Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 Jun 2010

Vol. 712 No. 3

Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010: Second Stage

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

Ba mhaith liom a rá ar dtús báire go n-aithním go maith na riachtanais atá ag na daoine atá dífhostaithe faoi láthair. Tuigim go bhfuil go leor dreamanna ag brath ar an mbuiséid leasa shóisialaigh — daoine le míchumas, cúramóirí agus pinsinéirí ina measc. Ba mhaith liom a dheimhniú don Teach go ndéanfaidh an Rialtas ár seacht ndícheall chun aire a thabhairt do na daoine leochaileacha sa tír.

As Minister for Social Protection I am conscious of the needs of unemployed people. I also fully understand that a wide range of other groups — such as people with disabilities, carers and pensioners — depend on the welfare budget for vital support. I assure the House that the Government, in the context of a tough budgetary environment, will continue to do its utmost to protect the most vulnerable people in Irish society.

The Government is proud of its unrivalled record in increasing social welfare payments. In the past 12 years, we have increased pension rates by about 120%, unemployment benefits by almost 130% and child benefits by 330%. The cost of living has increased by about 40% over the same period. We have extended coverage, removed barriers and increased entitlements such that the level and extent of social support payments has been transformed beyond recognition. In a continuation of the trend of recent years, and as a re-affirmation of the Government's commitment to all those in need of support, €20.9 billion will be spent by the Government in 2010 on social welfare provision — €500 million or 2.45% more than 2009.

Unemployment among the young is a particular concern for the Government. We want to encourage them to stay close to the labour market while providing a rate of assistance that compares well with other jurisdictions, particularly the UK and the counties of Northern Ireland. The Minister for Finance announced in his budget statement the introduction of certain targeted changes to jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. Specifically, he announced that the rate would be reduced to €150 per week where job offers or activation measures are refused. Sections 17 and 18 of this Bill provide for these changes.

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

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

In keeping with focus on activation, I emphasise to the House that these rates will apply only where the primary social welfare payment is an unemployment benefit. No other schemes are under the scope of these provisions. In addition, only primary payments are affected — rates for child and adult dependants, where payable, remain unchanged if a claimant is subject to a penalty rate. I am also introducing a new provision for full disallowance where an unemployed person has refused an offer of suitable employment. This provision is intended to strengthen the existing legislative provision under which full disallowance may be imposed if the recipient is not genuinely seeking work. This will not alter the position of the majority of jobseeker's allowance recipients.

As I mentioned previously, the Bill provides for changes to the one-parent family payment. The Government believes that the current arrangements, under which a lone parent can receive one-parent family payments until his or her child is 18, or 22 if in full-time education, without any requirement for him or her to engage in employment, education or training, are not in the best interests of parents, children or society.

Despite improvements made to the one-parent family payment over the years and significant spending on supports to lone parents, a large proportion of lone parents and their children are still experiencing poverty. The child of a lone parent is four times more likely to be in consistent poverty than the population overall. In general, the best route out of poverty is through employment. We recognise that work, especially full-time work, may not be an option for parents of young children. However, we believe that supporting parents in participating in the labour market once their children have reached an appropriate age will improve their own economic situations and their social well-being, as well as that of their families.

The Department has undertaken a comprehensive review of the one-parent family payment and developed proposals which are designed to prevent long-term dependence on welfare and facilitate financial independence; recognise parental choice in the care of young children, but with the expectation that parents will not remain outside of the labour force indefinitely; and include an expectation of participation in education, training and employment, with supports provided in this regard. To meet these social policy objectives, I am introducing the changes outlined to the one-parent family payment in section 24 of the Bill.

For new recipients, from 2011, it is proposed that the one-parent family payment will be made until the youngest child reaches the age of 13. The majority of new recipients of the payment are parents of newborn babies; therefore, the changes in the payment from next year will not affect them until 2024, when their youngest children reach their 13th birthdays. For existing recipients there will be a tapered six-year phasing out period to enable them to access education and training and prepare them for their return to the labour market. Therefore, the cut-off point of 13 years will come into effect only for existing recipients six years from now, in 2016. For existing recipients, the cut-off point of 18 years will remain for 2011 and 2012. In 2013 it will be 17 years, in 2014, 16 years, in 2015, 15 years and in 2016, 13 years.

There is also a special provision for existing one-parent family payment recipients whose children are in full-time education. In this case, payment will continue until the end of the 2012-13 academic year or until the child reaches the age of 22, whichever is the earlier. To encourage participation in education and employment, from the enactment of the Bill to the end of 2016, an existing recipient who leaves the scheme to take up employment or a course of education will be allowed back on the scheme under the new age conditions of the six-year phasing out period if he or she subsequently loses his or her job or the course finishes. If a parent is still in need of income support when the youngest child reaches the age of 13, he or she may be able to claim jobseeker's allowance or another appropriate income support payment — or, if in employment, family income supplement.

Under the reformed scheme there will be a special provision for families with children for whom domiciliary care allowance is paid. They will receive one-parent family payments until their children reach 16, at which point the children can claim disability allowance in their own right. There is also a special provision for married or cohabiting persons who are recently bereaved and who have children aged 13 or older. They will receive payments for up to two years, or until the youngest children reach the age of 18, to enable them to come to terms with their changed circumstances.

