Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

We will wait and see what is in the report before we get too excited about it.

In 1992, Ireland ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which the State agreed to protect the rights of all children "within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind" including any prejudice based on their parents' status. Article 3 expressly states that in "all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration". The right of every child to "benefit from social security" is provided for under Article 26. On direct provision, chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, Mr. Robin Hannan recently said, "The effect is not only pushing people into poverty and isolation, but it has also been extremely dehumanising and has caused a lot of stress and, in many cases, depression." Approximately 3,000 children in receipt of direct provision are being deprived of basic necessities such as clothing, school books and medicine because their parents cannot afford to buy them. I am disappointed that budget 2008 did not provide the opportunity for Ireland to increase direct provision to a reasonable and acceptable level and to live up to its commitment in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The most recent poverty figures show that a one parent family with one child will be "at risk of poverty" in 2007 if its income is below €282.51 per week. Before budget 2008, a family of this size relying on social welfare would have a total weekly income of €258.22. This includes the following allowances, which I have calculated for this purpose on a weekly basis: the one-parent family payment of €185.80, the qualified child allowance of €22, child benefit of €36.92, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance of €3.46 and the fuel allowance of €10.04. This is still more than €27 below the income level that puts them at risk of poverty. It is for this reason that almost one third, or 32.5%, of one-parent families were in consistent poverty in 2006. In 2008 the increase in social welfare payments to one-parent families with one child under the age of six amounts to €18.04. When adjusted for inflation, the minimum required to maintain the true value of social welfare payments was €13.60. Therefore, in real terms, the increase for such families is less than €4.50. For families with children over six years of age, the total increase amounts to €16.12. Again, to maintain the value of this payment when considering inflation, such families would have required at least €12.65 and are therefore better off by less than €3.50.

I ask the Minister to outline to the House at the conclusion of this debate tomorrow what exactly is contained in his proposed overhaul of the lone parent's allowance. He gave only a little detail in his speech today. We are now being asked to approve the increases I have mentioned and we will because effectively none of us wants to delay them for families. However, it would be better if, in doing this, we were aware of what the Minister intends to do, in totality, in this area. I believe his proposals involve assigning individual lone parents with a trained welfare officer from his Department to help them access supports for training, education and employment. The Minister was quoted as saying in early January: "The best way to deal with this is to deal with lone parents on a case-by-case basis, to examine their individual needs, whether that is child care, issues to do with literacy or education, before getting them into different schemes or part-time work." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Minister's sentiments in that regard but I have grave concerns about the ability to follow through on this.

While I appreciate the Minister has said that the conclusions of the Coolock and Kilkenny experiences will not be available until February, with a report subsequently, I ask him to make that report available for public discussion and to Members of this House. In that way, we will be able to determine how the experiences in Kilkenny and Coolock are informing the Minister's thinking in this area. Assuming that the proposals will be carried out on a national basis, who will be trained to carry out the work? Will it be people already working in the Department or new people and who will provide training for them? Often when people go before an official, for example, a community welfare officer, certain prejudices prevail, sometimes on both sides. It is important that if there is to be real interaction between people and if lone parents are to feel comfortable dealing with these officials and be put on the right path, then proper training must be provided for those who will facilitate this process. In that regard, how many facilitators will be required? The Minister appears to be amused by my last point, but it was a genuine one. How many facilitators will be required to carry out this work across the country?

It has been reported that officials in the Department are alarmed at the cost of the lone parents allowance. In that context, I am concerned about the angle from which the Minister is approaching this issue. Reforms must be put in place that assist people rather than put further obstacles in their way. It is also vital that we have a much more co-ordinated Government response, as the current system where each Department effectively goes on its own merry way, attempting to address problems in isolation, often only creates further problems. I welcome the fact that there is a degree of inter-agency involvement on this issue.

The Government published a strategy on one-parent families approximately two years ago. However, little change has taken place to date, except for the two pilot projects I mentioned earlier. Who is involved in the implementation group within the Department for these proposals, how often do they meet and, crucially, what cross-departmental communication is taking place? What role, for example, has the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brendan Smith? Has the Minister for Social and Family Affairs examined the potential impact on lone parents of the Minister of State, Deputy Smith's proposals relating to the community child care crèche area?

Under those proposals, which admittedly have been temporarily postponed, lone parents who make the transition, proposed by the Department of Social and Family affairs, from welfare to work will immediately have to pay €30 more for a place in a community child care crèche by virtue of the fact that they will be moving to the family income supplement, FIS, from the lone parents allowance. They will also have to wait a considerable period of time for their FIS application to be processed, but will not receive the payment they received prior to making that application. Such people will also receive less in terms of their rent supplement. The bureaucracy involved in that process will not make the transition very appealing for lone parents. It will be quite daunting a road to ask them to go down.

