Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The primary purpose of the Bill before us today is to make provision for the new back to work family dividend. Cuirim fáilte ar an méid sin. In ainneoin cad a deireann an Aire, táimse sásta glacadh le cinnte dearfacha agus tacú leo. Tá sé sin déanta agam thar na blianta, ní hamháin i gcás an Rialtais seo ach i gcás Rialtas eile chomh maith. Is rud dearfach é go bhfuil, ar deireadh thiar thall, an Rialtas ag bogadh bealach éigin i dtreo íocaíocht a aithníonn an cruachás ina bhfuil a lán daoine sa tír seo. Táim i gcónaí sásta glacadh le cinnte dearfacha. Nuair a fheictear stair an Rialtais seo, áfach, tá i bhfad Éireann níos mó cinnte diúltacha ná cinnte dearfacha glactha ag an Aire sa chórais leasa shóisialta. Tá sé thar am déanamh cinnte de go bhfuil na cinnte atá á nglacadh anois go huile is go hiomlán dearfach. Níl sé sin fíor faoi gach rud sa Bhille seo. Tá an cinneadh seo maidir le híocaíocht do theaghlaigh ag filleadh ar obair dearfach.

After four years of wielding the stick of harsh social welfare cuts in an effort to beat jobseekers into non-existent jobs, the Government is finally, in a small way, acknowledging the cost of engaging in work and the extremely poor quality and low-paying nature of the jobs whose creation it has overseen. The provision is welcome but it will not address fully the poverty and deprivation among those who have been in work prior to 5 January and who, despite their employment, are struggling to make ends meet. There is a long way to go and this measure is one very small step in addressing the issues. The Government continues to oversee the creation of in-work poverty and a greater need for in-work social welfare as a result of the jobs that have been created. If it continues to encourage people into low-paid employment, short or zero-hour contracts and part-time work, it is merely perpetuating in-work poverty and will force the State to be obliged to subsidise that work on an ongoing basis. The State should work to ensure work pays. It must ensure those who are in work have proper contracts and proper hours and take home wages that ensure their families are not living in poverty.

Ireland has the highest rates of low-paid employment in Europe. The numbers in part-time work continue to increase, with 13% more workers employed on that basis now than there were in 2007. This figure shows the trend that has been happening. The increasing use of zero-hour contracts, too, is adding to job insecurity and the precarious nature of incomes. That is an issue with which not only this House but also the trade union movement must grapple in the future. We cannot build an economy and society based on precarious work and precarious incomes. In such a scenario, more and more workers will become dependent on supports such as family income supplement and back to work dividends. That is not the way forward. A lot more work needs to be done, not just by the Department of Social Protection but also the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which has a particular role in this regard. We must have a Government-led process. If Cabinet decisions are driving down the quality of jobs, then Ministers are responsible for what comes of that.

More than one third of workers in Ireland will earn less than €20,000 this year. Very little action has been taken to tackle this prevalence of low-paid work. Ireland has the third highest rate of underemployment in the EU 28. That figure is key because we are talking here about people who want to work. As well as those who are in receipt of one-parent family allowance, there are many single people who want to work a full week and take home pay that is appropriate to that work. If this issue is not tackled, we are laying the basis for extreme poverty into the future. Although it has not proved itself in the four years since it came to office, I am calling on the Government to ensure quality jobs are created in the future. We want to see decent pay for decent work. The very first thing the Government needs to do at this stage is to stop displacing paid employment and driving down wages. I have always rejected, under this and previous Governments, the yellow pack approach to activation, which compounds underemployment and drives down wages. We need to provide jobseekers with meaningful activation opportunities leading to secure and properly paid jobs.

JobBridge, a central plank of the Government's jobs strategy, has served to displace what should have been apprenticeships or entry-level jobs and also has a wider knock-on effects in terms of pay in the economy. It provides a pool of free labour for employers. The Minister likes to refer to Indecon reports whenever I raise questions about JobBridge. One of Indecon's key findings in a recent survey was that almost 30% of employers who used a JobBridge intern said that in the absence of the scheme, they would have taken a person on in paid employment. This speaks volumes about the displacement that has taken place.

Moreover, one should not forget this was 30% who admitted it. Of those surveyed, how many more lacked the gumption to admit they would use or were using JobBridge to displace work because they could get nine months free employment out of someone in what is called a JobBridge internship? In addition, if one again considers the Indecon report, those who have gone on to gain paid employment have done so on wages that are a fraction of the average. The Indecon figures show that many of those who found employment were on a lower rate than their colleagues sitting across from them. Each time employers use free labour from JobBridge, their competitors who may wish to pay fair wages are at a disadvantage and come under significant pressure to reduce their payroll costs.

