Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I welcome this Bill and its provisions, which will not be opposed by the Labour Party. However, the Bill is more remarkable for its omissions than its provisions. The three major areas in social welfare relate to pensions, lone parents and carers and, with these in mind, I feel this Bill represents a missed opportunity because no attempt has been made to seek progress on these big ticket issues. Progress could have been made in the areas on which there is agreement at the moment but the opportunity this Bill presented to address such matters was not taken. Instead the Minister has taken the big bang approach, which is fine if he is prepared to stick to timescales and so on but already there has been a fair amount of slippage in these areas. Meanwhile people are living in unfair situations regarding social welfare. This Bill could have seen progress made in the three areas I mentioned and it is unfortunate this is to be delayed, yet again.

It has already been mentioned that considerable slippage has occurred regarding the carers' strategy and this Bill could have addressed many of the deficiencies in the current support system for carers, particularly those working long hours, both outside and inside the home. The Bill has failed in this regard and carers seeking support from the State for their important work must await the big strategy. I urge the Minister not to lose any more time in this regard and set out a clear timescale for the production of the strategy and implementation of its recommendations.

This Bill could have addressed many of the anomalies that relate to pension entitlements, particularly for women and retired people with integrated pensions. Again, these people must wait yet another year for assistance with the predicaments in which they find themselves. Progress could have been made in this regard.

I have welcomed the process the Minister has set out regarding the Green Paper on pension provision but, again, I urge him to give a clear timescale in this respect. I ask him to confirm for us that it is his intention to have the pension changes agreed and provided for in the budget at the end of this year. It is important that we do this because many outstanding pension issues urgently need to be addressed. Retired people cannot afford to wait any longer for these improvements and I would welcome the Minister's assurance in this matter.

I am disappointed that no steps have been taken to improve the situation facing lone parents. It is almost two years since proposals supporting lone parents were first announced yet many people are living in situations that are anomalous with regard to those proposals. Problems in this area have been identified for some time and one of the principal issues relates to cohabitation. The Minister previously indicated his support for reform in this area but families are now in situations that are intolerable with regard to official policy. This Bill could have tackled the issue of cohabitation and the rules relating to it. I ask the Minister to give an indication of the timescale relating to this major issue. Will drastic and necessary reform in this area be introduced by the middle of this year?

I wish to speak on the matter of welfare to work and I am not sure there is a will to tackle it, though references have been made to it in replies to oral questions. I have yet to see a strong commitment to put in place a robust system that would enable large numbers of people to move from welfare to work. This Bill does nothing in this regard. Every Deputy can relate umpteen cases of constituents who are better off remaining on welfare than taking a job. After a decade of unparalleled opportunity for reform it is unacceptable that this should still persist. Successive Governments led by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, were so obsessed with money that they completely neglected many critical social services that could assist people in making the important transfer from welfare to work. I will cite two cases which came to my attention in recent months and which illustrate very well the points I am making. The first case relates to a constituent of mine and the second to a constituent of Deputy Stagg's. They highlight two problems, one of which is the incredible plight of people who literally cannot afford to go out to work. This situation should have been ended as it is utterly indefensible. Those anomalies should have been addressed by now. The second case to which I refer illustrates the way the current system divides families because of the way in which cohabiting couples are treated.

I refer to the first case involving a constituent of mine. She stated in a letter to me:

I am a mother of 3, currently receiving lone parents.

Before my breakup, I was a full time employee, working at the highest level of my experience. For the last 3 years, due to my circumstances, I have been unable to work.

My youngest child is starting school this September so I decided to take the opportunity to try to get back into the workforce. The only entitlements that I have been receiving are my one parent family, rental income supplement and have received medical cards for myself and my children. I receive maintenance from my ex partner, which is declared and my entitlements have been means tested and the necessary deductions made.

I recently was successful in receiving a CE Scheme through FÁS to work locally. I took up this employment towards the end of June this year. Naturally I am earning a wage, but I took up the employment with the understanding from FÁS that CE Schemes were structured as a path to reintroduce people back to the work force, while enabling them to keep any entitlements they were receiving.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

My one parent family has now been reduced by €92.50 per week, and my rental income supplement has been slashed and they are now only providing me with €276.00 a month towards my rent (my rent is €1,200.00 per month — before I took up employment they paid €837.00 per month towards my rent).

