benefit. This does not make sense at a time when money is tight. Given that those who are solely dependent on social welfare have been already hit by cutbacks, one would expect the Minister to try to make savings wherever possible by addressing these anomalies. I ask him to attend to this issue.

The final area on which I seek a report is the payment of mortgage interest supplement. At present, if persons who lose their job and have difficulties meeting mortgage payments contact a community welfare officer to seek assistance with mortgage repayments, they will be paid the mortgage interest supplement provided they meet the criteria laid down by the Department. This subsidy should not be paid until such time as applicants have exhausted all possibilities with their respective lenders. Applicants should be required to negotiate with their bank or building society which has a role to play in assisting people who are in mortgage difficulty. We should expect financial institutions to provide a range of measures to assist people in this position and the mortgagee should be required to negotiate with his or her bank to restructure the repayment schedule of the mortgage. This could mean the bank providing a break from repayments of perhaps six or 12 months, as some banks are being encouraged to do, or restructuring the mortgage over a longer period.

Most of the rules for mortgage interest payment were set down in the mid-1990s when significant mortgage debt was not a major factor, as it is today. At that time, banks were not providing 100% mortgages with 35 year repayment schedules and the practice of re-financing using one's home as collateral was not yet widespread. We need to update the mortgage interest payment scheme because it is completely out of date and operates essentially as a subsidy for banks. It does not place an onus on banks to offer a moratorium, a write-off, an extended repayment period or an interest free period. For this reason, banks are suggesting to customers that they avail of the mortgage interest supplement arrangements provided by the State. The Minister should not facilitate a position in which the State subsidises banks.

The financial institutions should be the first port of call when people experience difficulty with their mortgages and should share the costs involved in assisting such people. The amendment seeks to ensure that the first onus is on the banks to agree a compromise with customers and share the responsibility for the substantial debt in which they find themselves.

Each of the five proposals I have made is reasonable. I had intended to table them as amendments but was precluded from doing so. If the Minister was serious about protecting the Department's budget and securing the greatest possible savings at the expense of those who can afford to make a contribution, he would have tabled amendments. I ask the Minister to agree to the amendment which seeks a report in each of five areas which have the potential to generate significant savings.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

The Fine Gael Party supports the amendment. I am especially interested in having a report on the PRSI changes outlined by Deputy Shortall to ascertain what impact the proposed changes would have. Frustration about pensions is widespread. The Government claims many loopholes have been closed, even though employers continue to be allowed to pay large sums into pension schemes on behalf of their employees. When people see a small number of people benefiting from large company pensions while they suffer from cuts in income, they find it impossible to square the circle.

On mortgage interest supplement, my experience in recent months has been that when a person contacts a financial institution or sub-prime lender to discuss the renegotiation of his or her mortgage the whole discussion can predicate on whether the mortgage holder will receive mortgage interest supplement. We have all made representations on behalf of people seeking mortgage interest supplement, which has become a cheque written to the bank. It may be paid to the mortgage holder but it goes directly to the bank. The scheme does not achieve the objectives we set for it.

Mortgage interest supplement is vital for recipients as it allows them to retain their home. Nevertheless, it amounts to an additional form of assistance for financial institutions, including several which have been supported by the State. I am aware of cases where people who were refused mortgage interest supplement were automatically refused any type of deal with their lender when they sought to renegotiate their mortgage. The reason was simply that they did not meet the criteria of the mortgage interest supplement scheme.

The review of the mortgage interest supplement scheme, which has been ongoing for two and a half years, commenced before the entire landscape within which the scheme operates dramatically changed. The application of the scheme must be examined and we must send out a message to financial institutions that its purpose is not to support them, as is currently the case. I do not know the position regarding the review of the mortgage interest supplement scheme, although I am aware that the Cooney group must report by next Wednesday.

I would like access to the contents of the study being done by the Department to enable me to ascertain how the mortgage interest supplement scheme is being applied and whether it is effective. People depend on the supplement as without it they would lose their homes. Cases in which applications are refused are difficult for us because they effectively mean that the applicant loses all negotiating power with the lending institution. At the same time, the current application of the scheme was not necessarily the purpose set out for it. It has evolved into a scheme for writing cheques to the bank or sub-prime lender. I assume the examination of the scheme is almost complete. It should be published within the timeframe laid down in the amendment to allow members to have a rational discussion of this issue. While I have met the Cooney group, I do not know how much emphasis it has placed on mortgage interest supplement. It would be difficult for it to complete its review without examining the scheme.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

It is difficult for ordinary citizens, especially those in receipt of the disabled or blind pension who have had their income cut, to accept that someone from the banking or financial sector who has done the country a disservice through mismanagement is able to walk away with €1.3 million free of taxation. This issue must be addressed urgently.

On insurance, there is no reason someone in receipt of the disability allowance as a result of an accident should have his or her payments subtracted from an insurance payment. Persons with a medical card who require hospital care as a result of an accident will have their hospital bill paid for by their insurance company. Action should be taken on this issue.

Everything possible must be done to ensure the banks meet their responsibilities. The Minister must force the issue because in many cases it was the financial institutions, especially sub-prime lenders that encouraged reckless lending. There were many sharks in the market who lent money to people in the knowledge that it could never be repaid. This has given rise to horrendous circumstances. I encourage the Minister to consider the amendment sympathetically and in the spirit in which it has been presented.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

While I see much merit in the ideas put forward, I do not propose to accept the amendment, although I accept the spirit behind it. The amendment makes many interesting suggestions. On the first issue, the insurance company and the compensation, I will begin a consultation process with the interested parties. I see merit in it even though we would have to contact many stakeholders in Departments, especially the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, the insurance industry, the Bar Council and the Law Society. However, I am advised that this might not give us the honey pot we expect. Legislation in the area was introduced in Britain containing 34 sections but the amount of money that was achieved was approximately €140 million a year. Given that its population is ten times the size of ours, that gives approximately €14 million for 4 million people based on an assumed population of 40 million in Britain, where the population is in fact 50 million or 55 million. One is probably talking about a take of €10 million to €12 million in this country. I would never refuse €10 million to €12 million if I could get my hands on it, as long as it did not cost me €10 million to €12 million to get my hands on it. I will start a consultation process to see how we can progress that issue.

In principle no one could argue against the approach. I welcome the fact that another common law jurisdiction has tried it. It does not appear to be likely to yield a large amount of money but we might do better than the British if we decide to proceed with it. The sum of €88 million was mentioned at one stage. I do not know where the figure came from or whether it is overly optimistic. The best comparison is that it has been done already in Britain and that it would raise approximately €10 million a year in this country. The sum of €10 million, or any money, is not to be sneezed at, but we would have to ensure it was an efficient way to raise money.

Yes, but as Deputy Shortall is aware, the taxation element is still primarily an issue for the Minister for Finance.

Following the Commission on Taxation report, in last year's budget speech the Minister for Finance announced that in 2011 it was his intention to introduce a new system of charges on income. A new universal social contribution will replace employee PRSI, the health levy and the income levy. It will be paid by everyone at a low rate and a wide base as a collective contribution to public services. The Minister clearly stated at the time that the Commission on Taxation recommendations are informing discussions on the social contribution.

I will discuss the PRSI matter with the Minister for Finance. It would be a budgetary issue if we were to make the suggested changes.

I am interested in the ideas given by the Opposition. I am never one to look a gift horse in the mouth. I will examine these when in discussion with the Minister for Finance during the budget process. These are budgetary matters so this committee cannot make a decision on them.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

No, the Minister is not being asked to do that. I am drawing these matters to his attention and I would have hoped he would have tabled these amendments himself. Given that he agrees in principle with each of the five proposals, I would hope he would produce a report on them and return to the committee with it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am not going to do it the way the Deputy has suggested. It would be stupid to produce a report when the Government will make a decision in the next several weeks on mortgage interest supplement.

I will also begin a consultation on insurance companies compensating the Minister for illness or disability payments where they have admitted liability. When it is completed, we can have discussions on it. I do not believe there is the honey pot there that many people claim there is.

I will examine the PRSI proposals in the budgetary process with the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—The Civil Registration Act 2004 is amended—

(a) in section 19, by the deletion of subsection (6)(g),

(b) by the deletion of section 22 and the substitution therefor of the following section:

22.—(1) This section applies without prejudice to the general duty on both parents to register a birth under section 19, whether those parents are married or not.

(2) It shall be the duty of a parent whether married to the other parent or not, to furnish to the registrar particulars of the other parent.

(3) Where a mother who is the informant for the purposes of section 19, gives particulars to the registrar of the father, those particulars shall be registered following the giving of notice to the person so named, unless he makes a claim, within such period as may be prescribed, that he is not father; and on the making of such claim the matter shall be referred by the registrar to the District Court for directions prior to the registration of the birth.

(4) Where a mother who is the informant for the purposes of section 19 fails or refuses to furnish particulars of the father, or provides particulars that are false, misleading or incomplete, any person claiming to be the father of the child may at any time thereafter supply to the registrar or to any other qualified informant particulars regarding the father of the child, and the registrar shall register such particulars if the mother does not object to them within such time as may be prescribed; and in case of such objection the registrar shall refer the matter to the District Court for directions.

(5) Where the father of a child has not been registered in respect of any child born before the commencement of section 7 of the Guardianship of Children Act 2010, or where, in respect of such a child, a mother who is the informant for the purposes of the Act of 2004 has provided particulars of the father that are false, misleading or incomplete, the father of the child may at any time after such commencement supply to the registrar particulars regarding the father of the child, and the registrar shall re-register the birth containing such particulars if the mother does not object to them or in case of objection shall refer the matter to the District Court for directions.".

The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the compulsory registration of fathers on birth certificates. This is an issue that has been debated on a couple of occasions during the past year, not least by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs.

We produced a report during the year, a section of which was on this issue. The committee agreed the following wording:

The committee strongly recommends that it should be made compulsory for the father's name to be registered on a child's birth certificate and that the Minister for Health and Children progress this matter with the General Registrar's office as a matter of priority. Apart from wider societal benefits, there is the potential for compulsory registration of the father's name to lead to greater success in the recovery of maintenance payments and/or a lower level of fraud in relation to parental living arrangements.

