Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I acknowledge that the Ceann Comhairle asked for an explanatory memorandum on the significant changes to this Bill to be produced. I acknowledge the work of the officials in producing a detailed document on the amendments. The briefing on this Bill gave an indication of the expected amendments and their purpose. Hopefully we can tease out the amendments further on Committee Stage.

The Bill was published on 3 April and the briefing was held the day before the debate on Second Stage commenced, one week ago. The briefing indicated the level of amendments that would be tabled, some 23 pages. There are also 23 pages in the Bill, which shows the scale of amendment. In previous Governments, Members of the Opposition were critical of any Minister who produced another Bill in the form of amendments. Several were guilty of such a practice. I always hoped that a different Government would not proceed in the same way. Then, the Minister spent the first few minutes of the debate trying to excuse the fact that the Bill was not ready. The Minister said that on April 3 that the Bill she produced was not complete. The amendments address 12 or 13 areas of social welfare code that are not addressed in the Bill. The original Bill was produced to address the separate issues of pensions and the disgraceful attack on lone parents and children between the ages of seven and 14.

I would have been happy if we were discussing a motion to recommit based on the fact that the Minister was withdrawing the Bill or had produced an amendment to give effect to her road to Damascus conversion we heard about last week. I would have been delighted if she had tabled an amendment to withdraw the odious section. Last week in the Dáil, the Minister acknowledged that seven years of age is too young. The excuse given at the start of the debate does not stand up. I have not come across this procedure so perhaps the Minister can enlighten me. I presume the deadline of May 2012 could be extended. A small legislative measure would have allowed an extended timeframe so that a proper Bill could be published with Members having enough time to peruse it. If that was not possible, as may be the case, the Minister for Social Protection should ask the Minister for Finance not to set unachievable targets. In the past, the Social Welfare Bill was passed in June or July. Why was it brought forward? Is it to gain an extra two months of penny pinching and robbing the poor to pay the IMF? I do not know.

I will address some of the amendments signalled in the 23 page document, which we will discuss one by one tomorrow on Committee Stage if this motion is passed. Some of the amendments are logical and flow from changes in recent years but in respect of others, such as the amendment to the lone parents payment scheme, the Minister should have used the opportunity of her conversion last week and yesterday to introduce a sunrise clause. The reduction from 14 years to seven should have been made conditional on the provision of after-school care. The Minister said this is what she would like and there is no opposition to the use of schools or clubs for homework clubs or the non-academic use of schools. That has been discussed but we have not heard the proposals of the Minister for Education and Skills. Did the Minister for Social Protection bounce the Minister for Education and Skills into these proposals, telling him they had to be in place in six months? If the Minister is not going to withdraw this Bill, she should have a sunrise clause on this measure. She promised she would not introduce the provision in the absence of a bankable commitment on child care. The commitment is not in writing and is not binding. There is nothing in the motion or the Bill to make the commitment bankable. The way to make it bankable is that specific provisions will fall unless certain measures have been put in place based on evidence from the Minister, a committee of the House or an external oversight group. The Bill does not say the reduction to seven years will start after the Government has made a credible and bankable commitment on the delivery of child care. It certainly does not say the reduction will take place after additional funding or additional affordable child care places have been provided. What it says is that the cut-off will start to be reduced from 3 May, in a few days. The Minister has not sought to change the legal reality, despite her promises. I said last week that this is just a fig leaf and have heard nothing that contradicts this. It is just another review to kick the issue to touch and then when everything is quiet they will say sorry, but they are going to proceed with it and the Minister has given a commitment to produce after-school and summer holiday care for seven year olds to ensure that those in receipt of lone parents' allowance have access to training, work, education and other opportunities that will allow them to go back to full-time work. We already have the figures on one-parent families and know that the majority of these parents are in some type of paid employment. Every one of them wants to get back to full-time employment so that they can fully provide for their children and their future. Their social welfare benefit is not the "lifestyle choice" people keep talking about. The Minister herself has spoken of a "lifestyle choice" in the past. One only needs to speak to the organisations representing these people to know that or to talk to the parents in that situation. They will tell the Minister that they would much rather be working full time and be sure their children are cared for.

I will now turn to deal with some of the other amendments suggested in the amendment pack before us in this motion. Last week I said that we were absolutely and resolutely opposed to the cuts proposed to jobseeker's benefit. Jobseekers have had their hours reduced as a consequence of the recession, but the Minister is punishing them for being in this predicament. She claims that some of these people are nervous about entering or re-entering the world of full-time work, despite the fact that columnists of various views agree that any growth in full-time work and full-time job opportunities is a long way off. I have cited the figures in this regard on a number of occasions. Even without the single working age change suggested by the Minister, there are currently 50 people on the live register for every vacancy. In Germany, that figure is 6 to 1. This just shows that Irish money is going to create jobs in Germany for its people and economy. We are not benefiting but are suffering greatly. Justifying her decision to cut jobseeker's benefit when launching the Pathways to Work document, the Minister said: "I am trying to ensure that people do not find the security of the social welfare system more attractive than the risky world of work."

The Minister and others have talked of economic thinking and have spoken about lifestyle choices, but that mantra is getting old and needs to be put aside. The Minister must look at the reality. She must recognise that in many cases employers have been forced to reduce workers' hours as a consequence of the recession. The people whose income this Bill will cut are not plodding along happily in part-time employment. They are in enforced under-employment. Through no fault of their own, they have lost part of their jobs. Does the Minister think it is easy to go out and find a second employer who will be delighted to offer them hours that will fit neatly and precisely into the days they are not currently working or does she think it is easy for them to find full-time employment? It is not and it will not be any easier for them to get jobs just because the Minister has decided to cut the jobseeker's benefit. Perhaps the Minister is suggesting divine intervention and that by cutting jobseeker's benefit, these new jobs will appear magically.

The only consequence of cutting this benefit is that people who are suffering because of the downturn will be hit in their pockets. Jobseeker's benefit is an insurance-based scheme. These cuts are an insult to the hard-working people who have accrued entitlements and have now hit hard times. Our social system needs simplification and I will come back to that when dealing with the amendments. Will the Minister confirm for me that currently, a person whose working week has been reduced by two days as employers seek to make payroll savings, may be entitled to a jobseeker's benefit top-up each week of €62.66 and that following these cuts, these people will only be entitled to €37.60? That is a cut of €25 per week or €1,300 annually. That is a sizeable drop for any family already suffering as a consequence of reduced hours.

I will address the issues of mortgage interest supplement and the changes being introduced there and the issue of rent supplement and control measures on Committee Stage. With regard to the Pension Acts, the whole pension component of this Bill is a missed opportunity. We could have gone further on this. Irish pension funds need to be invested in Ireland and I have submitted an amendment in that regard. Hopefully, we will get to that amendment tomorrow. I suggest how we can use Irish pension funds and how we can force the pension industry in Ireland to invest more in Irish industry, particularly in a green fund that will ensure, for example, retrofitting can happen. This would benefit not only the State, but would help address fuel poverty in Ireland and the fact that many homes here lose heat continually. Retrofitting would also help address our Kyoto commitments.

I oppose the motion before us on the basis that the Bill should have been withdrawn and a new Bill submitted that would address the Minister's concerns and those of Deputies.

See this speech in context