While I agree that we cannot simply stay as we are, I am concerned that in the context of this legislation, we are talking about making changes in the dark. People involved in the sector are unsure as to where the Minister is going with his proposals. He said today, and I welcome the clarification, that the National Economic and Social Council has decided not to adopt a definitive position on the flexibility of merging payments. While the NESC might have the luxury of adopting such a position, the same luxury will not be afforded to the Minister. We must adopt positions in this regard. I appreciate the complexity of making changes in social welfare payments and the often unanticipated knock-on effects they can have on other payments. That is why we must see the detail of the Minister's proposals at an early stage so we can discuss them, examine their potential impact and poverty proof them prior to the budget. The Minister has commented to the effect that he would like to see some of these changes introduced in the next budget but we must have a genuine debate on the proposals long before budget day.

Despite the fact that the Government has stated that it wants more lone parents to go back to work, the budget was clearly not welfare-to-work proofed. For example, part-time workers stand to lose €2.40 from their FIS payment. Part-time workers are entitled to claim a reduced level of one-parent family payment as their earned incomes are so low. They will benefit from the increase in this payment, but because the increase in the FIS threshold was lower than the increase in basic social welfare payments, this is clawed back in the FIS means test, with the effect that their FIS payment will be lower than in 2008. In addition, lone parents working part time are also not entitled to claim the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. Therefore, working lone parents will not benefit from the minimal €20 increase in this payment. Working lone parents are often restricted to part-time work because of the high cost of child care and the lack of availability in many areas. However, lone parents who are working part time will gain even less from budget 2008 than one-parent families that are totally reliant on social welfare. For example, a lone parent with a child under six years of age will gain a total of €18.04 from budget 2008, a part-time worker on the national minimum wage will only gain €14.91.

Under the provisions of budget 2008, the early child care supplement is to increase by €100, bringing it to €1,100 per annum, which I welcome. This payment was originally introduced to help parents to meet the costs of child care in Ireland. However, because it was linked to child benefit, it became available to people whose children are resident outside the country. At the time of its introduction, the Government was unaware of the implications of the payment being linked to child benefit. There has been considerable Cabinet confusion on the costs of the scheme for children who are not resident in Ireland. I appreciate this occurred prior to the Minister's appointment, although he was in the Cabinet at the time. In January 2006, the Taoiseach, during Leader's Questions, said the cost would be €1 million. Ten days later the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Seamus Brennan, said a cost of €2.7 million would be accrued by the end of that year. On April 26, the then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said the cost would be €10.8 million by the end of the year. However, on May 22, the Minister, Deputy Brennan, said the cost could be up to €4 million and on May 23, the Taoiseach said it would be €9.5 million.

The current Minister is probably confused now and so were many others at the time. According to the 2007 Estimates, the total cost of the payment for that year, linked with child benefit, was expected to be €406 million. However, in October, the Office of the Minister for Children called for an additional €19 million because it did not anticipate the strong upward trend in population growth for children under the age of six.

Given that the supplement was introduced as a child care cost measure designed to meet the costs of caring for children in Ireland, a special provision could have been introduced to ring-fence the money for the cost of child care in Ireland, but this never happened. Fine Gael has no difficulty whatsoever with the payment being made to all children under the age of six, of whatever nationality, who are resident in this country and whose parents have to cope with the costs of child care here. We believe that the capital offered through the early child care supplement should be ring-fenced to assist parents in meeting the costs of child care here. How much of the €406 million and €19 million is for children who are not resident in Ireland and need not cope with the costs associated with child care here? In the Minister's conclusion or on Committee Stage, will he outline for the House what checks are in place to ensure all claims are legal and valid?

We are all aware that, every week, 3.5 million hours are worked by 150,000 family carers, yet fewer than one in six of these qualify for the carer's allowance. The Carers Association estimates that the work of Ireland's family carers saves the State more than €2.1 billion per annum, but the carer's allowance has only increased by €14. I welcome the increase in the respite care grant and the changes in respect of the half-rate carer's allowance. Most accept that carers provide a service that the State would otherwise need to provide. Fine Gael believes carers should have their means assessed individually. To reflect the fact that it is the carer and not the carer's partner who provides the care, Fine Gael believes the carer's partner's income should be excluded from the means test.