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

With regard to child care, the Government invested some €1 billion over the past decade in developing a child care infrastructure. As a result of this, some 65,000 child care places will be in place this year. A revised community child care subvention scheme is due to be introduced in September 2010. This new scheme will have a labour activation focus and will strengthen child care supports available to lone parents. Importantly for lone parents, after-school services and homework clubs will be included in the services provided.

Internationally, there is a general movement away from long-term and passive income support. For example, in the United Kingdom lone parents are required to seek work when their youngest child reaches the age of ten. From October 2010, the minimum age will be further reduced to seven. In Norway, Sweden, Germany and Italy there is a work obligation when the youngest child is aged three. In the 2006 Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, it was initially proposed that a parental allowance would continue until the youngest child reached the age of seven years. However, 13 years is considered to be a more appropriate age for this change as the need for child care will lessen from that age. This change to the one-parent family payment will bring Ireland's support for lone parents more in line with international provisions where countries achieving the best outcomes in terms of tackling child poverty are those combining strategies aimed at facilitating access to employment and enabling services with income support.

I will outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 3 sets out the rules to determine with whom a child normally resides for the purposes of social welfare payments with the exception of child benefit. Section 4 provides for an amendment to the definition of spouse to include different sex co-habiting couples as spouse for the purpose of farm assist and pre-retirement allowance. Section 5 provides for the inclusion of health contributions in the definition of contributions for the purposes of the four year limit on the return of contributions. Section 6 confers power to make regulations to provide for the conditions under which a person is regarded as being incapable of work for the purposes of qualification for the payment of illness benefit.

Section 7 corrects an omission from the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2009 and provides for the restoration of the full rate of payment for recipients of incapacity supplement aged 66 and over. Sections 8, 10 and 12 clarify the provisions in respect of the assessment of means where jobseeker's allowance — section 8 — pre-retirement allowance — section 10 — and farm assist — section 12 — are in payment and the claimant's spouse or partner is in receipt of family income supplement.

Section 9 provides for a number of technical amendments to section 142 to ensure consistency in treatment with regard to the increase payable for a qualified adult. It also provides for the deletion of obsolete provisions. Section 11 provides for a technical amendment to section 211 of the Act to delete an obsolete provision on disability allowance. Section 13 amends section 220 of the principal Act and sets out the rules to determine with whom a child normally resides for the purposes of entitlement to child benefit. Section 14 provides for an amendment to section 320, which deals with decisions of appeals officers. Section 15 removes the limitation on the scope of the appeals process and provides that the Minister has the power to appeal a decision of the chief appeals officer to the High Court on a point of law. Section 16 is a technical amendment to table 2 of Schedule 3 to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to remove obsolete references.

Sections 17 and 18 provide for the payment of a reduced rate of jobseeker's allowance or supplementary welfare allowance where the person refuses to participate in an appropriate course of training or to participate in a programme under the national employment action plan. Section 17 also provides for a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's allowance where the person refuses an offer of suitable employment. Section 19 clarifies the circumstances in which the reduced rate of jobseeker's allowance is payable in the case of 18 to 21 year olds.

Section 20 allows the Minister to appoint persons other than serving staff to be appeals officers. This section will allow for the employment of retired appeals officers as appeals officers, on a temporary basis, to clear backlogs in the social welfare appeals office. Section 21 provides that the chief appeals officer and the deputy chief appeals officer must be officers of the Minister. Section 22 provides for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Act including the deletion of references to the early child care supplement where they appear in the Act. Early child care supplement ceased to be payable on 1 December 2009.

Section 23 provides for the publication of the names, addresses, fines and other penalties of persons who have been convicted of offences under social welfare legislation. Section 24 provides for the reduction, from 2011, of the qualifying age for receipt of one-parent family payment to when the youngest child reaches age 13 and also provides for various transitional provisions for current recipients of the payment. Section 25 amends the provisions on domiciliary care allowance to ensure that the operational practice is correctly reflected.

I will be tabling a number of amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. I will be introducing an amendment to provide for the transfer of the rural social scheme and the community services programme to me as Minister for Social Protection. I will also introduce an amendment to endow me as Minister for Social Protection with the necessary statutory powers on the employment services and community services programme of FÁS and to subsequently transfer the related funding.

One of the priorities I have been given in my Department is to place a particular focus on job activation. The new Department brings a joined-up approach to examining job activation in its wider context with income support. The biggest concern in many households around the country is the issue of jobs. Job activation and the provision of meaningful work activity for unemployed people are a central part of the Taoiseach's reasons for setting up the new Department of Social Protection. The amendments involving the work schemes and employment services moving into a single Department form part of our commitment to targeting the day-to-day needs of unemployed people.

Sections 17 and 18 provide for the payment of reduced rates of jobseeker's allowance and supplementary welfare allowance in certain circumstances, as outlined above. I will introduce an amendment on Committee Stage to provide that the reduced rates will also apply to jobseeker's benefit where the person refuses to participate in an appropriate course of training or to participate in a programme under the national employment action plan. I also provide for a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's benefit where a person refuses an offer of suitable employment. This mirrors the provision in Section 17 on entitlement to jobseeker's allowance. I am also providing a specific disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's benefit where the person is attending a full-time day course of study. This mirrors an existing disqualification for receipt of jobseeker's allowance where a person is attending a full-time day course of study.