In contrast, JobsPlus is a scheme that involves real jobs with real pay, terms and conditions. While it probably could be improved, I have welcomed that scheme from the time it was initiated. I have asked the Minister in this Chamber a number of times why has there been greater concentration on a pool of free labour than on creating real jobs. Even though it entails the State subsidising jobs, it is better and more cost-effective and will provide a benefit to the employers, the employees and to the State. This is because the JobsPlus scheme saves the Exchequer money because the value of the combined PRSI contributions generated from the job and the moneys saved from the participants' social welfare payments mean the benefits are significantly greater than from schemes such as JobBridge or others. It involves the creation of a job, which is a sustainable job. JobsPlus is biased in favour of those who are longer-term unemployed and I welcome that because as I stated at the outset, I am willing to welcome positive initiatives. In the period between its launch in July 2013 and June 2014, JobsPlus has supported 2,694 jobseekers in full-time employment with 2,007 employers statewide. In contrast, in a statistic that shows the bias within the Department, there have been 37,000 JobBridge participants since its inception and that constitutes a blatant abuse of jobseekers. As I stated, despite the win-win nature of the JobsPlus scheme, Department of Social Protection officials have not pushed it with employers with the same degree of enthusiasm. I believe this must change and if necessary may mean the transfer of additional staff to ensure that those who previously had availed of or benefited from JobBridge should be switching at this stage to use JobsPlus fully. Moreover, others who are contemplating the creation of employment in the State should use this scheme to encourage them to set up jobs that would benefit the long-term unemployed.

Another scheme I have criticised is JobPath, which thankfully still is not in place. However, when it is in place, it will have a negative effect because I believe it also will drive down the terms and conditions of the labour market as a consequence of its establishment. The private companies that have been contracted by the Government to deliver social welfare services under JobPath will have a vested interest, and in some cases a pressing financial need, to push people quickly into jobs, no matter how poor-quality or low-paid those jobs might be. If the jobseekers object, the Department may cut or withdraw their income support payment. This is a recipe for a further downward spiral in pay and conditions in the labour market as employers will exploit the labour activation schemes.

The Government should be recruiting in the public sector with a priority of shoring up the now-decimated public services, as well as setting standards of decent pay and conditions. While the embargo has been lifted, I have not seen recruitment to fill the jobs that are needed. In fact, it is the opposite as a new scheme, Gateway, is being pushed on local authorities to give them a pool of low-paid or no-paid workers, instead of filling the vacancies that have existed for a number of years in areas such as the parks departments or elsewhere in the public service and local authorities, with fully-paid jobs. Again, this must be addressed and once again this constitutes job displacement.

As for the present Bill, when I saw its Title, namely, the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I hoped it would start to address issues such as job displacement and the failings of the State's job activation measures. However, it has not done so. On examining the Bill, I concluded it is another missed opportunity by the Government to try to start addressing some of the problems. As I stated, I have welcomed the back-to-work family dividends and the logic underpinning that measure. However, the problem is that the logic underpinning it flies in the face of myriad nasty cuts to the lone-parent payment over which the Government has presided since it came to power. In budget after budget, from the moment the Tánaiste took office, she has targeted lone-parent families. She has disallowed lone parents on community employment schemes from retaining a partial payment from their one-parent family payment scheme. She eliminated the half-rate payments lone parents had been able to receive on certain social insurance schemes. She abolished the six-months transitional one-parent family payment. She ended the disregard for income from hours as a home help, which was work in which many lone parents were engaged. Moreover, she cut the earnings disregard for lone parents in low-paid employment from €146.50 to €90. Like other social welfare recipients, lone parents obviously were hit by the cuts to the fuel allowance, the hike in the contribution required towards rent supplement and the cuts to the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and to child benefit.

The Tánaiste has repeatedly dropped the cut-off age for the one-parent family payment scheme and intends to drop it to seven years next July. The impact of the reduction in the cut-off age to seven years is that almost 12,000 parents will suffer a financial loss of up to €86 per week. At the time of its announcement, 6,400 lone parents were to lose up to €36.50 per week, 4,500 lone parents were to lose €57 per week and lone parents who also were carers were to lose a staggering €86 per week. While the Tánaiste has seen sense in respect of that last measure, she has not seen sense on the other two categories. Why not? Has she not read her own responses to parliamentary questions I tabled? She stated earlier that they will not be affected negatively but yet, in a reply given on 21 January to a parliamentary question I tabled, she stated that of this group, 4,500 customers whose family income supplement, FIS, will be re-rated will lose between 50 cent and €57 per week. She stated that with FIS and the back-to-work dividend, they will not be affected negatively. A further 1,000 parents whose FIS will be re-rated, will gain between €2 and €42 per week and "4,100 may become new FIS recipients and will gain between €20 and €160 per week". While that is to be welcomed, it still is the case that a proportion of those who will be affected on 2 July will be affected negatively.

These are people in work and in receipt of one-parent family payments who should not be negatively affected. According to the Minister, the whole idea is that a Scandinavian model of child care would be put in place to offset the hugely negative costs of child care in the State, an issue that has never been addressed and will not be for some time. Those lone parents affected will not be able to afford to stay in work. These are the very people the Minister wants to stay in work and who should not be negatively affected by this measure. We need to ensure they do not suffer an immediate financial loss from this move.

