John Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Cowen for sharing time with me. I welcome the Bill which provides us with an opportunity to raise issues relating to social welfare and to comment on some of the issues put forward by the Minister in her speech.

I have been a Member of this House for a long time. I am always concerned when I hear the words "reform", "rationalisation" or "amalgamation" in the context of schemes as they inevitably mean reductions in payments to people on social welfare. It is often said that social welfare rates in this country are reasonable and are better than they are in the UK or other parts of the EU. However, people on social welfare are only surviving on their current payments. When economists hear of a €20 billion spend by the Department of Social Protection, they rush to recommend reduced payments to people on social welfare. However, these same economists are usually on incomes of €150,000 to €200,000 per annum and are not caught in the poverty trap in which many people on social welfare in this country are caught.

I welcome the reversal of the €1 cut in the national minimum wage. It was perhaps a mistake to reduce it in the first instance. However, the previous Government was told by employers that it would result in the creation of a significant number of jobs. I doubt it has resulted in the creation of one job. I welcome that the Government is reversing the cut. I wonder, however, how it will fit with the proposal from the Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton to reduce wages in the retail, restaurant and hotel sectors and the proposed introduction by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, of water charges and a site valuation property tax, all of which will result in severe hardship for many families throughout the country. Perhaps, when responding, the Minister will clarify if people in receipt of social welfare will be exempt from water charges and the property tax or if a special concession will be put in place for them? I would like the Minister to clarify if such proposal has been given consideration.

I understand that local partnerships throughout the country will administer the Tús scheme introduced by the former Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív. A letter I received from the Wexford Local Development states that there will be 180 participants and nine supervisors on its Tús scheme, which is one supervisor per 20 participants and if replicated countrywide will result in 400 supervisors. All participants will be involved in work improving buildings such as community centres and sporting, caring, cultural facilities and will, therefore, be supervised within the organisations to which they have been allocated. Is it necessary to have these supervisors? It is important money allocated to this scheme is spent on providing places for participants rather than supervisors.

I welcome the internship programme. However, perhaps the Minister will clarify how it will operate. Will it be flexible and will it be open to chambers of commerce, town, county and urban councils wishing to promote their towns in the context of tourism and so on?

How does the Minister square the pitch with the fact it was intended to be €100 per person under the announcement made by the previous Government whereas it is now to be €50? If people take this up, will they pay some of the money as well or is it expected that the Department would pay the €50 and the organisations or groups that employ the people will not make any contribution? The Minister might clarify this when she replies.

When the Minister was on this side of the House, on several occasions she raised the issue of those who sign on for jobseekers' payments and who then get a few weeks work. When they try to get back on the jobseeker's scheme, they encounter great difficulty, which means many people will not take up a job lasting just three or six months. There is a need for a major examination of this issue to find how we might develop a more adaptable and flexible scheme as the current system is causing problems.

While I will not criticise the Minister as she has been in the job less than 100 days, the appeals system as it existed under the previous Government and as it still exists is a problem in that it takes anything from six to nine months to process an appeal, whether in regard to disability benefit, jobseekers' payments, invalidity pension, domiciliary care allowance or other payments. I do not know whether this is a result of the scarcity of appeals officers or for another reason but the delay in hearing appeals is an area of major concern. I find that an appeals officer will come to a county and hear perhaps three or four appeals in a whole day and then go back to Dublin. Moreover, there are many cancellations of appeals hearings, whether the problem is on the side of the client or the appeals officer. I get telephone calls regularly to tell me an appeal has been cancelled or has been put back for a week or two, or perhaps for two or three months until the appeals officer returns. This is causing problems and the issue needs to be clarified.

In the ten pages of the Minister's script, there is not one reference to job opportunities for people with disabilities. It is an area in which I have an interest as I have a daughter who uses a wheelchair. Many people with disabilities now go on to second level and even third level education. They are very well educated and in many cases do all kinds of courses, including FÁS courses and courses specifically for people with disabilities. Yet, at the end of all that, they find it very difficult to secure a job. Not enough is being done to encourage employers, and perhaps employers themselves are not doing enough, to employ those suffering from a disability.

The Minister might take a direct interest in the 3% target for the number of people with disabilities whom Government bodies are supposed to employ. To take the local authorities and Government bodies in my own county, the target is a bit of a sham. There is no way 3% of the workforce are people with disabilities and it is certainly an area that needs to be examined. Many of those with disabilities, whether they are in a wheelchair, use a walking stick or otherwise, are well educated and highly skilled, and they would make excellent, committed workers. We have been hiding behind the 3% target for a long time and we need to reconsider it.

The budget will take place later in the year. Many people are seeking an increase in free fuel payments as well as other increases. We must examine the whole area of social welfare and not just decide that payments should be reduced. We must seek to prioritise payments for old age pensioners, people with disabilities and those who may require extra payments. It is an area that needs careful consideration before the budget is introduced later in the year.

"Getting people back to work" was a slogan adopted by both the Labour Party and Fine Gael in its five point plan. It is not as easy as making a slogan to get people back to work. The job opportunities available at present are not plentiful. I know people are doing their best to create extra jobs and we are all trying to encourage employers to take on extra workers. In counties like my own in particular, which was very dependent on the building industry, there are huge numbers of young people who left school after their junior certificate or earlier because they could earn high wages in the building sector, and they now find themselves both unemployed and uneducated, with the result it is very difficult to get a job. We have FÁS and will have Tús and the internship programmes, which I hope will play a part in getting people re-trained, re-skilled and, more importantly, get them back into the education system.

The previous Government tried to find a way to marry FÁS and the other training agencies, and I presume the current Government is thinking along the same lines. There is no need for a person under 30 to be drawing social welfare without being on a scheme. It is important that we get people onto schemes as quickly as possible and give them an opportunity to at least have a skill to get them back into the workforce.

See this speech in context