Section 23 provides for the publication of the names, addresses, fines and other penalties of persons who have been convicted of offences under social welfare legislation. Having given this matter further consideration, I have decided it is inappropriate to proceed with this provision and therefore I will table an amendment on Committee Stage to provide for the deletion of section 23. I will also table consequential amendments to the Long Title, collective citation and commencement provisions.

Molaim an Bille don Teach agus tá mé ag súil le bhur gcuid tuairimí a chloisteáil maidir leis na míreanna atá ann sa dá lá seo atá romhainn. I commend the Bill to the House and I look forward to an informed debate and to hearing the views of Members on the measures contained in the Bill over the next few days.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this item of legislation and I hope my contribution will be considered constructive. Fine Gael has concerns about this legislation. It will have an impact on the lives of thousands of people. I have difficulty with many aspects of this Bill, many of which concern practicality rather than principle. I hope the Minister will take this point on board.

I believe in the principle of activation but I do not believe the Minister is approaching this from the correct angle. My difficulty is with the proposed sweeping changes that will have a profound effect on people's lives. They are being proposed without the backup of the necessary supports to implement the changes. These supports are vital if we are to lift people out of poverty and into meaningful employment. There is a key contradiction in the way the Minister is planning to implement some of the proposals. From my reading of the Bill, the two most significant proposed changes concern jobseeker's allowance, the supplementary welfare allowance and the one parent family payment.

Jobseekers are to be given the option of a course, a job or training. With good cause, they can refuse to participate and their payment will remain the same. The one parent family recipient, on the other hand, is cut off regardless of any factor once the youngest child reaches the age of 13. That is very different.

I strongly support the idea of activation, of assisting people to get back into work, education or training. That is the core solution to the problems we face. Fine Gael has stated consistently that the best way to address the enormous and spiralling social welfare bill is not to take money from the vulnerable but to get people back to work. The current Government has failed to tackle unemployment and set up a coherent job strategy. Instead, we will see the more vulnerable suffer further.

I welcome this and yet I question it. I welcome the Minister's promise to introduce an amendment to deal with the huge backlogs in the social welfare appeals office. However, there are 439,000 people unemployed and I have a genuine difficulty with the Minister bringing in retired people to do that work. There are highly qualified unemployed people who could do it, given some training. I appreciate the work will be temporary but it might be the job experience these people need that would get them through an interview and get them a job. Instead, we will pay pensions to people while paying them to do this work. The Minister must examine this again. I appreciate there is a time issue, that we need to clear the backlog and that training takes time. At the same time, however, he might be able to bring in people further up the chain within the Department and then bring others in who would need less training to do other jobs. There are people in the Department who do not necessarily process these claims now but who have been in an office answering telephones and taking messages for years. They have quite an amount of experience and could move. I ask the Minister to look at that issue again.

It was made clear in two reports last week who was responsible for the mess the country is in but those people will not pay the price. Many, including the Taoiseach and some of the bankers, are still in their jobs while others have retired on pensions that most people would find nauseating to consider. With today's Bill, however, as with the last Social Welfare Bill in December, we will make people who had no hand, act or part in the economic collapse of this country pay the price. I appreciate the Minister has had his brief for only a few months but why, in the past 13 years, did the Government not give attention to the idea of activating people when we had the work in which to place them? That was an opportunity squandered. Now, because we need to make savings or, as the Minister terms them, adjustments, social welfare recipients will pay the price.

There is also a contradiction in what the Minister said about the one parent family payment in that the Minister, Deputy Lenihan is quoted as stating that the Minister for Social Protection was making the payment changes to the one parent family payment to save money. I assume this was the Minister of State, Deputy Conor Lenihan, but, at any rate, it was one of the Ministers named Lenihan. The Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, has come out since and said the opposite. There is some degree of confusion on that. I am concerned about that point and about social welfare recipients paying the price.

I wish to deal with the issue of one parent family payments. This group seems to be the only one singled out for activation without having opportunities given to them. I appreciate there was an expectation that changes would be made and, to be fair to this Minister, he bit the bullet that his three immediate predecessors failed to bite because this has been talked about repeatedly, for a long time. It is four years since the report on one parent families was published and in that time all we have had from the Government is commentary about the report. No work was done in those four years to facilitate the orderly provision of the range of supports needed to ensure that the people who will lose the payment will have the chance to participate in meaningful work, education or training. The Minister does not have any real plan to achieve this.

Section 24 provides for the reduction of the qualifying age from April 2011, linked to when the youngest child reaches the age of 13. It provides for transitional arrangements up to 2016. Ironically, the date the Minister has chosen for this to take place is the 100th anniversary of the Easter Rising, when we pledged to cherish all children of the nation equally. However, the transitional arrangements do not take account of the practical issues and only take account of age. They do not take account of issues such as transportation or child care. The Minister stated in his speech today that a new scheme for child care is promised from September. He promised a scheme to people who would be affected by the carbon tax but that did not come. We were promised a scheme to assist people who have difficulty with their mortgages and that has not come. We are obliged to pass this legislation in the coming weeks based on a promise which I find very difficult to do because the people I represent want to know what will happen.