I believe there is a general agreement that we should move towards the situation that exists in most northern European countries at least, where there is a requirement to register the father's name on a birth certificate. All children have two parents and under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child all children have a right to know and be cared for by both parents. Unfortunately, at the moment there is no such requirement when registering the birth of a child and this, undoubtedly, leads to a denial of a child's birthright in terms of his or her right to know who are both parents. As well as this impacting negatively on the child, it also sends out a message to the effect that the role of father is not important, and we should not be doing that. We should be emphasising to both fathers and mothers the important role they need to play in their children's lives.

I understand that sometimes lone parents who go to register the birth of a child are advised not to put down the father's name because this could impact on access to the one-parent family payment. Again, that is a very negative type of climate to be creating both for the child and fathers. It is in everybody's interest that both parents' names are registered on the birth certificate and we should enshrine in law the requirement that this should be done.

Obviously, from the viewpoint of the operation of the Minister's Department and ensuring that fathers who are in a position to provide for their children should be required to do so, that message needs to go out because at the moment fathers are being told, in effect, that if they father a child they can walk away. The father in the event has basically no responsibilities and nobody expects him to play a role in the child's life. Neither does anybody seriously pursue him in terms of providing for the child. That is bad public policy and I believe it needs to be changed. There is all-party agreement on that at the level of this committee as well as among many of the groups working with lone parents, Treoir in particular, which has been campaigning for this change in the law. I hope the Minister will support the amendment.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I support the principle of this amendment. We had considerable discussion on this at the time the report was being prepared by Deputy Shortall. There were concerns about the operation of it and so on. The Department of Social Protection has an obvious ability to look at maintenance payments, once the father's name is on a birth certificate. Quite apart from that, I strongly believe every child has the right to know who are both his or her parents. The easiest way to facilitate a child in this regard is to have both parents' names on the birth certificate from day one.

The argument as regards mothers being advised not to put the father's name on a birth certificate because of the one-payment family payment is valid, unfortunately, and one sees it time and again. However, if the father does not have means no court will force him to make the payment, so she will still be entitled to the one-parent family payment. If one takes this to its logical conclusion, only fathers who have the means will be forced to pay the money. Otherwise, the mother will get the payment anyway, but there is a mindset among lone parents to the effect, "If I do this, I will not get the payment". I am not sure whether the Minister has taken advice on the wording, but it seems to me to be fair enough.

The only reservation I have is as regards part (3) in relation to the ability if a man who genuinely believes he is not the father, where the process kicks into train at that stage for him to prove it. I have come across difficulties in that regard when I was practising as a solicitor, with people having to take blood tests and so on, but ultimately the child still needs to know who is his or her father. That will have to happen at some stage so it is better that it should be done when the child is in his or her infancy rather than later. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I certainly support the amendment because the situation, as outlined, can lead to all sorts of other problems in the future if there is a need to trace who the father is etc. Years ago I heard my former colleague from Lucan talking about the issue as regards a housing estate in his constituency where people would not know who the fathers were or otherwise. This has been highlighted on television since and it is a very serious situation, namely, that there is inter-marriage among people who do not honestly know what is happening. Not only from an economic viewpoint, but from the long-term social and health perspectives, this appears to be very important.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

In principle, this issue needs to be progressed. I understand the Law Reform Commission issued a document in 2009 on the legal aspects of family relationships which included the issue of registration of fathers' particulars. I further understand it has invited submissions from interested parties and will issue recommendations in a further report. That report is not expected before the autumn, so we shall allow that it will be published then.

In the context of that report and because there are issues that have to be resolved here, I suggest it would be better to move after we receive this report, while not putting this on an infinite backburner. If the Law Reform Commission is within three or four months of producing a comprehensive report that looks at all the angles to this, it would be better to move on this once we have it.

I have nothing against what Deputy Shortall is proposing in this amendment, subject to safeguards. It has a good deal of merit. I agree with what Deputy Crawford said and in my view consanguinity will become a problem in the future. We know there are quite serious health aspects in this regard.

In summary, I will not be accepting the amendment, not because I do not agree that this matter should be dealt with, but as there is already a process in train with the Law Reform Commission. I believe we should move after that report has been received and we have considered all the work it has done, rather than jumping ahead at this stage.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Is that a commitment from the Minister to act on the Law Reform Commission report?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

My way of working is to lay out a process and not to jump to the last step of the process before I get there. Therefore I suggest we agree to wait until we get the report from the Law Reform Commission. I am sure it will be discussed in this committee and I am willing to debate it here if members want, and we shall see whether we can reach a consensus as regards where to go from there. When one gets a report one must decide to accept or reject it, or indeed accept parts of it.

Once we get the report, we should not let the grass grow under our feet and we should consider it. If there are workable proposals and if there are no constitutional or insurmountable barriers, we should move forward.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—Section 257(a) of the Principal Act is deleted and the following paragraph substituted therefore:

"(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding €5,000 (in the case of an employer) or not exceeding €3,000 (in the case of any other person) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both, and in the case of a person other than an employer, particular consideration shall be given to community service under the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983,”.

This amendment concerns the question of penalties for fraud. We are talking about fraud and not overpayment here. The Department has some difficulty distinguishing between the two issues. We hear figures for fraud in the Department, but it turns out that a big element of that is as a result of overpayment, so these are errors made in the Department. This amendment refers to instances where somebody knowingly defrauds the State, such as claiming unemployment benefit while working and so on.

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, are related and therefore will be discussed together.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—Section 198 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3D):

"(3E) The payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable by a person in respect of his or her residence will be paid to this person on the day it is due according to the tenancy agreement of this person with their landlord.".".

Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, relate to rent supplement. As the Minister is aware, his Department is paying out more than half a billion euros every year in rent supplement. In the context of savings, the manner in which this scheme operates at present warrants careful examination, as it leaves much to be desired. Reform is required in a number of areas, of which I have identified three, as outlined in these amendments. The first amendment requires that tenants in receipt of rent supplement be paid on the day that rent is due under the tenancy agreement. Under all tenancy agreements, rent must be paid in advance and not in arrears. Consequently, all the approximately 95,000 tenants who are in receipt of rent supplement are in breach of their tenancy agreements because of the manner in which the Department makes available the payment. However, the Department operates an administrative practice of paying in arrears whereby rent for the month of June, for example, is paid at the end of the month rather than at the start, which is a term by which any other tenant must abide. I reiterate that under the tenancy agreement, such rent is required to be paid in advance. Tenants in receipt of rent supplement are greatly disadvantaged by the practice of paying rent arrears. The necessity for landlords to wait until the end of a rental period to be paid serves as quite a disincentive for them to rent out their properties to tenants who are in receipt of rent supplement. While I am unsure of the reason for this practice, it must be addressed.

Amendment No. 10 requires that a landlord must supply his or her tenancy registration details when he or she is in receipt of rent supplement payable on behalf of the tenant. It is known that a very serious problem exists in respect of the poor rate of registration of landlords. Under the law, landlords are required to register with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. However, the Committee of Public Accounts identified a system in which, for example, the Department of Social Protection was paying out half a billion euros in rent supplement but did not require landlords to provide details of their PPS numbers. A ludicrous situation obtains in which all this public money is being paid out by one Department and another Department is responsible for collecting tax on it but yet the two Departments were not speaking to each other. While there has been some improvement since the PRTB and that legal requirement came into existence, there is no connection between the payment of rent supplement and the legal requirement to register the property.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that rent supplement will not be paid to landlords unless they have registered with the PRTB. This appears to make sense as it would close the loophole in this regard and would greatly facilitate tax compliance, as well as tax collection by the Revenue Commissioners. It appears to be a basic point that if a landlord is in receipt of payment from the State by way of rent supplement, he or she should be required to be above board and to be registered with the PRTB and to pay taxes properly. The Department of Social Protection has a key role to play in ensuring there is proper accountability for this public money and the Minister should introduce such a scheme. It is known from examination of this issue that the number of landlords who provide their PPS numbers is very low. When figures pertaining to all landlords from last year were made available in April, one learned that only 20% of them had provided their PPS numbers last year. From the State's point of view and if one wishes to ensure tax compliance, the introduction of such a measure is a "no-brainer". Consequently, one must query whether the Minister wishes to ensure tax compliance. If so, he must introduce a new system, such as that proposed in the amendment, whereby a PPS number is required. Such an obligation should arise as soon as practicable after the commencement of the tenancy, so that it is not a requirement that a tenancy be registered prior to the payment but rather that the obligation would arise very soon after the signing of the tenancy agreement.

Amendment No. 11 also pertains to rent supplement. This amendment would modify how rent supplements is paid and would bring it into line with the rental accommodation scheme. All members of this committee believe that the rental accommodation scheme works better for tenants who are dependent on social welfare because it removes an existing poverty trap. A major problem for social welfare recipients in receipt of rent supplement is that if they take a job, they lose a corresponding amount of rent supplement. This is a poverty trap and as everyone believes people should be encouraged to move from welfare to work, it is incumbent on the Minister to remove any poverty traps that exist for people.

Rent supplement should be paid directly to the landlord as is the case with regard to the rental accommodation scheme. It makes much more sense to bring this entire area out of the black economy, which is where much of it exists at present. It must be brought within the proper economy and the way to so do is for rent supplement to be paid directly to the landlord. Under this proposal, rent supplement will be paid directly to the landlord by the HSE via the community welfare officer and the tenant then will be liable to the HSE for his or her element or portion of the rent. The purpose of the amendment is to end the current widespread practice in which landlords require their rent supplement tenants to pay an illegal top-up on their rent. Such tenants often are quite vulnerable people who are terrified they will be put out of their accommodation if they kick up in any way or object to anything the landlord is doing. Threshold and other agencies that work in this field have demonstrated there is a widespread practice in which tenants who wish to remain in their accommodation are being required by their landlords to pay a top-up on the rent. This issue was brought to the attention of the Minister's predecessor a number of times but unfortunately little or no action has been taken on it. As a result of the existence of such a practice of paying top-ups, tenants then are obliged to make two payments to the landlords. They must supply the legal element of their rent and the illegal top-up. The rental accommodation scheme has sought to address this issue such that all of the money is paid directly to the landlord by the local authority. The tenant is liable to the local authority for his or her portion of the rent. The same should apply to rent supplement.

