John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's commitment regarding the Christmas bonus. As a Teachta Dála, I was contacted by a sizeable number of people this morning on their seeing the headline in one of the newspapers. People are genuinely concerned and worried, which to me shows how important the Christmas bonus is to people in trying to make plans around Christmas time. I therefore welcome the Minister's commitment that the bonus will be paid. I would like to see something a bit more rock solid every year. She has used the same kind of terminology every year when she has come before the committee in recent years, that there is no provision for a Christmas bonus in the Department's allocation. I know she says it depends on annual savings within the Department and that if savings can be made in areas, that depends on the allocation of the Christmas bonus. In future I would like to see a 100% payment, not just the 85% payment. There has been needless scaremongering, which greatly concerned very many people in the community.

The Minister finished her opening statement by saying what would be the most effective way of addressing child poverty. I have spoken to the NGOs, the organisations out dealing with children in poverty, and CSO figures show that 25% of children in lone parent families are in poverty or at risk of poverty. When asked about this, these organisations talk about a targeted increase in the qualified child increase, QCI, from 12 years of age upwards. There are also real issues with child benefit, on which I would like to get the Minister's views. What is her view on increasing it for children in full-time school education? This is putting families in real, serious financial difficulty. I am not saying it is forcing children out of school, but difficult decisions need to be made. When it was cut and the age threshold reduced, it had a real impact on families. What are the Minister's views on this? The organisations and my party and I certainly advocate this being increased.

Regarding the issue of a child maintenance service, I brought forward proposals and I welcome that other parties agreed to them. The establishment of a child maintenance service was one of the key recommendations to come from the committee report last year. I hear what the Minister is saying, that it is not the remit of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection but rather that of the Department of Justice and Equality. I know she sees the merit in the service, but has she made representations? Has she spoken to her Cabinet colleagues about the need for it? I met Department officials from the office of the Minister for Justice and Equality over the summer and there does not seem to be that sense of importance or urgency. It is not on the Minister's or the Department's radar whatsoever.

A dedicated child maintenance service would mean so much to so many families. Forcing them to go through the courts is not the right thing to do. I genuinely believe there are savings to be made to the State in terms of court sitting time, judges and so on. It will also be of tangible benefit, especially to the children. Many lone parents simply will not go to a court sitting because it is not the right area. We know the implications of maintenance payments in some cases not being paid.

The Minister cited a figure of 15.4% for youth unemployment. CSO unemployment data for August 2018 have it at 13.9%. Can we get a little clarity on this? Which is the correct figure?

I refer to what I see and what many of the organisations dealing with young people see as discriminatory payments to young unemployed people. Does the Minister see this as discrimination? I know her predecessor stood over it, and I have questioned her previously and I know what she will probably come back with, that there are many options for young unemployed people to take whereby they get a full payment. I know that, I hear that, but it is still a discriminatory payment if a person aged between 18 and 24 years is forced to live on €107.70 per week.

I want to get the Minister's view on that.

I have spoken to the Minister previously about the fuel allowance, especially fuel poverty, which is an issue that faces more than 400,000 citizens in this State. There has been an increase in the cost of fuel in recent years. The fuel allowance is one means by which we can try to tackle fuel poverty. Will it be increased in this year's budget? An additional payment was made to recipients this year because of the bad weather. In other countries such as the UK, an automatic payment kicks in if there is a prolonged cold snap. What we have is a haphazard measure that only comes into effect when there is political pressure and pressure from NGOs. The Government only responds when there is uproar. Could a specific measure be put in place providing for an automatic payment in the event of a prolonged period of cold weather lasting a week or ten days?

Looking through the document I note that the number of participants on community employment, CE, schemes is 1,244 fewer than at the end of June 2016. Am I correct in saying there are 32,000 CE positions in total? Currently, there are 21,578 participants on CE schemes. A note states that the lower number of recipients reflects a decline in the number of people on the live register and the improved labour market. That seems to be the stock answer any time questions are asked about CE schemes or difficulties in finding suitable people to avail of CE positions. Community employment supervisors lay the blame for the low uptake of community employment positions on the establishment of JobPath. I spoke to many of them over the summer. I accept some changes have been made to allow people to go on CE schemes. While welcome, these changes do not go far enough. We must deal with the difficulties that exist in regard to CE schemes. I would like to get the Minister's view on that. There is a problem and CE supervisors say it is due to JobPath.

How much has been paid to date this year to Turas Nua and Seetec? I would like the most up-to-date figures. Are financial penalties built into the contract which can be imposed by the companies if the Department or Intreo offices do not supply them with agreed numbers of jobseekers?