I also have a difficulty regarding parents of children with special needs. There is a provision in regard to domiciliary care allowance but one can have a child with special needs who is not in receipt of domiciliary care allowance because of the type of need he or she has. This does not mean this child of 13 is suitable to be left at home alone. That point will have to be re-examined because there will be lone parents of a child with special needs, who, because of whatever type of need that child has — it may be purely behavioural — cannot be left to mind himself or herself after school finishes. Linking this to the domiciliary care allowance is not enough.

The transitional arrangements are dates and timelines and even in that they are unfair. As Deputy Shortall pointed out in the briefing, and as has been said to me by some people, these are designed almost to ensure that a person who is now in low income employment would be as well off to leave that job. If such people have a job that is not secure or is at risk of ending and they have not applied for, nor are in receipt of the one parent family payment, if they lose their job in the next few months or during these transitional arrangements they will not be eligible to apply if their child is aged 13. If they were in receipt of the payment now, however, and if the child is aged 12 years and 6 months, they will be eligible. That must be examined again. It was raised with the Minister's officials that day but the Minister has not said there will be any amendments in its regard.

The real crunch of this issue concerns how the Minister will facilitate this group of people into meaningful work. I want to hear more from the Minister on this. It is the reason I oppose the Bill. I have no faith in the tangled web which is how I describe the education and training currently on offer. In any event, I wonder how the current system could cope with the additional people. When a child reaches the age of 13, the parent will lose the payment. That means that he or she must start the training prior to that, for example, if he or she wants to do a basic degree. I have no concept of what the Minister means by education or training in this regard. What type is he talking about? A FÁS course can be anything from a week in length to a year or more and then there are universities and institutes of technology. People will have different requirements and we have to be able to open their minds to the possibility of doing something more than they may have thought possible. I do not believe the system in place will allow them to do that.

If a person wants to do a basic degree that means leaving a child aged 10 years because the payment will be lost when the child is 13. Therefore, one must have used the three years prior to that to get the basic degree and have any hope of getting a job from it. Again, I imagine many parents would feel that leaving their child at home, aged 10, is not an option. Where will they get the money to have that child cared for while they are doing the education and training? There are basic infrastructural practicalities all over the place in this regard.

Another basic point is that schools open at 9 a.m. When I had the education portfolio, and also in my constituency work, parents raised with me the fact that nobody is in charge of their children in school before that time. The school is not responsible and does not wish to know. There is a problem because a great number of FÁS courses start at 8.30 a.m. If the parents are going to have to leave before their children are in secondary school they will have to drop them off and that issue needs to be examined because schools will not take responsibility for them. I have spoken to headmasters and tried to reason with them, asking if somebody can do the job. They say they are not insured and that is the answer.

Sixty per cent of current one parent family payment recipients are already engaged in work and 80% are engaged in work, education or training. The Minister has not outlined any vision or plan as to how he hopes to achieve their activation. I do not believe the stick on its own will work. We need to work with these families and engage with them. They want the best outcome for themselves and they definitely want the best outcome for their children but they must be supported in that. Last week I asked the Minister's officials how this would work in practical terms. They said that when the legislation was passed all the individuals in question would be written to, which is fair enough. When their youngest child reaches 10 years of age, the parents will be advised about what is available and they can get in touch with facilitators. They mentioned the pilot FÁS social inclusion model. In the first place, I have difficulty with the notion that we will base all of this on a social inclusion pilot, when we have not got results of the pilot. The Minister's predecessor also thought facilitators were the answer to everything. For any problem I raised there were facilitators and they were the men and women to deal with it.

To be fair, any facilitator to whom I have spoken has been outstanding. They are very fair people and they are hard working. They try to go the extra mile to facilitate people and see how the rules can be examined to do this. They do a great job, but there are only 63 of them, while there are 439,000 people unemployed, over 100,000 on disability and illness benefit, and almost 90,000 one parent family payments. It is a physical impossibility to cover that, and I do not see how activation can happen, especially when there is around 20% who are not currently engaged in work, education or training and who will need a ferocious amount of help. How will it happen? That is the question that needs to be answered and that is my real concern. Payment cuts without that help is cruel to those people.

The discussion paper to which the Minister referred states quite clearly that activation is not simply focused on moving people into employment or low paid jobs. It states that activation encompasses interviews and advice meetings, education and training, and providing people with skills to enable them to achieve financial independence. I do not see the plan here on how we are going to do that. I want to see these men and women achieve their potential, and I do not want to see them dependent on welfare any more than the Minister, but I think they need to be fairly treated and properly helped, and I have a concern with how that is going to happen.

The Minister refers to other countries on this issue, and I have looked at other countries as well. We have a great tendency to pick out other countries as examples, without examining the whole system in other countries. When we look at the whole system in some of those countries, we see that they have the building blocks in place. They did not start with the cut and then work downwards. They started at the bottom and worked up and that is how we will have to approach this.