These proposals would strengthen the rent supplement scheme, ensure better tax compliance and safer and more secure accommodation for tenants. I ask the Minister to consider accepting these three amendments.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

The amendments are sensible and reasonable. In the past three years two of the Minister's predecessors appeared before the committee and this matter was debated ad nauseam, but we made little progress on it. Whenever we discussed it with the Minister’s immediate predecessor, she had the notion that there were plenty of vacant properties, into which tenants could move. Moving is not simple, particularly for those with families. For reasons to do with school, transportation, etc., people must stay where they are. This gives landlords considerable power over individuals.

The issue of arrears might not be as relevant, but it still affects some tenants. In a choice between someone paying rent from a wage and someone in receipt of rent supplement, the person on a wage will always be the winner and secure the accommodation because the landlord does not need to wait. One cannot blame landlords for this, as they might have mortgages to pay and so on, but it should not be the case.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why it takes so long to deal with the the issue of PPS numbers. The Revenue Commissioners have had their act together for a long time, long before I entered the House. When I was a solicitor, in every transaction a PPS number was required. The details were forwarded to the Revenue Commissioners who could investigate anything. Sometimes one was amazed by what they had managed to unearth. By comparison, the Department of Social Protection is not at the races, but this is the one area in which it could be. However, it does not have the power it needs to sort this matter out, although it should have.

This change must be made for more than the reason that the Minister wants to save money. I can get frustrated when a person on a local authority waiting list who is living in dire conditions presents to me. Sometimes I go to see the accommodation in which he or she is living. After he or she is given a house, someone else on the local authority's waiting list living in the same hovel presents to me. The Private Residential Tenancies Board was to sort this issue out. While it has made some progress, if we had details for more landlords, we could refuse rent supplement on the grounds that the accommodation made available was not suitable. The landlord in question would then have no choice but to upgrade the accommodation on offer.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—Section 198 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3D):

"(3E) The landlord in receipt of a payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable of a tenant shall, as soon as practicable, submit to the Health Service Executive the registration details of the tenancy where registration is required by section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004.".".

I have been tabling amendments to this effect for several years. The Minister has provided no support. The Minister and his two predecessors have refused to move on this matter. We have known for several years, from the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, that there is a major problem in respect of non-compliance by landlords with the Private Residential Tenancies Board and tax compliance. We should no longer tolerate the situation.

Amendment put.

The Committee Divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 7.

Tá

Byrne, Catherine.
Carey, Joe.
Crawford, Seymour.
Enright, Olwyn.
Shortall, Róisín.

Níl

Aylward, Bobby.
Brady, Cyprian.
Byrne, Thomas.
Grealish, Noel.
McGrath, Mattie.
Ó Cuív, Éamon
O’Connor, Charlie.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—Section 198 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (3D):

"(3E) The payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable by a person in respect of his or her residence shall be paid in its entirety by the Health Service Executive to the landlord. The tenant shall pay to the Health Service Executive the portion of the rent for which they are liable.".".

I have spoken on the amendment already.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—The Minister shall, within 2 months of the enactment of this Act, report to the Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on the progress made in establishing a register of Irish citizens that have died abroad.".

I am a bit confused as to why amendment No. 12 is considered outside the scope of the Bill as it relates to a commitment from the Government. I asked for the Minister to conduct a review of the implications of a carbon tax on welfare recipients. I find it strange that a social welfare Bill cannot consider the implications of taxation measures on recipients of social welfare.

I appreciate that this is not something the Vice Chairman can comment on but I am not sure where I can find out why it has been disallowed. It does not make any sense. We were allowed to discuss the matter on Second Stage and it was not ruled out of order then. If it was not within the scope of the legislation it should have been ruled out of order on Second Stage and the Ceann Comhairle should have said it was not relevant. For it to be ruled out of order at this time is very peculiar.

Social welfare recipients will suffer most from the carbon tax and a report was launched yesterday detailing this finding. It is a shame we are not allowed comment on it today. I probably could have said what was required in that length of time.

Vice Chairman

The Deputy has made her comments.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I would rather have been in a position to move the amendment but I will move to amendment No. 13, which I am allowed to speak to. It concerns the register of deaths. The Minister will appreciate that I raised the matter on Second Stage and I want to ensure it is kept as a priority. The committee had a meeting approximately six weeks ago with spouses and parents of people who died abroad who were unable to have the deaths registered in Ireland. I am putting down the amendment to ensure this is kept at the top of the political agenda and the necessary changes to the Civil Registration Act are made. The Minister was not present but we made a commitment that day to amend the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill as a means of doing so. The Minister has since indicated that it is not the most appropriate action and the Civil Registration Act should be amended. I will accept his wisdom in that respect. As I am pressing the amendment, could we get a timescale on the amendments being applied to the Civil Registration Act? It may not be possible this term but if it could be done this year, it would be of great reassurance to families.

Deputy Joe Carey

I strongly support the amendment and compliment Deputy Enright for putting it forward and giving us the opportunity to speak on the matter again. In the Minister's earlier contribution he said he had a process of consulting before acting. The Minister has consulted these people.

One of the more moving meetings of this Oireachtas joint committee saw the people involved in this issue making a presentation. I would like to see some action on this. The consultation has been done and now we need action. It is a sensitive matter. I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions on this issue and I have been encouraged by the responses the Minister has given. We need action and we need a timeframe for implementation in law of the changes requested. Perhaps the Minister could make a statement on this. Does he support the proposed changes, and when does he see the legislation being changed?

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I support this amendment. The issue is important for the families of people who have died abroad, and seems to be reasonably straightforward to address. I know the Minister has met the group and is sympathetic. I hope we will have some action soon. The request for a report on this maintains it as a live issue.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

We must seriously consider amendment No. 12. I appreciate that we are not allowed to push it here, but the issue cannot be ignored.

While, unfortunately, I was unable to attend the meeting mentioned by Deputy Carey a minute ago to listen to the people concerned at first hand, a number of friends have spoken to me directly about this issue. It is frustrating and annoying for these people and will have implications at a later date. Currently, when somebody is born or dies here, it goes on to a computer file and no matter where one is in the country one can obtain the information one wants immediately, along with the relevant certification. However, if a loved one dies abroad, whether on holiday or otherwise, there is difficulty regarding registration. It is important that this be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am working on this issue, which is much more complex than it might at first seem. We had a good meeting with the families, attended by the Chief Registrar, an tArd-Chláraitheoir, who explained the issues. The families have a flexible view about how the matter might be resolved. In addition, we discussed earlier the compulsory registration of fathers and so on. This is all to do with registration. What I would like to do is to introduce a Bill to deal with a number of outstanding registration issues. From what I and the families heard and accepted, the idea of changing the law before Christmas is totally unrealistic. Much work is to be done on this issue. I am more than willing to keep the committee up to date on these issues.

The committee might consider asking an tArd-Chláraitheoir to come in and explain the registration system and the challenges such a change would throw up in terms of his work. He outlined to the families and to me the issues that would need to be addressed. I am making progress on this issue. We agreed certain timescales with the families and we have promised to keep them informed, and the Oireachtas committee will also be kept informed. I will not accept the amendment, but I have no difficulty with the spirit of the amendment, which is that the committee must be kept informed of what is happening.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

That is fine. Perhaps the Minister could advise us later of the timescales he has agreed with the families. Having listened to the people who came before the committee, I am concerned that the longer it takes to make the change, the more people will find themselves in that position. Unfortunately, Irish people will continue to die abroad and their families will discover that they cannot register their deaths in Ireland. The sooner the change is made, bringing clarity to those who unfortunately find themselves in that position, the better. However, I accept what the Minister has said and I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.---The Minister shall, within 1 month of the enactment of this Act, report to the Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on the progress made in establishing an Employer Job PRSI Incentive Scheme.".

In moving this amendment I am conscious that the Government finally launched such a scheme last Sunday; thus, the amendment is slightly out of date. What I sought in the amendment was a report on the progress made in establishing the scheme, which has obviously now been established. However, I must ask the Minister some questions on this. Bearing in mind that 439,000 people are unemployed, I am concerned at the length of time it has taken for the scheme to be established. We are close to the halfway date in the year. In addition, I am surprised that the scheme is limited to 2010, and I ask the Minister to address this. What is the reasoning behind this? Is there scope for it to be extended to 2011?

In his press release on Sunday the Minister was not able to give any estimate for the number of jobs the scheme would create, although he hoped it would lead to the creation of several thousand jobs. However, there must be some estimate. Before the Department would take on something such as this, it would have to know the costs involved. It must have had some estimate of the number of people it expected to take up the scheme. Could the Minister advise us on this?

Deputy Seymour Crawford

Not having read the press release in full, I have a question about the scheme. Does an employer who joins now get 12 months out of it?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The scheme has been established, which is the important thing. We worked as hard as we could to get the scheme up and running. However, there were issues to be considered. As members know, the one thing that must be avoided in such schemes is dead weight; in other words, there should not be any way in which the scheme could be misused. There were difficulties with previous schemes.

The target for the number of jobs created under the scheme is 10,000. However, since it is a demand-led scheme, it is hard to come up with an exact figure at this stage for the number of people who will avail of it. The cost is an interesting question because, on the face of it, if the scheme encourages employers to employ people who would not otherwise have been employed, it will have created new employment that would not have happened otherwise, and the net cost is nothing because ultimately savings will be made. However, if many of the 10,000 jobs would have been created anyway, the State is then foregoing income it would have received. Thus, the real question is how many extra jobs will it create that would not otherwise have been created, because that is where the saving is.

