Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I will do so. I wanted to draw the matter to the Minister's attention because I am of the view that the way these people were treated was grossly unfair. I suspect that if it happened once, then it is probably occurring on a wider basis.

In the context of the jobseeker's transitional payment, it is positive that the Minister has addressed a major problem which arose on foot of the fact that people cannot obtain the lone-parent or one-parent family payments when their children reach the age of seven. However, there is a problem with her assertion to the effect that she wants to provide people with incentives to return to work in order that they will not be dependent on social welfare payments. Let us start with the facts. When income disregards were initially introduced in respect of lone parents, the latter took them up in droves. The number of lone parents who were working when those disregards were first introduced stood at 58%. This meant that the belief that lone parents do not work because they can depend on the lone-parent payment was simply not true. When they were given incentives to work, these people took them up as a result of the introduction of income disregards. Under the Bill, however, when lone parents whose children reach the age of eight move onto the jobseeker's transitional payment, they are going to lose out if they are working. Those who are in jobs in respect of which they earn €200 per week will lose out to the tune of €39 each week as a result of the fact that the income disregard which applies is significantly less. Initially the disregard was €149 under the lone parents scheme. It then decreased to €110. Under the jobseeker's transitional payment scheme it has fallen to €60. As a result, lone parents who are working on a part-time basis are going to take a major hit. What is proposed is going to act as a significant disincentive for lone parents to work at a time when the Minster and the Government claim they want to incentivise those people to work.

The matter to which I refer must be addressed, otherwise what the Minister is doing will be a retrograde step not only in terms of people's incomes but also in the context of being a disincentive to work. This is against the background of the EU-SILC report on deprivation showing that the level of deprivation among the general public in this country is 24%, that it is 42% among the unemployed and that it stands at 56% among lone parents. It is clear that lone parents suffer disproportionately from deprivation. We had in place a scheme of incentives to get people back into employment that was working but now we are moving in a retrograde direction. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter. There should be no disincentives for lone parents and nor should there be any further attacks on their incomes.

My final point relates to pensions. There is significant disappointment regarding the fact that the Minister has not addressed the order of priority in respect of pensions, particularly in view of the fact that four out of five defined benefit pension schemes here are in serious trouble. As long ago as 2011, she acknowledged that something needs to be done in respect of this matter. She promised that legislation would be brought forward but she is now using the judgment handed down by the European Court of Justice in the Waterford Crystal case as an excuse to, yet again, place this matter on the long finger. As already stated, I welcome the fact that an attempt is being made to rationalise, restructure and reform pensions regulation. However, the Minister has not dealt with this critical issue which has given rise to cases such as those relating to Waterford Crystal, the Abbey Theatre, etc. The entitlements of thousands of pensioners are under serious threat. Not including a provision in respect of this matter is a major omission. It should be addressed in this Bill.

See this speech in context