As it stands, when I add up all the deductions, and factoring in that I now have to pay for childcare while I work, I would actually be €84.05 per week better off if I wasn't working!!

This is an intolerable situation. The Minister can pay all the lip service he likes to the desire to ensure that people can move from welfare to work but every Member of this House continues to hear of real-life cases like this. When people do the sums they discover they are far worse off by going out to work than by staying at home. It is clear there is no incentive. The Minister and the Department needs to ensure such situations no longer continue to obtain.

The second case is from real life and illustrates some of the inherent problems with the way in which the social welfare system works. This is an e-mail received by Deputy Stagg:

I am an unmarried mother of one. I am currently living with my partner who is a stay at home father. I wish to query the governments treatment of unmarried parents in this day and age.

My boyfriend applied for social welfare payment a few years ago before our daughter was born. He was told that due to the fact that he did not have enough contributions the welfare payment he was entitled to would be calculated on a means basis. He provided all relevant details to the official. He was told that because he was living with me and I was working, my income would have to be taken into account when assessing his means. At the end of this process he was told that he was entitled to a measly €20 a week. It is shocking that anyone would be expected to live on this amount.

Under the taxation rules I am not entitled to use any of his tax credits as we are not married. In addition to this I am not entitled to claim single parent credits as we are living together. I feel that it is very unfair that we are treated effectively like a married couple for social welfare purposes and as single people for taxation purposes but not single when it comes to claiming single parent credit.

If we did not live together he would be entitled to a far greater social welfare amount and be able to claim the single parent welfare payment and I would be legally entitled to the single parent tax credit. Is the current government trying to encourage unmarried parents to live in separate houses? This is what it appears to be. Surely it is to the best advantage of all society that the parents of these kids live together and raise their child together.

It is very difficult to argue with any of the points made in either of those letters. All the points stand up. It is indefensible to have a welfare system that penalises lone parents who decide to go out to work and penalises cohabiting couples for living together and rearing their children. The incentives seem to be there, both in terms of welfare and taxation, for such parents to live apart. In my view this is bad public policy. It is bad for families and for children. The Government's welfare and tax systems should not encourage this. It is long past time that those significant anomalies were dealt with.

We all know of such cases and we all feel helpless when they arise. If Members are aware of dozens of them, the Department has hundreds, if not thousands of them. If that is the case, why has so little happened to correct the problem? Either it is a question of the absence of political will or of internal procedures to focus the attention of senior officials and Ministers on eradicating the problem.

In 1993 and 1994 I was a member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs which commissioned a study carried out by Colm Rapple. This showed very clearly that couples who chose either to live together or get married stood to lose approximately 30% of their income if they did so. The report received a lot of publicity at the time and this finding was made quite clear. The sums were done and the figures were spelled out. I was contacted by departmental officials to go through the report in detail. There is no question of people not being aware of this serious problem but I do not know why nothing has been done.

Meanwhile, many Members have lots of constituents in this situation. I frequently deal with such people in my clinics. I do the sums for them and the only conclusion they can come to is that they would be crazy to live together or even to get married. The Minister needs to do something about such a policy.

Rent supplement has long been one of the key barriers to taking up employment. Despite some improvements once a single person earns in excess of €223.30 per week, net of certain deductions, the State begins to withdraw rental support. The sum of €223.30 is well below the minimum wage for a full-time worker. Once that person exceeds €423.30 per week, his or her rent support is withdrawn entirely. The rental accommodation scheme, whereby those dependent on rent supplement for 18 months or longer are transferred to a differential rent scheme under the control of their local authority, is fine in its concept and is a very good scheme. However, the difficulty arises with regard to supply. Whoever was involved in setting up this scheme completely underestimated the demand.

We are still waiting for the accommodation units to be delivered. Already 1,200 people are on Dublin City Council's waiting list for RAS tenancies, with the possibility that another 5,500 people could be eligible to join them. Meanwhile, one third of rent supplement recipients have a claim of more than 18 months' duration. Many people come to our clinics, such as the woman whose letter I read, who are trying to get on their feet and into a job so as to be as independent as possible. If they are in the private rented sector, however, it is virtually impossible for them to get out of this trap.