If 10,000 jobs were created but these would all have been created anyway, the net cost would be €36 million. However, in the opposite scenario, if none of the 10,000 jobs would otherwise have been created, the scheme would lead to an enormous saving in social welfare payments as well as the receipt of employee's PRSI, and all we would forego is employer's PRSI. For any job that would not have been created otherwise, there is a saving; for any job that would have been created anyway but for which the scheme is availed of, there is a cost in terms of PRSI. It will be hard enough to determine the figure accurately. On a statistical basis we will be able, once the scheme is over, to get a feel for how many extra jobs have been created.

This leads me to the reason the scheme is time-limited. If at the end of the year it is our opinion that the scheme is resulting in the creation of jobs that would not otherwise have been created, the question of extension will be discussed by Cabinet and particularly between me and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

How will that be assessed?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

One obvious way to tell is by the impact on the live register. We have a fair idea of the number of jobs being created all the time and the movement of people off long-term unemployment — that is, more than six months. If we see a spike in this number, we will know the scheme is having an effect. There are ways in which the effect can be measured. The number of extra jobs versus the jobs that would have been created anyway represents the saving. This idea, which was proposed by Fine Gael, is definitely a good one.

To answer Deputy Crawford's question, the scheme is backdated to 1 January. If an employer created a job on 3 May, he or she will get the exemption from 21 June — the day we introduced the scheme — until this time next year. It is for 52 weeks, dating from when we say "Go".

Deputy Joe Carey

On the related matter of the employment subsidy scheme, does the Minister have any role in that scheme? I tabled parliamentary questions on this and was told there will not be a third call in regard to that scheme. That is very short-sighted and I encourage the Minister to discuss this with the Minister for Finance and arrange for a third call to come into play. It is a very good scheme and supports the employment which is badly needed at present. For small indigenous companies especially, it is a lifeline and keeps them in the game to get over this very lean period.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I do not have direct responsibility for the scheme. In such schemes it is always a matter of discovering the right issue. Would the companies have continued to thrive at the same level with or without the assistance? There are always arguments about that. I understand the Deputy's point and will discuss the matter further with my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Deputy O'Keeffe, because it is his responsibility. Keeping people in employment is the point. The exemption is good because once one is approved one does not have to make a payment and then reapply to get the money back — one simply does not pay it. It is very good in that way. As somebody who was involved in employment creation in the past I know the exemption scheme is much better than one where one must wait for money to come back. I shall consider what the Deputy said and will discuss it with the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

3.—The Minister shall, within 2 months of the enactment of this Act, report to the Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on the progress made on providing a system of attachment of to social welfare payments for fines and civil debt.".

I tabled this amendment in order to have a discussion. The overall issue of indebtedness and the amount of money we are spending on putting people in jail for indebtedness has come up in many of the papers we studied and at meetings we had with different groups. Points were made at the joint committee on justice and law reform and concerning justice legislation in general with regard to the attachment of social welfare payments. When gardaí speak about petty vandalism and so on, they mention being frustrated by having to drive somebody to Mountjoy on a Thursday and subsequently seeing him on the street on Friday night. That is the mechanism we have and one can see the amount of money we are spending on putting people into jail. I appreciate the relevant savings would not be for the Minister's Department but if we were able to attach social welfare payments as we do with other wages there would be savings.

I do not wish to discriminate against social welfare recipients versus the rest of the population but in terms of this legislation that is all we can do. Payments or fines could be attached to social welfare payments, obviously only to an individual's payment not to any qualified adult or child payments which would have to be excluded. This is something we need to examine and I am interested to hear the Minister's views.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I support this amendment. It is many years since Deputy Jim O'Keeffe and I advocated this and pushed a Bill through the Dáil. We were assured this would be dealt with in a matter of weeks or months by the then Minister. It is crazy that gardaí are spending time out on the roads trying to find somebody to collect an unpaid fine or something of that nature, driving the person all the way to Mountjoy and then finding them, as Deputy Enright observed, back home within 24 hours. It does not make sense. I cannot understand how the Minister for Justice and Law Reform has recently brought through a Fines Bill that did not follow up with attachment of earnings. One can now pay a fine in portions or by standing order but it is not allowed to attach a fine to a social welfare payment or employment earnings.

Yes. That is what I am saying. We will look at the issue. It always seems to be poor people winding up. If they knew how to play the thing a little better they might avoid prison. It must be proportionate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Vice Chairman

Does the Deputy need much time on amendment No. 16?

Deputy Olwyn Enright

We might. It is now 1.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.35 p.m.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 3, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

The only way to solve the problem is by dealing with the administrative issues that arise. I find in my constituency caseload many more means-tested payments and more complicated means testing in rural communities than in urban communities for a number of reasons, one being that many more of them have farms so even if they lose their ordinary self-employment, they are involved in situations where many records are needed. Jobseeker's benefit is fairly clear but for stamp eligibility for any of the means-tested payments it is a little bit more complicated. That explains the difference.

That means 13% processed within six weeks?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Yes.

Deputy Thomas Byrne

Is it within six weeks?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

There are different targets for different areas. That is why the best idea is to circulate this information.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I am very angry about this situation. My personal assistant knows I am in here and she sent me a text about a family that has just been informed that it will be at least six months before their appeal will be heard. This is a case that has been under way since April 2009. A number of reviews were carried out and they were totally unsatisfactory. The official appeal was made in December and they were told yesterday it will be at least another six months before the appeal will be heard by the appeals office. This is just not good enough. I appreciate that the Bill allows for extra personnel but it is a matter of urgency that this be addressed and those people know what they are dealing with. It is pointless having staff who do not understand farming accounts to deal with farm assist payments.

I do not say this to be critical of the Minister or his officials but this is completely unacceptable. This family is in dire financial circumstances. The drop in milk prices was dramatic last year, weather conditions were horrendous, and these people lost money for the entire year but the banks are now screwing them. There is a need for some urgency and to allow these people to get money from community welfare officers. They are told by the community welfare officers that because they have land and assets, they are ineligible for help. They are in a no-win situation. This is a matter about which I am extremely angry.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I fully agree with the Deputy. Some 141 appeals of applications for farm assist were pending on 30 April 2010 and the average time taken to process an appeal is 24 weeks.

The Deputy has echoed what my sentiments were the day I walked into this Department, namely, that we have to get to grips with this appeals issue. In fairness, the officials had already moved on a number of fronts to deal with this issue. One step they had taken was the one mentioned in the Bill, namely, that of getting permission to rehire experienced people to deal with appeals. As the Deputy said, there is no point in putting in place people who are raw to this issue as it would take them too long to process the appeals. The second step was to examine what resources we need to dedicate to the appeals process. The third step is to examine the processes operating in the appeals office to quickly process appeals, which involve only counting contributions or dealing with information that is fairly black, to ensure they do not gum up the system.

In fairness, the officials in the Department were doing considerable work to progress matters. I have emphasised the importance of dealing with this issue. I am willing to come back at regular intervals to answer as to how we are progressing. The progress is more important than the report, but it is important that people also get reports in order that they know if we are or are not making progress. If progress is being made but an applicant advises that his or her claim is being held up, it is important that we have a sense of whether the hold up is caused by the process or by people not giving the required information. I will fully co-operate in trying to solve the problem and will give information on how we are progressing on this issue.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I will withdraw my amendment at this point but I might table a similar amendment on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 7, line 2, after "regulations" to insert "which shall be approved by Dáil Éireann".

We had a briefing with the Minister's officials prior to Second Stage and we discussed this issue on Second Stage. To a large extent I take at face value what the Minister is trying to achieve in this section. It provides, for example, that if there was an outbreak of an infectious disease such as swine flu, people may not be able to get a medical certificate, that they could get a certificate from somebody else and that the Minister will make regulations to provide for this.

We can take the Minister at his word but we do not know who will replace him down the road. My amendment proposes that the regulations would be approved by Dáil Éireann. Otherwise, blanket approval would be given for regulations and we would not know for what purpose they could be used. Any such change should be included in a social welfare Bill, but that is not possible in this context. Therefore, I propose that such regulations must be approved by Dáil Éireann. This is important because changes such as this have the potential to leave the system open to fraud. They should be discussed by the Dáil before they are introduced.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I agree with the Deputy's comments. This is strange amending section and I am not sure from where it comes. Generally speaking, amending sections tend to tighten rather than loosen the legislation. I am not sure this proposed section is as straightforward as we have been led to believe and I would have some concern about the open-ended nature of it. For that reason it is reasonable and responsible that the Dáil would have to approve any changes. I support the amendment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The first point I would make is that all regulations are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for 21 sitting days after signing. After this 21-day period, they are then approved by the Dáil. Therefore, there is a period when they are laid before the Houses. Second, regulations cannot be made that are way outside the scope of the Act. The Attorney General has been very prescriptive. The power or freedom the Minister has to make regulations under the Act is quite limited.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 6 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

Vice Chairman

Amendment No. 26 is related to amendment No. 18. Amendments Nos. 18 and 26 will be discussed together.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 7, before section 7, to insert the following new section:

7.—The Principal Act is amended by inserting the following section after section 68:

68A.—(1) A person shall not be entitled to receive jobseeker's benefit while attending a course of study, other than in the circumstances and subject to the conditions and for the periods that may be prescribed.

(2) In this section—

‘academic year' has the meaning assigned to it by section 148;

‘a course of study' has the meaning assigned to it by section 148;

‘institution of education' has the meaning assigned to it by section 148.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be regarded, subject to regulations made under subsection (1), as attending a course of study—

(a) for 3 months immediately following the completion or the leaving by that person of second level education or the completion by him or her of the leaving certificate examination of the Department of Education and Skills,whichever is the later,

If one does not qualify, it is because rules have been put in place in regard to the back to education allowance for very good reason. There is no point having strict rules for the back to education allowance and rules which undermine them in regard to the jobseeker's benefit, that is, having two schemes doing the same thing in a contradictory way.