I have less difficulty with the changes proposed by the Minister to jobseeker's allowance and to the supplementary welfare allowance, to some extent. I see the logic behind them, but I would question the emphasis. Where is the plan to create jobs for these young people? The Minister's predecessor had a plan for young people in 2008. Since that time, 84% of those who have lost their jobs are under 34, while 83,000 people under 25 are on the dole. This latter figure ignores the thousands who have left this country and they are not going off on their holidays. They are going because they feel there is nothing here for them. They cannot survive on the payment that they are getting and they do not feel they have the education or training opportunities.

The Minister probably got the submission that I received from the National Youth Council of Ireland, which voices some real concerns about the provisions. These are principally about the lack of availability of education and training places, as well as the failure of the Government to deliver on previous commitments, for which two examples are cited. Only 919 of the 2,000 work placements and only 752 of the 2,500 college places for jobseekers announced in April 2009 have been filled. The council rightly questions the effectiveness of FÁS courses. There are some great FÁS courses, but we need to examine this and be honest in our appraisal of what is being achieved.

The council submission refers to the Forfás report and it finds that many of the courses have lost focus and are of little use to young people in getting work, and that there are high drop-out rates. There is very little point in spending money putting people through courses if they are going to drop out half way through them, or if the courses are not relevant to their needs. We do not want to see people doing courses because they are told to do so. The statistics might look good, but we will not achieve anything. These concerns cannot be ignored as we go through the proposals, and I would like some more information on this. There will be amendments on FÁS on Committee Stage, and I welcome that because it will give us a little more clarity. At the moment, I see it as operating under three Ministers, but I do not see how it is intended to operate.

The changes are needed by the people who are unemployed. They are also needed by the employers who are struggling. The Minister's officials pointed out that we do not need legislation for the employer PRSI incentive scheme but it would give us reassurance when debating this Bill if we knew that was in place. It is another promise given in last year's budget, but we have not seen any action on it, besides press statements. If we knew that was in place, it would be one positive measure to which we could point as an example of something the Government has done to facilitate people in getting back to work. That is not there and I would like to see it in place before we proceed with this Bill. The Government promised €36 million for the initiative, so it is important that it be introduced without delay.

I would now like to go through a few specific sections of the Bill. In section 5, which deals with the refund of PRSI contributions, I want clarity on whether the people have a four year window within which they can claim a refund, or whether they can only claim a refund to the value of four years. During our briefing, the Minister's representatives told us that it was not always appropriate to get a doctor's certificate in certain instances, and swine flu was given as the big example. The amendment to section 6 seems reasonable in that respect but it is important that a certificate is provided in all but the most exceptional cases, particularly if we want to combat fraud. It is important that the section is not open to abuse, so I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister on that.

Section 7 corrects an omission from the second 2009 Act to provide for the restoration of the full rate of payment for recipients of the incapacity supplement aged 66 and over. How many people were affected by that omission? Sections 8, 10 and 12 contain the clarifying provisions on job seeker's allowance, pre-retirements, the farm assist scheme and the payments to spouses or partners in receipt of family income supplement. Is the purpose of this provision to ensure that people get less? Is it just a clarifying provision?

I brought up section 14 with the Minister's officials. This deals with the power of the Minister to appeal to the High Court on a point of law, where he disagrees with the chief appeals officer. Can the Minister explain the purpose of this amendment a bit more? I appreciate that the Social Welfare Appeals Office is separate, even though it is still under the Department, but I would be concerned if situations were arising that the chief appeals officer was so out of step with legislation that he was not accurately interpreting the law and that the Minister was running to the High Court to correct mistakes that the officer was making. Is there a reason that this has suddenly come up? Has the Minister received advice that this is an issue that may be coming up?

We had a group before the joint committee a few weeks ago who spoke about the registration of people who died outside of Ireland. There is a requirement to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004. I do not know whether that can be done through this Bill. We had amendments to health legislation last year through a social welfare Bill, and there is a strong feeling that this registration needs to be done and people would like to see action.

The Minister is making some changes to the structures of the appeals office and other offices. I have a letter here containing a query about social welfare branch offices. Some of the particular difficulties on backlogs have arisen in respect of branch offices. There is much toing and froing, where issues that come into the branch office are passed elsewhere to be handled there and so on. Legislation was passed a few years ago that would allow branch offices to become deciding offices and authorise their own claim load, and that this would significantly speed things up. I do not know the Minister's view on that, but it is something that could be considered. Difficulties in my own constituency have made me very aware of the difficulties people face when the backlogs are there.

The Minister stated that he was going to bring in amendments in respect of FÁS. I am concerned about the status of the Office for Social Inclusion. We had a long running battle in this House on the closure of the Combat Poverty Agency, or the "subsuming" of the office by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which is the polite way of putting it. The Minister's Department is now called the Department of Social Protection, and I find it hard to visualise how that Department cannot have the Office for Social Inclusion in it. A commitment was made a few years ago that all decisions made by every Department would be poverty proofed.

Several years ago there was a commitment that all decisions taken by every Department would be poverty proofed and would be looked at with regard to the impact of poverty and how it would be likely to affect people. How will this happen in the Department of Social Protection? What role and communication will the Office for Social Inclusion have now? Will it be the same as it will have with the Departments of Education and Skills, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Health and Children or will it examine the Department's enormous role in tackling poverty? That is its remit also but it is based in an entirely separate Department. Clarity on how that will work is very important.