Many carers find it difficult to take up part-time employment, as the rules on working and receiving the carer's allowance are restrictive. Budget 2008 allowed an opportunity for the Government to ease this restriction by raising the working hours limit to 20 hours per week to enable more carers to take up part-time employment. This should be the case where the workplace is close to the residence of the care recipient, the employer confirms that the carer would be permitted to leave the workplace without penalty to assist the care recipient in an emergency and arrangements ensuring the needs of the care recipient are met while the carer is at work are in place.

There are 3,000 carers in Ireland aged between 15 and 17 years of age, yet they receive no formal supports to assist them in their caring roles. We have debated this issue previously. Some 7% of these carers provide 43 hours or more of care per week and 81% provide between one and 14 hours of care per week. They undertake a socially vital role at a young age, but this is not recognised by our Government. It is time the Government did something to recognise this group.

In the social partnership agreement Towards 2016, the Government promised to develop a national carers' strategy that would focus on supporting informal and family carers in the community by the end of 2007. Prior to Christmas, the Minister admitted to the House that this was one of those optimistic timescales. Consultations have begun, in respect of which I appreciate the Minister outlined some details, but will he outline to the House the terms of reference for those discussions? The Minister mentioned some of the Departments involved in cross-departmental consultation, but I noticed the Department of Education and Science is not involved. I ask that it be consulted in respect of young carers because some of their education can be affected by the care they give. It would be important to get the Department's opinions in this regard.

It is crucial that the Government enters these consultations with an open mind and that all issues can be placed on the table for discussion. Will the Minister make a public commitment that nothing will be off the table before the process begins? It is of particular importance that the Carers Association, in addition to making a formal written submission, can sit down with the working group to discuss and tease out the issues. As part of this process, we need to ensure that comprehensive services and supports are provided for carers, their health and well-being is enhanced and supported, there is an adequate and fair system of remuneration of carers, better education and training opportunities, work-life balance policies that support carers and access to up-to-date and accurate information.

Regarding the legislation's general provisions and technical amendments, what is the real purpose of section 6, which provides that a person transferring to illness benefit from invalidity pension will be entitled to a full personal rate of illness benefit where he or she has the required number of contributions in the relevant tax year? Is it to protect persons who become disqualified from receiving invalidity pension or is it to ensure that persons so disqualified cannot easily begin claiming sickness benefit? If the latter, would the Minister agree the explanatory memorandum does not create this impression? I will support sensible control measures but not concealed efforts at achieving control in savings. In my experience and for obvious reasons, people are unlikely to revert willingly to illness benefit from invalidity pension. Has the Minister concerns about illegitimate claims in this regard? If so, what are they and is it a problem that needs to be addressed in greater detail?

Sections 7 and 8 have provisions relating to means tests. A root-and-branch overhaul of the application of means tests, rather than the traditional piecemeal approach that seems to avoid stating clearly the underlying principles and objectives, is necessary. For example, does section 7 carry the implication that elderly recipients who do not transfer from the disability allowance will be treated less favourably than those who were receiving the allowance? If this is the case, is there no premium for the people who delayed seeking State assistance until they became 66 years of age? They appear instead to be penalised. Likewise in respect of the blind welfare allowance, which is payable subject to a means test to persons receiving blind pension and certain other benefits. It is not evident why the core blind pension is not simply increased and it is difficult to avoid the opinion that this fragmented approach operates to deter eligible persons claiming. Given the welcome integration of the allowance under direct departmental management, would the Minister agree to consider options for merging the blind pension and the blind welfare allowance to ensure that such persons are not required to make two applications?

Will the Minister request his officials to prepare a report on the pros and cons of integrating the domiciliary care allowance seamlessly with existing benefits and allowances to reduce administrative overheads and ensure that vulnerable claimants are not deterred from claiming their full entitlements? I intend to table an amendment on this matter on Committee Stage.

Section 5 provides for the implementation of Council Regulation 259/68 to allow officials employed in EC institutions to transfer the actuarial value of their pension rights from the social insurance fund into the pension scheme of the EC institutions, PSEC, and for the transfer of the actuarial value of their pensions from the PSEC to the national system. Currently, a person employed by European Commission institutions is not covered by the protection normally applied to EU citizens under EU Regulation 1. Could the Minster explain why this provision is being prioritised in the legislation? It may be the case that these people comprise the only group to be excluded, but such is unclear in the wording. While I am open to correction following the Minister's comments, this provision indicates the prioritisation of Ministers and civil servants who progress to the EU over and above those who do not work for EU institutions.