If the back to education allowance rules are too strict, which is what the Deputy seems to be saying, then they should be looked at. In the past when they were not as strict, problems arose in regard to the abuse of the scheme. Currently, I hear allegations of people abusing the scheme but I do not have any proof that is happening.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

That is the point. The rules were drawn up in a different time.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

They were not. They were changed last year.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

In regard to that issue of not having to wait as long, one does not want people giving up jobs just to go into education where they are guaranteed an income. Nobody is arguing for that. The point is that large numbers of people are finding themselves unemployed. This is saying to those people that they are entitled to a social welfare benefit but they are not allowed to study while they are drawing that benefit. That does not make sense. Why is the Minister imposing this restriction?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The Deputy is saying that the back to education allowance is too strict. If the Deputy wants to make suggestions for modifications to the back to education allowance in line with what she said, I will look at them but I will have to consider what the unintended consequences might be. I can debate that in the context of the back to education allowance. It is better to confine this debate to the back to education allowance.

If one was foolish enough to extend the right to full-time education to people on jobseeker's benefit, one would end up with a problem a constituent of mine ended up with. He went on a two-year part-time course which one can do while retaining one's benefit. He did not realise that when the benefit ran out, because his wife was working, he would not be entitled to any social welfare payment. He would have much preferred if we had said to him very clearly at the beginning of the course that when the benefit ran out and if he did not have an underlying entitlement to a payment, he would not get one. Since the course was part time, he could not get the back to education allowance.

I do not want to extend that type of situation to people in full-time courses. If the Deputy is saying the back to education allowance is too strict, we should change it. She should not say the back to education scheme is too strict and that people should be able to access it through some other scheme. That would be very untidy and would cause endless grief for people, in particular for those who might not realise that when the jobseeker's benefit ran out, they would run out of payment half way or a quarter way through the course.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I disagree with what the Minister is doing in this regard.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I am sure the Vice Chairman could send a message.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Question, "That section 7 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.

SECTION 8

Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Vice Chairman

Deputy Shortall, I will send that message.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I thank the Vice Chairman. Perhaps the Minister would explain the means-testing.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Where the spouse or partner of a recipient of jobseeker's allowance, pre-retirement allowance or farm assist is in employment and in receipt of FIS, social welfare legislation specifically prohibits concurrent receipt by the jobseeker's allowance, pre-retirement allowance or farm assist recipient of an increase for a qualified adult. The current provisions relating to the assessment of the income of a spouse or partner were introduced in September 2007 with two major objectives: to ensure that there was always an incentive for a spouse or partner to earn more, unlike the old arrangement which featured withdrawal rates of more than 100% where earnings were above €100 and less than €180 a week; and to simplify the assessment arrangement. The old arrangement consisted of two means tests: one based on the income of the spouse or partner; and the second based on the couple's income. The legislation also provided that where a spouse or partner is in receipt of a social welfare payment in his or her own right, the means of the jobseeker's allowance, pre-retirement allowance or farm assist claim would be halved. For examples, where a spouse-partner was in receipt of a scheme such as injury benefit and jobseeker's benefit, the halving of means recognises an increase for a qualified adult is not payable to the jobseeker's allowance, pre-retirement allowance or farm assist claimant and, therefore, mitigates the assessment of means.

The scope of the legislation introduced in 2007 did not encompass a spouse-partner who is in receipt of FIS. In practice, however, halving of the means was applied from 2007 in these cases continuing the position which existed prior to the introduction of the present arrangement generally.

The current amendment formally provides for the continuation of the halving which has applied since 2007. There is no impact, positive or negative, on current or future claimants and, accordingly, no cost or saving implications.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Deputy Róisín Shortall

On that basis, I thank the Minister and will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.

SECTION 15

Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I have difficulty with the section, which I consider to be rather strange and unnecessary. I wonder what is its background. Basically, it provides that the Minister may appeal to the High Court any decision of the chief appeals officer given under section 318 of the principal Act. At present, a decision originally is made locally on an application for a payment by the deciding officer. If the claimant is not satisfied with that decision, the claimant may appeal it. The appeal is considered and an appeals officer makes a recommendation, which then is reviewed by the chief appeals officer and a decision is taken. I cannot understand the reason the Minister seeks a further level of review of that decision, by virtue of being able to appeal it to the High Court. This does not appear to make sense because nothing in legislation precludes the Department from appealing it on a point of law. Why does the Minister propose to take this power on himself? It appears to indicate the Minister does not have confidence in the decision-making of the chief appeals officer. Consequently, I cannot understand where the Minister is coming from in this regard and nor can I discern the reason he proposes to do this.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I raised the same question when meeting the Minister's officials on Second Stage. What triggered the idea that such a provision is needed? This amendment has been included suddenly in this legislation. Members already have stated that they cannot think of any examples of when it would be used, the Department does not anticipate any trouble and so on and yet this provision has been included. Was there a trigger that made someone consider that this provision was necessary? I do not understand the thinking behind it. Who suggested it and at what level did he or she consider it was needed?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Section 16 agreed to.

NEW SECTIONS

Vice Chairman

Amendments Nos. 20 and 25 are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 12, before section 17, to insert the following new section:

17.—(1) The Principal Act is amended by inserting the following section after section 62:

62A.—Notwithstanding section 62, in the case of a person who —

(a) has, when requested to do so by an officer of the Minister, without good cause refused to participate or to agree to participate in a course of training which is considered appropriate by the officer having regard to the training needs of the person and his or her personal circumstances,

(b) has, without good cause, refused or failed to avail himself or herself of any reasonable offer of training provided or approved of by An Foras Áiseanna Saothair, or

(c) has, without good cause, refused or failed to avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in a programme administered by An Foras Áiseanna Saothair and the Minister pursuant to the plan commonly known as the National Employment Action Plan,

the weekly rate of jobseeker's benefit shall be as set out in section 65(2) or, as the case may be, paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 65A(2).”.

(2) Section 64(1) (as amended by section 18 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in paragraph (c)(i) by substituting “reckonable” for “prescribed reckonable”,

(b) in paragraph (c)(ia) by substituting “reckonable” for “prescribed reckonable”,

(d) in paragraph (c) by substituting ”in excess of €300 in the governing contribution year or has reckonable weekly earnings specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (6) or, as the case may be, has reckonable weekly income specified in paragraphs (d) to (f) of subsection (6) in the periods specified in respect of those earnings or that income in those paragraphs” for “in excess of a prescribed amount in the prescribed period”.

(3) Section 64 (as amended by section 18 of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2008) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subsection (4) by substituting “68(1), 68(6) or 68(6A)” for “68(1) or 68 (6)”,

(b) by substituting the following subsection for subsection (6):

"(6) For the purposes of the requirements of subsection (1)(c) relating to reckonable weekly earnings or, as the case may be, reckonable weekly income, a claimant—

(a) has reckonable weekly earnings—

(i) which do not exceed €44.43,

(ii) which exceed €44.43 but do not exceed €63.48, or

(iii) which exceed €63.48 but do not exceed €88.87,

in respect of a period of interruption of employment which commenced before 25 December 2003,

(b) has reckonable weekly earnings—

(i) which do not exceed €79.99,

(ii) which exceed €79.99 but do not exceed €124.99, or

(iii) which exceed €124.99 but do not exceed €149.00,

in respect of a period of interruption of employment which commenced on or after 25 December 2003 and before 5 January 2009,

(i) which do not exceed €149.99,

(ii) which exceed €149.99 but do not exceed €219.99, or

(iii) which exceed €219.99 but do not exceed €299.99,

in respect of a period of interruption of employment which commenced on or after 5 January 2009,

(d) has reckonable weekly income—

(i) which does not exceed €44.43,

(ii) which exceeds €44.43 but does not exceed €63.48, or

(iii) which exceeds €63.48 but does not exceed €88.87,

in respect of a period of interruption of employment which commenced before 25 December 2003,

(e) has reckonable weekly income—

(i) which does not exceed €79.99,

(ii) which exceeds €79.99 but does not exceed €124.99, or

(iii) which exceeds €124.99 but does not exceed €149.00,

in respect of a period of interruption of employment which commenced on or after 25 December 2003 and before 5 January 2009, or

(f) has reckonable weekly income—

(i) which does not exceed €149.99,

(ii) which exceeds €149.99 but does not exceed €219.99, or

(iii) which exceeds €219.99 but does not exceed €299.99,

in respect of a period of interruption of employment which commenced on or after 5 January 2009.",

(d) in subsection (8) by deleting “that the claimant must have prescribed reckonable weekly earnings in excess of a prescribed amount in the prescribed period”, and

(e) by inserting the following subsections after subsection (8):

"(9) For the purposes of subsection (1)(c)—

(a) the reckonable weekly earnings referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ia) of that subsection shall, subject to paragraph (b), be calculated as the total reckonable earnings in the governing contribution year increased by the amount of—

(i) a payment, if any, referred to in section 38, and

(ii) an allowable contribution, if any, referred to in Regulation 41 or 42 of the Regulations of 2001,

divided by the number of qualifying contributions in that governing contribution year,

(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a), the governing contribution year, for the purposes of the calculation, in accordance with paragraph (a), of the reckonable weekly earnings referred to in subparagraph (ia) of subsection (1)(c) shall be—

(i) the governing contribution year, or

(ii) the governing contribution year that relates to the jobseeker's benefit claim referred to in subsection (1)(c) (ia)(II),

whichever is the more favourable, and

(c) the reckonable weekly income referred to in subparagraph (ii) of that subsection shall be calculated as the total reckonable income in the governing contribution year increased by the amount of—

(i) a payment, if any, referred to in section 38, and

(ii) an allowable contribution, if any, referred to in Regulation 41 or 42 of the Regulations of 2001,

divided by the number of qualifying contributions in that governing contribution year.

(10) In the case of a claimant whose claim, by virtue of having been entitled to or in receipt of jobseeker's benefit or illness benefit in respect of any day in the 13 week period preceding 4 January 1993, forms part of a period of interruption of employment which commenced prior to that date, nothing in this section shall be construed as reducing the rate of jobseeker's benefit payable to him or her to a rate which is less than the rate to which he or she was entitled to before that date.

