Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister and I thank Deputy Tom Hayes for sharing time. I wish to touch on a number of different themes in respect of the Bill and to make a number of points to the Minister with regard to the social welfare system and the way it is administered. I will focus on the Bill in the first instance, before proceeding to comment on some of the broader matters about which I am concerned. I will begin with the changes announced by the Minister for the payments available to lone parents and their children, and specifically the time at which they cease. As the Minister knows well, this is a very sensitive area to discuss but it is crucial to do so. It is not the ambition of anybody in this House to deepen a person's poverty or leave people in a position where they feel they cannot look after their children. We do not want to form a dilemma where people may have to take up a job that might not pay well - and will certainly not do so after tax is taken - and have to pay child care costs if they can find such a service. More often than not people would have to turn down job offers because the preferred child care facilities are unavailable. It is a very sensitive and emotive topic. There are a number of reasons for supporting the Minister's actions and we will not make the final change to the threshold to seven years of age until there is an array of child care options available to people that the State can afford.

I will discuss the trends for the number of lone parent payments paid out in comparison to other social welfare payments within the system. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service has produced a very telling table detailing the number of different people in receipt of jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit, as well as lone parent payments, over certain years. Over the past 12 or 13 years the number of people in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or benefit has varied by year in response to what happens in the economy. As we moved through the 1990s to the early part of this century the number of people in receipt of those allowances or benefits was quite low and became very low before it increased sharply. It is telling that the number of people in receipt of different lone parent allowances was relatively unchanged across the period, regardless of the different job opportunities which existed in the economy, the conditions within the labour market or other factors.

The sensitivity of that payment and the people in receipt of it in response to what happened in the rest of the economy can be compared to the different welfare payments, and it is very low. That should provide an insight on the way the payment is currently being handled and how it was structured in the past. It is not working in the way everybody would want, given that payments - especially like this - are more often than not intended to allow people to exit the payment system at some point if jobs or other facilities become available. That has not happened with this payment so we should examine its operation.

I met different groups of people campaigning against the changes due to be made and became aware of the amount of stigma and negative social comment evidenced with that particular payment. I am concerned about this, as are the people in receipt of the payment. Speaking to people in the community and raising the issue of welfare fraud, a number of different areas can be given as an example. Deputy Tom Hayes mentioned some of them. More often than not the availability of the lone parent allowance and the way in which people access it is raised. I know the vast majority of people in receipt of this payment meet the conditions and need it because of the circumstances of their lives. I am also aware of a study by the Minister when she prepared the fraud action plan. At that time a sample of different social welfare payments was investigated to ensure people in receipt of the payments met the required conditions, and just under one in three people in receipt of that payment did not meet the criteria. That is unfair on the people who need the payment and the vast majority who are in genuine receipt of it. It is also unfair on the people paying for it. The kind of changes sought by the Minister, although difficult, should be supported in order to tackle issues that have been left alone for so long.

I will make specific points about the Bill. There are provisions in the Bill relating to direct benefit schemes which are welcomed by people in the industry. There are also absent provisions relating to direct benefit schemes, and over time if a lack of payments means a scheme is not viable, nearly all the funding currently available will be left to people in receipt of direct benefit pensions. That means people who are due to receive the payment at a point in the future will be left out. It seems the scales in this regard are weighted in favour of people receiving a pension as opposed to people who may receive the pension either soon or at a further point in the future. I would like to see that addressed as the Bill moves through the House or in another piece of social welfare legislation.

Increased powers will be made available for social welfare inspectors dealing with rent supplement. I am absolutely certain this is a significant source of fraud within the system and, more worryingly, I am certain this is a source of exploitation. Tenants, particularly people in vulnerable positions, may be unsure of what homes they may be able to secure in the future and end up in substandard rental accommodation while in receipt of rent supplement from the State. It is a significant collective cost for the taxpayer and these people are being exploited. Unfortunately, I have come across examples of this in my constituency. People are living in unacceptable accommodation but do not feel in a position to bargain as they are in receipt of rent supplement. This Bill provides increased power and competence to social welfare inspectors so they can consider how the payment is being made, which is welcome. I would like to see this power deployed in conjunction with local authorities so when people from the authorities are trying to ensure that private rented accommodation meets the criteria laid down in law, it can dovetail with the power required by social welfare inspectors who check the payment of rent supplement.

There is also the issue of social welfare benefits for people who were formerly self-employed. People who worked in construction now fall into three unfortunate groups; they are people who have left the country, those who are hanging on by their fingertips and those who are unemployed. As a result of the system of PRSI payments, those unemployed people may not be able to access a jobseeker payment, and if they can, it may be a greatly reduced payment compared to that received by many others. When the people were working in the economy, they did not believe they could find themselves in such a position. Many of them did not understand that if they became unemployed, the level of welfare benefit they would receive would be far lower than that received by people who were not self-employed.

I know the Minister has indicated she will examine the matter during her term in office. We must consider how to overhaul the PRSI system so people who are self-employed can, first, understand the implications of becoming unemployed. We should also provide more options to allow people to make payments into the system in order that those who subsequently find themselves unemployed are able to access higher welfare payments than are available at present and are in a position to meet their needs.

A debate is taking place on the implementation of a proposal for a single working age payment. The Minister recently convened a seminar in her Department on the issue. It was also the subject of a recent report by the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education, for which Deputy Ó Snodaigh acted as rapporteur. I had an opportunity to read the committee's excellent report, which proposes moving from a social welfare system with many different payments, each of which has different conditions attached, towards one in which a much smaller number of payments would be made available at different points in people's lives, depending on age and needs. The Government is committed to carrying out the necessary review as part of the memorandum of understanding. Implementation of this proposal would make a significant improvement to the current system.

Many of those who are concerned about the proposed reform of the social welfare system argue it should not be undertaken until the labour market improves significantly and people can easily find a job and thus leave the social welfare system. I urge the Minister to use the coming period to plan for the implementation of such a system in future. Many of the difficulties we currently face, for example, the poverty trap, are the very problems people previously thought we would never face again. These issues cropped up in books on the social welfare system written in the 1990s, but until recently we believed we had put them behind us. Structural change to the social welfare system is needed if we are to ensure these problems do not recur. This is a highly complex task and the debate initiated by the Minister and joint committee is very welcome for that reason. I hope it will be followed by a period of planning which will enable us to identify what needs to be changed in the system and to build on some of the improvements being made at present.

See this speech in context