Earlier, I briefly referred to the carbon tax. We were led to believe by last year's budget that changes would be made or that there would be some sort of easing for people in vulnerable positions, particularly people dependent on certain social welfare payments, to cope with that carbon tax. It has been introduced on many fuels and will be fully in place in September. I expected something in the Bill to deal with this and I am very surprised that there is not. This is a particularly thorny issue in my constituency and in a number of other constituencies because people whose families have done so for generations have been prohibited from cutting turf. There will be a scheme for one year with regard to this but that will not help people in the long term. Will the Minister examine this issue again?

The Minister has decided it is appropriate to proceed with section 23. Why? What is the reasoning for this? I cannot understand how the Minister could take a decision to make the big change of publishing names, addresses and fines and then pull back from it. It works effectively from a tax perspective. Are there more hard cases in the social welfare system? I question this change and I would like the Minister to answer on this.

Fraud does not necessarily need legislation but much more concentration and emphasis. I am concerned about a proposal or a pilot scheme to allow people to sign on by mobile phone. Perhaps the reports are inaccurate and this is a good opportunity for the Minister to clarify those reports. There are very genuine concerns about this. While I am all for technology and for using it in effective ways, perhaps the Minister could concentrate on using existing technology to make the Revenue Commissioners aware of what landlords are the ultimate recipients of rent supplements and such matters prior to considering allowing people to sign on to receive social welfare payments from wherever they are in the world. The Minister has not clarified it sufficiently for people to be reassured.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

Dáil Eireann declines to give a second reading to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2010 having regard to the failure of the Government to ensure that measures to activate jobseekers and lone parents have been backed up by genuine job opportunities and access to quality training, education and literacy improvement, childcare, and relevant health supports, and further expresses concern that without these measures the cuts in support levels may simply have the effect of further impoverishing people who are already on subsistence levels of income.

The Labour Party will oppose the Bill and will call a vote at the end of Second Stage. This is not because we are opposed to the principle of activation — we strongly support it — but because we have concerns about the Government's motivation in bringing forward these proposals. It seems the sole motivation is to be seen to be tough with regard to welfare and to be seen to be doing something rather than putting in place a jobs plan and examining and tackling the real reasons people remain on welfare for long periods than being genuinely concerned about ensuring that as many people as possible can move from welfare to work. We must ask why the Government is doing this now and why action was not taken in recent years at times when it would have made sense to do so.

The Labour Party would support a Bill that was genuinely about activation but this Bill is not. I strongly believe in activation. Welfare should be for people who genuinely need it and there should be no place for those who see welfare simply as a way of life. People who abuse the welfare system, who exploit it, defraud it and who take it for granted, are a threat to its very existence. They are the enemy of the poor. The problem is that the Bill is not about activation; it is about cut-backs and the optics of doing something about long-term welfare recipients. How can one call it activation when in the first instance there are so few jobs of any description available? That is the big issue; the jobs are not there. The implication of comments made by the Minister on the Bill is that many people remain on welfare when they have job opportunities. The reality is that the vast majority of people on welfare do not want to be there. They want to be in work but the difficulty is that the jobs are not there. The Government has not produced a serious jobs plan and very little attention has been paid to job creation or protection. That is the key issue the Government needs to address but it is not included in the Bill.

There is no provision for extra training or for extra after-school care for the children of lone parents. There is not even a commitment from the Minister on ring-fencing any money that might be saved for helping welfare claimants into work or training. That would be a sensible thing to do; if there are savings to be generated from these proposals they should at least be ring-fenced and ploughed back into providing good quality training opportunities for people who need to get off welfare but cannot do so because of a lack of education or adequate training.

Why is there a need to include a provision to disqualify jobseekers for refusing a job offer when there is already legislation to disqualify them if they are not genuinely seeking or available for work? Why is the Minister repeating this? Again, it seems to be more about the optics. Why is there a need to include a provision to reduce a jobseeker's payment for refusing a training course, when there is already a provision in law to suspend the payment to a person in such circumstances? Is this about the Minister wanting to look tough rather than doing anything meaningful?

If the lone parent reforms are really about activation, why are qualified adults, and those on the non-contributory widow's pension excluded from the proposals in the Bill? Or is it the case that they are next? A range of lone parent reforms was conceived by the late Mr. Seamus Brennan at a time when we had full employment and the economy was booming. That was the time to take action. With the right support services these proposals would have been appropriate then and the Labour Party cautiously welcomed them. However, now is the worst possible time to introduce those changes. We no longer have adequate levels of employment and a lone parent with huge family commitments is competing with 430,000 other unemployed people for work. That does not make any sense.

There is an underlying assumption that lone parents form a type of homogenous group. Nothing could be further from the truth. The majority of lone parents are at work and according to OPEN, of those on welfare 84% are working, looking for work, or undertaking training or an education course. The Minister needs to bear this in mind. There is a great hunger to get back into education or training to avail of any job opportunities and he should not speak in terms of the need to force people to do so.