(11) In subsection (9), ‘Regulations of 2001' means the Income Tax (Employments) (Consolidation) Regulations 2001 (S.I. No. 559 of 2001).".

(4) Section 65 (as amended by section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Act of 2006) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) by renumbering the existing provision as subsection (1) of that section, and

(b) by inserting the following subsection after subsection (1):

"(2) Subject to this Act, notwithstanding subsection (1), in the case of a person to whom section 62A refers, the weekly rate of jobseeker's benefit shall be reduced and accordingly shall be the weekly rate set out in column (2) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 which shall be reduced in each week by €46.".

(5) The Principal Act is amended by inserting the following new section after section 65:

65A.—(1) Subject to this Act, in the case of—

(a) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(a)(i) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(d)(i), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €88.10,

(b) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(a)(ii) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(d)(ii), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €126.60,

(c) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(a)(iii) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(d)(iii), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €153.60,

(d) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(b)(i) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(e)(i), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €88.10,

(e) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(b)(ii) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(e)(ii), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €126.60,

(f) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(b)(iii) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(e)(iii), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €153.60,

(g) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(c)(i) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(f)(i), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €88.10,

(h) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(c)(ii) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(f)(ii), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €126.60, or

(i) a person with reckonable weekly earnings specified in section 64(6)(c)(iii) or reckonable weekly income specified in section 64(6)(f)(iii), the weekly rate of jobseeker’s benefit shall be €153.60.

(2) Subject to this Act, notwithstanding subsection (1), in the case of a person to whom section 62A refers, the weekly rate of jobseeker's benefit shall be reduced and accordingly—

(a) in the case of a person referred to in subsection (1)(a), (1)(d) or (1)(g), the weekly rate shall be €67.50,

(b) in the case of a person referred to in subsection (1)(b), (1)(e) or (1)(h), the weekly rate shall be €96.90, or

(6) Section 66 (as amended by section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Act of 2006) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subsection (1), by substituting “Subject to subsection (1A), the weekly rate“ for “The weekly rate”, and

(b) by inserting the following subsection after subsection (1):

"(1A) In the case of a person referred to in section 65A, the weekly rate of jobseeker's benefit shall be increased by €84.30 for any period during which the beneficiary has a qualified adult, subject to the restriction that a beneficiary shall not be entitled for the same period to an increase of benefit under this subsection in respect of more than one person.".

(7) Section 68 (as amended by section 4 of and Schedule 1 to the Act of 2006) of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subsection (6)—

(i) by deleting paragraph (b), and

(ii) by deleting paragraph (c),

and

(b) by inserting the following subsection after subsection (6):

"(6A) A person shall be disqualified for receiving jobseeker's benefit where he or she has refused an offer of suitable employment.".

(8) Section 67 of the Principal Act is amended in subsection (9) by inserting "or 68(6A)" after "section 68(6)".".

In order to incentivise participation in training and education programmes and programmes provided under the national employment action plan, NEAP, rates of jobseeker's benefit are being reduced where a recipient, without good cause, refuses to participate in a course of training arranged by this Department or a FÁS course, or refuses or fails to avail of an opportunity to participate in the NEAP or any interventions offered by FÁS in the context of the NEAP. Under the measure, a penalty of €46 will be applied to the full rate of jobseeker's benefit if a recipient refuses or fails to avail of a suitable activation measure. Proportional reductions will apply in the case of persons on graduated rates of jobseeker's benefit. The penalty rate will only apply to primary social welfare payments under jobseeker's benefit, arising from jobseeker's benefit claims. Rates for child and adult dependents, where payable, remain unchanged if a claimant is subject to a penalty rate.

When commenced, 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. This system will work to ensure that despite the high number currently on the live register, long-term systematic unemployment and welfare dependency are not allowed to take hold. In keeping with their activation focus, I stress that these rates and the rates relating to jobseeker's allowance and the supplementary welfare allowance will only apply where the primary social welfare payment relates to jobseeking. No other schemes come under the scope of these provisions.

Associated with these changes, I am bringing forward a new provision for full disallowance where a jobseeker's benefit recipient has refused an offer of suitable employment. This provision is intended to copperfasten existing provisions whereby full disallowance may be imposed if the recipient is not genuinely seeking work. Legislatively, it was felt that control in this area needed to be strengthened. However, it is not anticipated that the new provision will alter the terms of the receipt for the majority of jobseeker's benefit recipients.

I am also amending the definition of "reckonable weekly earnings" to ensure that people are not penalised by virtue of having made contributions to pension plans in the year in which their claim for jobseeker's benefit is based. Amendment No. 25 is a technical amendment to include the definition of "governing contribution year".

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I have two difficulties with this. I know the Minister informed us on Second Stage that this would be introduced on Committee Stage, but I cannot understand why it could not have been brought in when the Bill was published, because it is very similar to what he is doing with the jobseeker's allowance. It is peculiar that something as substantial as this is being added within a week or two of publication of the Bill. That is not a good way to deal with legislation as it does not provide us with the same opportunity to examine the amendments. However, I can discuss the issues because of the difficulties I have with the jobseeker's allowance proposals, which are similar.

Fine Gael supports the principle of activation, but I find it difficult to listen to the Minister speak blandly about the employment action plan and FÁS as if everything is perfect and working well and as if all these courses and jobs are available. That is not the reality. The Minister wants to introduce these changes for jobseeker's benefit claimants, but these are people who will have worked for, perhaps, 20 or 25 years and paid contributions for all that time. They are shocked to find themselves unemployed and are trying to get their heads around that and their responsibilities to their families. They may already have good qualifications, which means there may not be courses available to upskill them. The problem is that the area in which they are qualified does not have employment available. These people will be offered some sort of course, but we do not know the practicalities of what will be offered. We do not know where the course will be held or what is involved.

That is quite a departure because a benefit was always seen as an entitlement which people gained by making their social insurance contributions. Whether the intention is to cut jobseeker's allowance or benefits, there are huge question marks over the approach. What is a reasonable offer? Who decides what a reasonable offer is? What grade of officer in the Department can decide what is a reasonable offer? If somebody is offered a training place which is entirely unsuitable, is that a reasonable offer? If somebody is offered a training place 50 miles away, with no transport, is that reasonable? If getting to such a place would make it financially not worthwhile, is that reasonable offer? Are people's domestic responsibilities taken into consideration? How will the Minister prevent abuse and maliciousness? I do not want to impugn officers in the Minister's Department but situations arise in which people do not always act entirely ethically. What criteria will the Minister set down for determining these things?

Deputy Catherine Byrne

Deputy Shortall has already asked my question on who makes the decision as to whether a course is appropriate. A 58-year-old man whom I met a couple of weeks ago was asked to do a course in child care. That is ridiculous and I thought the person telling me was joking. However, he was serious. Why ask a man of 58 to do a child care course? There is nothing out there for him and there are enough young people who want to go into child care. We should focus on them. The course has to be appropriate to the person and should not be assigned simply to get a person off the list.

Deputy Joe Carey

I have significant concerns about this section, particularly as it relates to young people. It sends out a harsh and mean message. It proposes to reduce a payment from €100 to €75. To some extent the proposal exists in the land of make-believe because the courses in question are not available. They cost resources and require a strategy to turn the system around. It will require investment and this cannot be done overnight. The Minister has been very quick to introduce the cut but the Government has been very slow to act.

Agencies such as FÁS have come in for considerable criticism and a recent Forfás report stated that its courses were not relevant to what people needed.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

It would be interesting to know whether the Minister held consultations with any groups in the course of preparing amendment No. 20. He shot down amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, because there was no consultation but now he is producing an amendment which breaches a contract made between the State and employees up and down the country who paid PRSI on the basis that, in the event of becoming unemployed, they would have State protection. All of a sudden, new conditions are being imposed.

As the other Deputies have said, the section as a whole contains activation measures. In an ideal world there would be jobs, training and education to avail of. If that were the case I would have no problem supporting this and the other measures but the jobs and the courses are not there. By giving an officer of the Department the job of forcing people off the unemployment list we will end up with unreasonable and inappropriate offers, as happened in the past. Many people will remember being unemployed in the 1980s and the FÁS schemes of the time, which were not adequately resourced. People sat around in rooms with facilitators or teachers who did not know what they were doing. There were no jobs but people were told how to make a telephone call to get a job interview. In one centre, bananas were handed out for people to practise their telephone manner. In other cases they sat around writing sample letters but, while there is a need for people to learn how to put together a CV, it is not a reasonable or appropriate training offer. The legislation already allows for this proposal but there is still no definition of what is appropriate or reasonable. The scary thing is that we are going back to the future.

Deputy Catherine Byrne

I wish to follow up on what Deputy Carey said about young people. I have dealt with a lot of unemployed young people and, while many of them do not have great qualifications or skills, they are all eager to do something. We only have to look around our community to see what needs to be done on our own streets. I made two suggestions to a group of young people with whom I met recently on the subject of the cut to their jobseeker's allowance, first to €100 and then to €75. I asked them if they would participate in projects for young people and they said they would.

There are weeds on every street and canalway which need to be trimmed. The motorways need to be done. In Ballyfermot, a senior citizens' complex which had been closed down was due to be redeveloped but there was no money to do so, leaving 40 units unoccupied. Hundreds of young men on the waiting list for housing would be only too glad to have one room in which to live. At the moment they are living in terrible conditions in private complexes, paying a huge amount of money. That is a deplorable state of affairs.

I suggested to FÁS that it take over complexes such as Canon Troy Court and use them as a project to retrain all the young people who have finished their courses in FÁS but have nothing to show for it, having not been given their certificates. Would it not be better to bring these young people back into some kind of employment? Even if they received an extra €50 per week it would take them out of the position they are in. Most young people do not want to be lying in bed all day or hanging around for the summer. They want to do something. The majority of young people I know have become more actively involved in the community, in the scouts, in football training and in youth clubs. There are plenty of opportunities for young people to do something if there was the will but that seems to be lacking from FÁS and elsewhere.