The arrangement for calculating the amounts to be taken from the social insurance fund, which is supposed to represent a concept of solidarity with less fortunate workers, should not be left to secondary legislation. It is important that the House sees the proposed mechanism to be applied to amounts transferred from the social insurance fund to the pension scheme of the EC and back again. Will the Minister agree to allow the House to scrutinise regulations prior to their adoption, allowing the Oireachtas to annul or modify the regulations in question so we have an opportunity to ensure solidarity concepts underpinning the SIF are not compromised? Will the Minster explain to the House what steps are being taken to prioritise and encourage greater mobility of pensions and pension entitlements within the EU for people who do not work in EC institutions?

Section 28 provides for amendments to the Pensions Act in respect of trustee training as a result of the Report of the Pensions Board to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on Trusteeship. Under the Pensions Act 1990, trustees have the main responsibility for the administration of occupational pension schemes and compliance with the requirements applicable to these schemes. According to the Irish Pensions Board, the central role of trustees is to ensure that occupational pension schemes are properly administered, scheme members' pension rights are fully safeguarded and they and their dependants receive their pensions.

The provision in this Bill places a requirement on employers to arrange trustee training for each trustee within six months of his or her appointment and at least every two years thereafter. I accept that trustee training is beneficial, as it assists trustees to develop the skill set required to perform their duties and functions effectively. Ongoing training ensures that trustees are kept up-to-date with regulatory developments and changes in the pensions landscape. Fine Gael supports this initiative, which will have a positive impact on the governance of pension schemes as well as consequential benefits for pension scheme members. It is vital that trustees possess the appropriate qualifications and experience to assess and advise on investment options and execute the investment decisions in respect of the scheme's resources.

Will the Minister advise the House on how initial and ongoing training will be administered? How much will it cost to introduce this training and will it be done by electronic means? When will employers be expected to comply with trustee training? Will trustees be tested on their training? Anyone can do a course but the issue is what one gets from it. Does the Minister foresee us moving towards a situation where all trustees will be certified?

Overall, particularly regarding the pensions provisions of this Bill, a great number of technical amendments are proposed that leave us with a very clear impression that the approach to drafting social welfare legislation has become haphazard. Apart from the fact that much of this House's time is diverted to debating how best to correct errors and oversights, the constant process of correction makes social welfare legislation more difficult to interpret. If the process cannot be made more accurate and less in need of constant patching, perhaps in future these technical amendments should be in separate Bills so we are not threatened with being blamed for delaying increases in payments when we try to get into the real issues behind these rafts of technical amendments. If we must do the work of the people supposed to draft robust legislation, we should be allowed a little more time to probe the issues. The officials have months and years, we get hours and days and because of this we cannot easily identify why so many technical amendments are needed year in, year out. There is a systemic problem and we need to get an understanding of it or standards will keep falling and this House will be kept busy merely rubber-stamping provisions that really need careful examination; the evidence of this need is in this legislation.

These extensive groups of amendments need not be put into a Bill dealing with urgent matters, such as increases in the rates of payment. The changes to the pensions Acts are nearly 18 years overdue, therefore the expectation that they can now be rushed through the Dail needs some explanation. For example, what is the urgency in deleting the provision for on the spot fines on pension scheme administrators? Put another way, this is an example of poor legislation being rushed through and having to be fixed later. If we removed from all the legislation coming before this House the provisions that aim to fix earlier poor legislation the already poor legislative record of this Government would look even worse. The thickness, rather than the quality, of legislation seems to be regarded as important and this is not a road we should go down.

I welcome the fact the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill was fixed, albeit belatedly, but why is the Minister so concerned with dealing with the pensions of a few people working within EU institutions when he has ignored the plight of those, mainly women, who have multiple small pension investments, often due to their efforts at juggling family responsibilities and the need to work to supplement family income? In these cases the different pension schemes impose all kinds of penalties when these women retire and raise impediments to the aggregation of their entitlements to minimise administration costs. This issue must be examined.

Recent media reports have exposed the ongoing problem of international cross-border fraud and the scamming of the social welfare system on a significant scale. The Minister will remember when I raised this with him in December with regard to a group of EU nationals that was understood to have been flying to and from Ireland on a monthly basis to collect unemployment benefit. More recently, a document drawn up by the Garda National Immigration Bureau illustrated cases wherein bogus asylum seekers claimed benefits of over €2,000 per month, while simultaneously claiming benefits in the United Kingdom, and then returned to their home countries where, in some cases, the individuals involved conducted personal businesses. It is time to put an end to social welfare fraud, whether national or international, so payments are dedicated to those who genuinely need them. What further steps does the Minister intend to take to combat international cross-border welfare fraud? Does he intend to assign additional social welfare inspectors to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to assist in the investigation of social welfare fraud and breaches of the immigration Acts? What consultation has he had with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this regard?

See this speech in context