This poverty trap was recognised when the RAS scheme was established. It is not much use to people without an adequate supply of accommodation. The waiting lists are a joke and it is only tokenism unless the availability of an adequate number of units is ensured or at least an interim measure is taken. This Bill could have facilitated the transfer of all rent supplement claimants on a RAS waiting list to a differential rent scheme pending their transfer. This is one concrete step that could have been taken. They could have been shifted until sufficient accommodation comes on stream. The fact that the Bill does not do so represents another lost opportunity.

The activation measures to make the move from welfare to work which the Minister proposes or claims are already in place are tokenistic. The role FÁS plays in this area leaves a great deal to be desired. We have no sense of urgency about this or that FÁS will get involved with the Department and source training or employment places for people who are determined to come off welfare.

Mickey Mouse part-time jobs which pay minimum wage are pointless. People need decent career prospects. Initially, they need good quality training and we have a major shortage of training places. They also need support to move from welfare to training to the workplace and these supports are not in place at present, whether for people looking to come off unemployment assistance or lone parent's allowance. One can speak about the theory but in practice the services are not available and they must be put in place.

I concur with the points made on the new proposals for child care costs. They will have a negative impact and the amendments made by the Minister after the outcry will not tackle the nub of the problem. The poverty trap will kick in at some level of income with regard to subsidies for child care costs. We must face the fact that we need to provide State-funded child care.

It has long been the policy of the Labour Party that every child of three and four years of age is entitled to a free pre-school service for one year. If this were available it would greatly facilitate people in returning to work, as would access to full day care for children. It is also desirable in itself from the child's point of view. Many parents come to informal arrangements such as a grandparent picking up a child from pre-school at 12 p.m. or 1 p.m. and looking after the child for the remainder of the day. If a pre-school service is not available it may be too much for grandparents. I am extremely concerned about what is proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith. The amendments do not go far enough.

Why is it not possible to consolidate the Social Welfare Bill each year? Has a cost benefit analysis ever been done to see whether this would save money? It would certainly save time and effort. This Bill has several pages of technical amendments, small tidying up and comma corrections. This is a feature of the Bill most years. Would it be more efficient to completely update the Bill each year rather than have departmental staff sifting through half a dozen Acts at a time? Will the Minister consider this and respond?

A welcome provision in the Bill is placing on a statutory footing schemes previously administered by the HSE, namely, blind welfare allowance, domiciliary care allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. I trust the provisions will in time augment entitlements for recipients. It is hoped the provisions will allow the same amount of flexibility for community welfare officers while improving the procedures for appeals and redress.

I had hoped such changes would have lead to greater clarity of the circumstances under which children may qualify for domiciliary care allowance as decisions appear to be quite arbitrary at times. The definition used in the Bill does not appear to address this issue. A qualified child is one who inter alia requires "care and attention substantially in excess of the care and attention normally required by a child of the same age". What exactly constitutes such a child? We need far greater clarity with regard to this definition. In my experience, this definition has proved problematic for parents and decision-makers alike. I suspect that with many other payments which rely on medical certification, a high percentage of these claims will end up at the appeals office. What training has been provided for officers to ensure a consistent approach is taken to decision-making? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us in his reply.

I would appreciate the Minister's advice on why he has not taken the opportunity to set the definition of a child at under 18 years instead of under 16 years in section 186C of the Bill. Perhaps the reasoning relates to transferring the child on to another welfare payment at that age. Will the Minister clarify that for us?

I also seek clarification on a number of other provisions. Section 21 changes provisions relating to habitual residence for carer's allowance applicants by inserting 186A(2) into section 246(3) of the principal Act. Is it the case that until the passing of the Bill the habitual residence condition cannot be applied to carer's allowance applicants? If so, will the Minister indicate how many people are affected and whether decisions have been overturned? At a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, FLAC highlighted the case of a person who claimed carer's allowance but was refused on the basis of the habitual residency condition. I am interested in the Minister's response.

The habitual residency condition is being used to deny Irish citizens entitlement to claims for welfare payments. That is extraordinary. The departmental officials told us the legal advice they received was that if it were changed for Irish citizens it would have to be changed for all EU citizens. I find this extremely difficult to accept because I am not aware the EU has competence in respect of social security payments. I do not see how it could be the case that the Irish State can be precluded from making welfare payments to its citizens, particularly in cases——

See this speech in context