It is wrong to say that most young people enjoy lying around and accepting money — they want to participate. I have drawn attention to just a couple of the many projects which could be put in place straight away. We should get rid of all the red tape and give young people something to do. Deputy Carey made an important statement. Young people do not want to take €75 per week for nothing — they want to earn their money.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Deputy Catherine Byrne and I are much closer than might, at first, be apparent. I agree that we have to create opportunities for people to engage in all the work that needs to be done in our society. A lot of it is more sophisticated than picking weeds and it ranges from child care to caring for the elderly, through sports coaching to running community facilities, heritage projects and research projects in local genealogy.

I also concur with the Deputy that the vast majority of people, both young and old, would prefer to be engaged than not engaged. We are encouraging this in a small way by bringing employment services and schemes under the ambit of the Department. We would prefer people to be engaged in useful community work which will benefit themselves and the community than to be drawing a payment in a way that feels soulless.

I am determined to bring about such a state of affairs and intend to do so by tackling two issues. At a time when €208 per week was paid to a single person in an employment scheme and €196 to someone on jobseeker's allowance, peer pressure was brought to bear on some people who were asked why they took work for €20 or €30 per week when they could get more on welfare and stay at home. It has to be made easier to resist peer pressure regarding the differential between the pay to be received from not being engaged as against the pay one can receive when a person is engaged.

The second issue was a matter of great debate at the first meeting I attended of this committee, and concerns the need to root out fraud. I guarantee members that I intend to use any money I save by rooting out fraud to create the very activation of which they have spoken today. If even 10% of people are claiming jobseekers' payments without being eligible and, by putting in place effective deterrents, we can root them out of the system. The money saved would create a lot of places to carry out the work suggested by Deputy Catherine Byrne. One of our challenges is to come up with the difference between the amount payable in welfare and the costs associated with organising community work, because that has to be found from within my Vote.

If we have a clear deterrent and clear powers to act against people who are not available for work or training and can use the savings to do the myriad things that need to be done in our society, in ways that are fulfilling and tailor-made to people's interests, we will have a win-win situation. I cannot create the opportunities if I do not get the power to root out those who are defrauding the system.

I was asked who decided what was suitable. As I said, every decision will be appealable to the appeals office. We will also outline detailed administrative criteria so as to make it impossible to take decisions on a whim, such as to ask a person living in central Dublin to go to Athlone to take a course. The deciding officers are at executive officer and staff officer grade but these are the secretaries general of tomorrow. In the public service people tend to be promoted over time and many of our younger people at the lower grades have fantastic qualifications, most at graduate level. They are very capable and will eventually work their way up through the system. As a garda can become Garda Commissioner, an executive officer can become a secretary general. I have full confidence in these people to act reasonably.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

They cannot do it without clear guidelines.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

There will be clear guidelines.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

What will they entail? Before the Minister can put in place a compulsory scheme, he has to address the fact that he is incapable of meeting the current demand for training places and jobs. There are a large number of people who are currently on welfare but who want to go into training — we talked about categories earlier — and obtain jobs. Those opportunities simply are not there for them. The Minister needs to apply himself to addressing this situation. In earlier budgets, payments to young jobseekers were cut to €100 per week. Now, 75% of young jobseekers are on the reduced rate and have not got onto any course or started jobs. What was the purpose of doing this? Was it just to save money, or was it genuinely to get people onto a career path? Cutting the payments of young jobseekers by 50% has not worked because, by and large, there are no places for them. There are many issues with regard to the Minister's proposal which may have negative consequences for people who find themselves unemployed.

The Minister mentioned the drawing up of guidelines. Why does he not just tell us what these will be? Any of the safeguards that are there at the moment do not deal adequately with the question of poverty traps, which the Minister needs to sort out within the Department. They do not deal with work participation costs; nor do they consider people's health. Unfortunately, there are a significant number of people with mental health problems who have great difficulty in participating in courses or employment. What are the rules for people in those circumstances, and for those with family commitments, which I will talk about under my own amendment? It is all very well for the Minister to say there are highly-trained staff, which I accept, but, as in every other cross section of society, there are people who will not be fair in their approach and who will have prejudices. The Minister needs to ensure there are proper safeguards to ensure jobseekers do not become victims of prejudice.

There are much better ways of achieving what the Minister says he is trying to achieve. This proposal smacks of a focus on saving money in the Department. If he was genuinely concerned about getting people into training and employment, he would provide adequate opportunities for them to do so. The kind of training opportunities that exist for young people are often not suited to their needs; nor are they tailored to their clients. Many of them do not really provide progression towards anything; it is training for the sake of training, without leading anywhere. I have concerns about the tendency towards short courses, which seems to be a matter of telling somebody they must attend a course because the system is not geared up to provide adequate training courses. There are certainly a number of courses that can only be described as Mickey Mouse courses because of their short duration and light content. This proposal seems to be more about optics than about achieving anything serious.

I am concerned about the open-ended nature of the disqualification provided for in the Bill for people who refuse a reasonable offer of employment, apart from the issue of what constitutes a reasonable offer. There are lots of genuine reasons people might refuse offers. The disqualification also applies where someone gives up a job — again, there are lots of genuine reasons people may have for doing this. They may have caring responsibilities, for example, which mean they must be in the home for longer periods than their jobs or training courses allow. What about the unfortunately common situation in which a person is bullied in his or her job? The person may leave because his or her life is made hell. I hope that all staff dealing with such cases would be reasonable, but there is no guarantee of that. The Bill as it stands provides for open-ended disqualification from payment. Currently, a person can be disqualified for nine weeks. That limit on the period of disqualification is removed in this Bill, meaning the disqualification is open-ended. In theory, a person could end up with no payment whatsoever and no means of survival. His or her payment may never be reinstated, given the open-ended nature of the disqualification.

Not only is the Minister taking upon himself the right to reduce, cut or suspend a person's payment — we spoke earlier about people who have built up entitlements to benefits — but he is also extending it to supplementary welfare. For people whose jobseeker's allowance is suspended, supplementary welfare is a safety net, but the Minister is now saying this can also be cut. Supplementary welfare is a basic safety net payment. It is the minimum amount that a person needs to survive in life, paying for the absolute basics. The Minister is now giving officers of his Department the power to cut that basic safety net. What are such people supposed to live on? Let us return to the example of what was done in earlier budgets, in which young jobseekers had their payments cut by 50%. They are expected to survive on €100 per week, and the Minister is now saying this can be cut further, by 25%. This raises major issues with regard to basic dignity.

Who will decide on what is meaningful? If a psychiatric nurse is offered a place can he or she decide there is no point in doing a three-week hairdressing course or a car maintenance course? Such people are not really being guided into meaningful courses and we do not know who will decide on whether they can continue to claim benefits.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The Department will make the initial call but, ultimately, the person who makes the judgment call is the appeals officer. However, there are also experienced people in FÁS and in the Department for that purpose. I have spent a lifetime dealing with people looking for employment and I have always advised them, within reason, to take work which is available. It might not be ideal but as long as it is reasonable I always advise them to take it and I have given this advice to members of my own family. It is important to do whatever one does well. By doing so, one will get on in life but sitting at home is probably the greatest way of ensuring no progression in whatever field one is trained for.

Two things appear to be the subject of opposition. The penalty for not taking suitable employment seems to be opposed but I find that difficult to comprehend. I always understood that if a person was offered suitable employment but did not take it, he or she was disqualified from jobseeker's benefit.

The other provision that seems to be opposed by members of the committee is the one that imposes a penalty for refusing to accept training or education. I find that hard to understand as well. The statistics tell us that the longer a person is unemployed the harder it becomes to get employment. I dedicated many years of my life to creating employment out of nothing by employing people in a commercial community operation and I was much more likely to employ those who were active and busy than those who sat at home every day.

In doing what we are doing we are acting in people's better interests because a CV showing a year or more of total unemployment — doing nothing — will make it much harder to get employment. It might be a nice soft option for a while but people will pay the penalty for the rest of their lives for succumbing to the temptation and we have an obligation to encourage people to take training and work. I was a manager with day-to-day responsibility for recruiting people and always looked for the person who was active, busy and willing to take what was offered because they were the ones who made successful employees.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

On a point of order, how does the Vice Chairman intend to proceed with this meeting? It is now 4.40 p.m.

Vice Chairman

Perhaps we should consider going into private session for a few minutes to discuss that matter. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The select committee went into private session at 4.40 p.m. and resumed in public session at 5.10 p.m.

Vice Chairman

We are back in public session. Am I in order to suggest that we put amendment No. 20? The Minister is pressing the amendment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Yes.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 12, before section 17, to insert the following new section:

17.—In all decisions relating to what constitutes a reasonable or suitable offer of training or employment, or in relation to any other activation measure, the interests of a child dependant shall be considered before a payment is suspended, reduced, or stopped.".

The purpose of this amendment is to deal with the Minister's proposals in respect of lone parents. It has been decided that when the youngest child reaches the age of 13, the parent will be required to seek employment and, in the event of not getting employment, the parent will move to jobseeker's benefit. My concern is to ensure adequate safeguards are in place to address the issues that affect lone parents in circumstances where they have difficulty in getting out to training or work. Children of 13 are not able to look after themselves and need after school care during the school year and holidays. Some of them have three months holidays during the summer. Child minding and care arrangements must be put in place for young teenagers in these circumstances.

I am also concerned about care arrangements for young teenagers who present with challenging behaviour. While some concession has been made in the Bill to make special arrangements for children with particular disabilities, those with challenging behaviour are not included. It is a new departure for the Government to suggest that 13 and 14 year olds should or can be left to their own devices or be allowed look after themselves. That is not the case for any teenagers of this age, particularly the many young people with difficulties in this country. We are all aware that organisations working in the area of child welfare insist that all policies affecting children should have as their guiding principle the best interest of the child. This principle should be paramount in any Government policy. I suggest the principle of the best interest of the child should bear considerable weight when it comes to this change in policy. We cannot allow a situation where a parent of a 13 year old is told that she or he is required to go into a training course that does not, for example, finish until 5 p.m. if there are not adequate child minding arrangements in place and child care facilities available at an affordable cost. This should apply to the after school period, until the parent comes home from work or training and during the three months of the summer.

