Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This amendment makes a great deal of sense. The social welfare system is bedevilled by traps and we seem to be creating more traps as we go along. Take the position of lone parents and the fact that part-time employment is now a significant phenomenon in this country. Lone parents, because of their family responsibilities and so on, generally take up part-time employment. A large percentage of lone parents who are employed are in part-time employment. Measures were introduced to allow a lone parent to earn a certain amount per week before the lone parent allowance would start to reduce. That level is being gradually reduced. I think it is down to €90 per week now and it will be down to €60 per week next year. With every measure the Government is taking in this regard, it makes it less and less attractive for lone parents to go out to work. A poverty trap means that a person is better off on social welfare or, alternatively, the difference between what one gets on social welfare and what one gets by going out to work is so marginal and small that it is not worth one's while to go out to work. With these changes in the lone parent allowance, the Government is creating a poverty trap. It is narrowing the difference between what the person can get by staying at home and by going out to work.

There are several other examples in the social welfare area that I could quote. For example, I know of several cases of people who are working three days per week. If one works more than three days per week, one does not qualify for jobseeker's allowance; one is automatically disqualified regardless of how small one's earning are for the four days or whatever. I know several people in that category who would love to work an extra day or more but they are debarred from doing so by the three-day week rule.

There are elements of the family income supplement which constitute a poverty trap. The Government's philosophy is to encourage people to go out to work. It is saying that if one reduces people's social welfare and allows them get €60 a week more on training and education, that gives them the incentive. Why not spread that philosophy throughout the system instead of creating disincentives? I would be broadly supportive of the amendment because it keeps the focus on that aspect.

On the section, what is proposed is inexplicable to me. Currently, if a person is in receipt of invalidity pension and they reach age of 65 years, their payment automatically increases to the old pension rate of €230 per week. This section provides that for the person's 65th year until they reach the age of 66 they will stay on the €193 rate. In other words, they will get almost €37 per week less. A person aged 65 in obviously not young and a person in receipt of an invalidity pension is very ill because the medical test to qualify for it is very stringent. I do not understand this provision to provide a person in that category with €37 per week less.

See this speech in context