Equally, there is a very strong case for the Minister to ensure that those people who are currently seeking training or employment are facilitated in doing that. It is his responsibility as part of the Government to ensure that the jobs are there in the first place for these people, something which it had completely failed to do in recent years.

Parents arrive at the status of lone parenthood in very different ways, which is another important point. Some arrive there through unexpected pregnancy, some through a relationship breakdown with a long-standing partner, some through formal separation or divorce, some through the death of a partner and some through abandonment by their partners. No other social group has a higher risk of consistent poverty. Lone parents are four times more likely than others to live in poverty and more than one third of children growing up in poverty in Ireland are growing up in one-parent families. The welfare system has not worked to combat this. Welfare reform is long overdue for this group. About that there is no doubt, but the Minister must go about it in the right way.

Lowering the qualifying age was meant to go hand-in-hand with better child care and training services, the introduction of a parental allowance to replace the one parent family payment and the ending of the ban on cohabitation. Where are these reforms? There is no sign of them in this Bill. These proposals were clearly spelled out in the Government Green Paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents. I wonder if the current Minister has even read it. It would seem that he has chosen to do the dirty work of the former Minister, Deputy Hanafin, for her while tearing up the progressive work engaged in by his earlier predecessor, the late Séamus Brennan. The likelihood is that all that will happen is that an extra 12,000 lone parents will transfer to jobseeker payments over the next six years. This will inflate the live register figures by another 12,000 as people on one parent family payment are not counted at the current time. It is hard to know what the point of all that will be.

The income disregards that claimants previously enjoyed as lone parents when they took up a part-time job will no longer be permitted under jobseeker rules, which will be a huge impediment. It will mean that the single biggest effect of these changes is that they will deprive lone parents of the opportunity for part-time work. I put it to the Minister that he should consider the unintended consequences — I am being charitable to the Minister by calling them unintended — but there may be very serious unintended consequences to what he is now calling reforms which will work against the objective of getting people to move from welfare to work. Not only will lone parents have substantially less income, but they will be even more detached from the workforce. How can this possibly be described as activation?

For those who manage to find work, the main problem will undoubtedly be who will mind their children when they are at work. Most will not be able to afford to pay someone else to do it. What is a lone parent to do during their summer months when his or her child is off school? Teenagers are off school for three months in the summer. Is it now Government policy for 13 year olds to have no parental supervision and to be left to their own devices during the three months of their summer holidays? I would like the Minister to address that point in responding to the debate tomorrow. What arrangements will the Minister make if he will require their lone parents to get involved in training or employment? Just because a child is 13 does not mean he or she can look after himself or herself. Has the Government even considered the social consequences of this? There are huge implications for anti-social behaviour, drug abuse and, ironically, teenage pregnancy. Has the Minister really thought this through? It seems from his comments to date that very little thought has been given to the likely fall-out of his proposed changes.

As the research undertaken by the Vincentian partnership illustrates, it costs substantially more to raise a teenager than it does to raise a younger child. The withdrawal of one parent family payment will in many cases create an additional barrier to school completion and to third level education. If the teenage children of lone parents realise that their parents are in far more strained financial circumstances under the Minister's new arrangements than they currently are, it will inevitably have a knock-on impact in terms of the ability of teenagers in poor lone parent families to remain in school. The pressure will undoubtedly grow on them to leave school early and try to find work. The pressures working against the possibility of them participating in third level education will be even greater.

Will the operational guidelines for the jobseekers allowance be amended to reflect that for some parents the cost of after school care will represent a poverty trap? What will happen in respect of difficult children? There is some provision in the Bill in respect of children who qualify for domiciliary care allowance and for recently bereaved families, which I welcome. However, there is no allowance made for children with, for example, ADHD, challenging behavioural patterns or physical or mental health difficulties. Parents of these children simply cannot be in two places at once. What arrangements will the Government put in place if a parent of a child in those circumstances is required to be at work to ensure adequate care and protection is provided for young people who are at risk?

Allowances are made for lone parents who have suffered a recent bereavement, but why do they stop there? Why are other reasons for lone parenthood, such as abandonment or separation treated any differently? Do people in such circumstances not also need what the Minister describes as time to come to terms with their new status? It seems strange that the Minister is making a distinction between different categories of people who find themselves unexpectedly in a situation where they are lone parents. There would seem to be some element of discrimination and I would like the Minister to address that point. Do people who have been suddenly abandoned not need the same consideration as people who find themselves suddenly widowed? I look forward to the Minister's response.

The Labour Party will seek to amend this legislation by insisting that the welfare of the child should be paramount in deciding on the availability of the lone parent for work. In all aspects of social policy the understanding was that this principle would underpin all social policy relating to children. It seems it does not apply in this case. I will table an amendment to give effect to that principle which should be accepted by all Departments. The welfare of the child should be paramount in deciding on the availability of a parent for work. It is how it works in other countries and how it should work here. It is beyond belief that the Minister has not included such a provision before presenting this Bill. It reveals the crude recklessness and devil-may-care attitude of the Government regarding the poor in our society.

Some of the underlying motivation which concerns me in this Bill is that it would seem that it is not about the welfare or protection of vulnerable people, rather, it is about the welfare and protection of the Government. It is designed to appeal to the prejudices of those sections of the public who believe all lone parents and all jobseekers are sponging off the State. I do not think the Minister should feed that view.