The amendment is straightforward. It suggests that in all decisions relating to what constitutes a reasonable or suitable offer of training or employment, or with regard to any other activation measure, the interests of a child dependent shall be considered before a payment is suspended, reduced or stopped. This is very much in line with modern day thinking in respect of child welfare, that the rights of the child are paramount in any policy consideration. I assume the Minister will accept the amendment.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I support this amendment. It is reasonable and does not change what is intended by the Minister, but takes into account the fact that one-parent families will have an additional burden placed on them if the proposals contained in the Bill are adopted. Not all children of 13 years are capable of looking after themselves. The intention of the Bill is to ensure that people go back to suitable employment which will provide them with the means to survive without depending on social welfare. However, if account is not taken of child dependents, it will be difficult for families, one-parent families in particular, to take up suitable or reasonable offers.

I also have a problem with the lack of proper definition in this area. The Minister said guidelines will be available. It is a pity the guidelines are not available for the discussion of what is "reasonable" or "appropriate". If the guidelines were available, they would help us determine whether the proposal is agreeable. I suggest the guidelines or definitions should be contained in the Bill.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

We need to be very careful about this because in rural areas and villages many parents of one-parent families live a long distance from where employment may be available. This brings extra problems for single parents in these situations. I am not against the principle behind the amendment, but there must be some common sense applied. If someone lives in a village such as Newbliss, 12 miles from Monaghan town' or where there is a chance of part-time work, it must be taken into consideration that this person will have extra costs and problems to deal with because of not being within a short distance of the school, the job, etc. The Minister must take this into consideration.

Deputy Joe Carey

I support the amendment. Any decision must have the best interest of the child at its core. The Department has been renamed the Department of Social Protection, which is apt. The amendment is practical and I urge the Minister to take it on board.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I agree the changed name of the Department is appropriate in this regard. I have known the Minister for a number of years and he has always been involved in allowing communities develop. Deputy Crawford mentioned single parents, but I am concerned about people across the range of the scheme. The Minister's proposals are about getting people back to work. Whether we are talking about Newbliss or Newcastle or any place in the country, there is ample work to be done. The Minister understands this better than anyone, because he set up a voluntary co-operative society in his constituency previously and turned it into a successful company. The focus should be on the work that is there. The proposals are not there to bully or threaten people, but we need to get real and get people back to work. We can find all the excuses in the world, but the work is there to be done. Some people do not want to go on any scheme or course and that is not fair. If people are sick, unwell or unable to work, they should be protected, but otherwise the work is there for them.

I am involved in Muintir na Tíre at national level and it is informing the Department of the work that is available. It is a matter of connecting the people available with the work that is available. Many people want to work and there is work to be done in every village. The people are there to do it. The Minister spoke about making savings. He must make savings to pay for the schemes. These savings can be made if we get real and are fair about it.

Deputy Catherine Byrne

If Deputy McGrath knows where work is available, he should tell us where it is. I know many people who are dying to work, but they have not been able to get a job.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

The Deputy missed my point.

Deputy Catherine Byrne

I spoke with the Minister last week and said that there was merit in forcing people to be responsible about how they minded their children. There is a need to look at the social welfare system for lone parents and I agree with other Deputies that it is important to put parents' names on birth certificates.

There is merit in the amendment. Not everybody has the luxury of living near family members. If a child is aged 13 and a parent wants to go back to work, it is possible to do so in a city or in a community in which family members can mind the child but not everybody lives in such a community. Times have changed since I was 13. My parents went to work and when we came home in the evening we did our homework and sat down with the neighbours. Nowadays, our communities do not have the same stability and people do not have the links they once had.

I want to set down a marker on responsibility. People who have children have to face up to their responsibility and recognise that the State cannot pay for them forever. However, we have to be careful about how we deal with this issue over the next couple of years because if we do not get it right we could do a lot of damage to a lot of young people.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Sufficient scope is already built into the legislation to ensure social welfare recipients will not have their payments reduced where such a reduction is not warranted on the basis of family circumstances. The family circumstances of social welfare recipients are taken into account during the activation process. However, recipients of jobseeker's payments are required to be available for, and genuinely seeking, work. They should, therefore, be in a position to take up employment or a training course.

The national anti-poverty strategy, NAP, and associated measures were designed to assist and incentivise all jobseekers towards the labour market. We cannot allow a situation whereby certain groups are excluded from this process because to do so would only serve to push those groups further into long-term welfare dependency.

The jobseekers scheme guidelines provide for a person's family circumstances to be taken into account. For example, it may be unreasonable for a person with certain family responsibilities to seek work which involves a considerable amount of travelling. Although the guidelines do not specifically mention child care, it is one of the areas which could impact on people's availability and a deciding officer must take all matters into consideration when deciding a claim.

There are 6,000 people in receipt of a jobseeker's payment without being a qualified adult for the purposes of receiving a qualified child increase. There are a further 22,300 adults with earnings who receive a qualified increase and who may have child care needs. If the spouse or partner of a person on a jobseeker's payment is working, the claimant has the same problem in being available for work, even though he or she has a dependent child. In these cases children may be much younger than those referred to in the amendment we will get to later. The issue of child care is a valid one in the context of the one-parent family payment. However, it would be better to discuss it in the context of the later amendment. A person must, within reason, be available for work to claim jobseeker's benefit but child care has to be taken into account as have other circumstances, such as where a person is offered work a long way away.

There are legal definitions of "reasonable" and "suitable" and they are based on what a normal person would consider reasonable or suitable. If a deciding officer is being unreasonable or proposes something unsuitable he or she is not acting within the law. In my experience, appeals officers are singularly reasonable people and always take a reasonable view of an appeal that comes before them. We could look at appeals officers' decisions and build them into a best-practice approach to making our initial decisions so that people do not have to make appeals so frequently.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

The Minister spoke about "normal" and "reasonable" decisions but they are subjective terms. These are unusual situations in which people currently on one-parent family payments will, as a result of these changes, be on jobseeker's payments. However, many people have children between the ages of 13 and 16 for whom there are no minding arrangements and for whom care might not be available. I do not only refer to after-school care. Some children are difficult and it is not in their interests that the only adult in the home is out for long periods in the day. As a guiding principle, the amendment should include a reference to the best interests of the child being paramount in making any decisions. This has been adopted in many areas of Irish life as they pertain to children and my amendment would bring this legislation into line. Much of the policy in this area has the potential for a negative impact on certain children so I will press what I believe is a reasonable amendment.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

The Minister's last reply makes the amendment seem all the more sensible. Deputy Shortall's amendment would ensure these matters have to be taken into consideration by all relevant people. On Second Stage I referred to the exception for one-parent families in receipt of domiciliary care allowance. I put forward examples of families with a special needs child who were not eligible for the allowance. Such children might have behavioural difficulties or other special needs, making it inappropriate for them to be left at home alone. Parents in such circumstances find it extremely difficult and some have no choice but to give up work. Nevertheless, they still cannot claim domiciliary care allowance and this needs to be looked at. This amendment, without specifying any particular type of child, would ensure the relevant officer had to take such circumstances into account.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The Minister mentioned guidelines which allowed for these circumstances to be taken into account, even though they are not specifically included. Does he intend to include dependent children? If he was to do so it would cover what is proposed in the amendment. It would be useful, however, to have it specifically laid out in legislation. There are circumstances where a child would remain home alone for a number of hours on a continual basis if somebody took up an offer of a permanent position. That is not just an issue in terms of the day-to-day circumstances, but one has to take account of summer holidays. In the event of becoming a one parent family, any 13 year old could and probably will be home alone for a period of at least two hours by the time a parent in a nine to five job arrives home. Most 13 year old teenagers would be well capable of dealing with that, but most schools have half days on a Wednesday and on that day they would be alone for a longer period. As Deputy Crawford mentioned, people live in isolated cottages in rural areas and we must ask whether we want to build a society where young people of 13 years are left to their own devices for a long period of time. That should be taken into account. If we had a child care system accessible to all, with resources for local after-school clubs, and other clubs offering sports or other activities, one might not need what this amendment provides for. However, because these supports are not in place, that should be taken into account.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Who has the greater child care need? A couple on the jobseeker's benefit with a ten-month old baby may say that one of them cannot go to work because he or she has a child to look after. It undermines the whole principle of availability for work if that is the direction we are going. That is a much more likely scenario based on Deputy Shortall's proposal than the child in secondary school who comes home an hour earlier in the evening where it would be relatively easy to deal with the issue of care.

There are 1.8 million people still working in the economy, many of them couples. Some people work long hours and a distance from home. It is fair to say that arrangements are made with neighbours or clubs for those in secondary school. I do not think the outcome for those children is particularly bad. The evidence shows that the worst outcomes by far are in areas of high deprivation where there is inter-generational unemployment and where the parents have been unemployed and have not had gainful employment throughout their lives. Statistics keep bringing me back to the inescapable fact that what determines child outcomes is the geographic area where the child is raised. It is a peculiarity of rural areas that whether a parent is unemployed or in low level employment does not seem to affect significantly the educational chances of their children, but in urban areas, the combination of inter-generational unemployment and areas of high deprivation produce the worst outcomes for children.

The Committee divided: Tá, 5; Níl, 6.

Tá

Byrne, Catherine.
Carey, Joe.
Crawford, Seymour.
Enright, Olwyn.
Shortall, Róisín.

Níl

Aylward, Bobby.
Brady, Cyprian.
Byrne, Thomas.
McGrath, Mattie.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
O’Connor, Charlie.

Amendment declared lost.

The select committee went into private session at 5.45 p.m. and resumed in public session at 5.46 p.m.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate - Thursday, 24 Jun 2010

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Committee Stage

Tá

Níl

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Thursday, 24 Jun 2010