The Minister has met quite a number of the parents involved over recent months and has been lobbied, like we have, on this. Maybe she listened to the presentation at the social protection committee last week from several groups which outlined exactly the negative financial effects of this measure on families who are the most deprived in our State.

Should Members from the Government's ranks attempt to deny they have ruthlessly and relentlessly targeted lone parents, they cannot dispute the evidence contained in the latest report from the Central Statistics Office survey on income and living conditions, SILC. While 30% of the population experiences deprivation, more than twice that number of lone-parent households suffer deprivation and are forced to go without the basics. They simply cannot afford to heat their homes, buy clothing for their children or, in many cases, put food on the table for every single mealtime. Those figures should cause everyone to sit up and look again at the implications of what is contained in this legislation, as well as the legislation which predates it, which will take effect on 2 July. This legislation does not contain the row back which should have been required. The Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection stood in this Chamber and repeated several times that she would not proceed with the cuts to the lone-parent allowance from 12 years to seven years of age unless a Scandinavian model for child care was in place. She still has the opportunity to live up to this promise. However, given the Government has made many promises to the people that it has not honoured, I do not have much faith that she will row back in this legislation.

Lone parents in education, as Deputy O’Dea earlier mentioned, will also lose the maintenance proportion of their SUSI, Student Universal Support Ireland, grant of €2,375 per year. Even those in paid employment will take a substantial hit. This comes to €46 week being taken out of the pockets of lone parents who are trying to better themselves by going back to education. What is the Government's response? It is to hit them where it hurts financially.

This legislation, despite promises, or the previous legislation related to it, has not had a regulatory impact assessment, or a poverty or equality impact assessment. The only people who know exactly how it impacts are those who will be affected in their pockets. It seems it does not matter to the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection. By identifying this group out of all of those who will be affected by the change on 2 July, she has said they are better than the others and deserve to have their cut reversed. I am sorry to point out that every one of those who are in work but will be negatively affected by the change on 2 July deserve the recognition they are not getting. Despite the fact the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection said she would make a change on Committee Stage, I hope she will take the opportunity over the next several days to reflect once more and not only reverse the decision on lone parents in receipt of the half rate carer’s allowance but for all lone parents who will be negatively affected and have their full payment restored. That means the cut is put on hold until the Tánaiste or a future Government delivers on the promise of a Scandinavian child care model. That was a recognition that one-parent families have a greater burden on them with the cost of child care than other families. I am not denying other families do not have a burden of child care costs but only one person earning in a household, even if it is part-time, makes meeting child care costs more difficult. Every family in low pay also has the burden of child care costs, a challenge not only to this Government but to future Governments to address.

There are other provisions in this Bill of which I am dubious. I am particularly concerned about section 3 on family carers. It has been presented as some type of benign change of a technical nature. It will have to be teased out on Committee Stage. I received a submission, as other Members did today, from the Free Legal Advice Centres and Community Law and Mediation Centre which have called for the deletion of the section, arguing it does nothing but makes it more difficult for carers to access income supports. These carers are willing to take on the care the State should actually be providing. Anything that makes it more difficult or bureaucratic for those who are actually saving the State a fortune to claim their rightful allowances should be set aside. The two bodies have described section 3 as negative law-making, introducing a presumption of ineligibility for the payment which the applicant will have to overcome rather than a presumption of eligibility which it was in the past. Whereas at present the applicant must demonstrate their entitlement and the deciding officer must make a reasonable decision from a position of neutrality and objectivity, the submission notes the outworkings of the change will see more eligible applications having to go to the appeals officer to secure more entitlements with lengthy waits and the hardship that involves. We have seen the time it takes for carer’s allowance appeals and the number of them that are subsequently overturned because the system has been loaded against them. This means there is a problem at the basic initial level which needs to be addressed.

It means more care, more reviews, the simple phone call to say an application is missing this or that. That needs to be addressed rather than the hardship, stress and strain and, believe it or not, the cost to the State of delayed payment in terms of social welfare officers' time and social welfare appeals.

I am not opposed to the legislation but a lot more could have been included. Every year, Sinn Féin produces an alternative budget outlining how we would approach many of these issues and none of that is captured here. I will be tabling amendments which I hope will be used by the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, to try and recoup money that should be paid to the State. So far, every time I have brought up PRSI payments, the Labour Court findings and so on, she has said she will address these issues at another stage. This miscellaneous provisions Bill is the legislation to capture those positive changes that would benefit the State most of all.

The last appeal I will make is that the time between Second Stage and Committee Stage is used to reflect and to ensure the negative changes to the social welfare code in respect of one-parent families, which come into effect on 2 July, are set aside in an amendment coming from the Minister.

See this speech in context