There is no reform of the real reasons some people spend so long on welfare, namely, the number of poverty traps in the welfare system. There is no improvement in the criteria for family income supplement, for example. One still cannot qualify for it if one is self-employed. The minimum hours rule is a huge impediment to qualification. This should be the Minister's priority because it potentially offers a silver bullet for tackling the reasons people find it so difficult to move from welfare to work. He needs to investigate the problem, of which family income supplement is a significant element. Reform of this area could make all the difference to people taking up employment but, again, little or no consideration is being given to it.

There is no relaxation of the income disregards when taking up temporary work. The withdrawal rates for some people taking up temporary employment or short-term work projects are very high and can be in excess of the marginal rate of tax. The welfare system needs to be overhauled to build in flexibility. The Minister is nodding but he is not acting. The Bill does not provide the improvements that would allow people to re-enter on their old rates if they take up temporary employment.

Disgracefully, there is still no improvement to the qualifying criteria for mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement. How long do we have to wait for these? I despair at the many cases of people who do not qualify for mortgage interest supplement because the rules have not been updated since the mid-1990s. Reform of this supplement was promised by Easter 2009 and, subsequently, Easter 2010. This unforgivable delay is testimony to a Government that has put the interests of the banks ahead of ordinary people who are struggling.

What is the problem with changing rent supplement so that the qualifying criteria mirror the differential rent criteria of the relevant local authority? This improvement could be made overnight and it would make a huge difference to people on rent supplement by eliminating a long-standing poverty trap that causes welfare dependency. The Minister and everybody in this House are aware of the poverty trap whereby it is not worthwhile for people on rent supplement to go to work. There are straightforward ways of eliminating this trap and if the Minister is serious about helping people to get off welfare, why is he not proposing them?

The previous Minister, Deputy Hanafin, promised changes to the back to education allowance so that more people could qualify but no such improvements have been mentioned by the present Minister.

The lack of reform in these areas is the real reason for welfare dependency and tackling these issues would take far more people off the dole than any of the reforms outlined in the Bill. A national training, education or work guarantee should be offered to every unemployed person under the age of 25. Does the Minister realise there are 74,000 such people? Why is he not taking specific action to address the problems they face?

There are several ways in which revenue could be raised without hurting the poor. On Committee Stage of the Bill I will be proposing a range of reforms which would accrue savings in the policy areas for which the Minister has responsibility. Almost one dozen changes could be made to raise revenue and eliminate the need to hit people at the lowest levels of income. I sincerely ask the Minister to consider some of these changes.

He could, for example, reduce the maximum tax-free pension pots allowable. He undertook to investigate this issue but the Bill does nothing about it. At present, rich people can have pension pots of almost €5.5 million. This is a ridiculous amount for which there is no justification. Why not reduce the limit to €2.5 million, which would still be higher than the maximum pension pot allowable in the UK? What about allowing the first €50,000 in employer contributions to a pension to be tax free and taxing the remainder as benefit in kind? At present, there is no limit to the tax-free contributions an employer can make. The Minister has spoken about limiting the maximum possible tax-free lump sums taken on retirement to €200,000 but there has been no action on it. He is responsible for pension policy and savings can be made in this area. There is no justification for allowing rich people to earn huge amounts in tax free payments from their pension contributions or pension lump sums. Why is the Minister not addressing this issue instead of hitting the very poorest?

Why not make insurance companies compensate the Department for illness or disability payments where they have admitted liability and where the value of social welfare entitlements is deducted from the gross claim settlement? Why are insurance companies being let off the hook? This is a way of saving money which would not hurt people.

Why is PRSI not charged on rental income, capital gains or share based remuneration and share options? Why not withhold payment of mortgage interest supplement until proof is provided that a bank has played its part in assisting somebody by giving a break on mortgage repayments or extending the term. Why does the Minister not insist that the banks help out rather than have the State step in and let them off the hook?

Why not increase penalties for social welfare fraud by both employers and welfare recipients or give greater scope to the Department to recover outstanding amounts? Data matching between the Courts Service and the Department could be improved.

Why are landlords who charge illegal supplements by forcing tenants to pay top up rents not blacklisted? Why are the landlords who refuse to pay tax on their rental income not being named?

The Minister is nodding along to my suggestions but there is no action.

I agree with much of what the Deputy says.

Why is he not doing something other than hitting people on the lowest incomes?

I am doing something.

These people find themselves in dreadful circumstances in many cases. Why are the savings being made on their backs rather than areas in which substantial revenue could be found among very rich people who are currently being let off the hook? Why does the Minister not do something about that instead of simply nodding along? I would like to see a Bill introduced which provides the changes that would create a fair tax and welfare system.

Is de réir a chéile a thógtar na caisleáin.

The Labour Party will also be proposing amendments on the compulsory registration of fathers on birth certificates, which is in the clear interest of the child and would be of considerable assistance in combating social welfare fraud. This measure has been extensively discussed in the past year but it is not provided for in the Bill. I hope the Minister will support our amendments. My colleague, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, has been very vocal on the issue of parental equality.

Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Barr
Roinn