John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister for the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I did not get a chance to speak before the summer recess. The Minister and her predecessor stated it was their intention to try to get the Bill passed before the summer recess. It was being pushed and rushed through, and at the last minute it was decided to stall the process and we are back here today. The social welfare Bill affords an opportunity for the Minister and the Government to address issues of concern in the social protection system. Certainly there is no shortage of issues to choose from in the social protection system.

The Bill before us is completely different from the general scheme of the Bill presented to us in pre-legislative scrutiny a number of months ago. I genuinely question the motives for this substantial difference. If the Bill before us was what came before us in pre-legislative scrutiny there would have been a totally different reaction to its content. After the contents of the Bill were broadly welcomed in pre-legislative scrutiny it was changed, and much of what was welcomed was subsequently removed without notice or notification. This certainly does not look like, and is not, new politics.

The glaringly obvious changes refer to the removal of a number of provisions regarding defined benefit pension schemes. It was the intention of the Minister, who has left the Chamber, to introduce amendments to this area of the Bill on Committee Stage because it was not possible, given the complexities involved, to have these amendments included earlier. I do not buy this. The issues regarding defined benefit schemes are not new. They were identified a number of years ago. They have been widely spoken about, debated and publicised. Issues on direct benefit schemes have been affecting employees for years. There is no excuse for these provisions not to be in place at this stage.

Any amendments to direct benefit schemes must tackle the root of the problem, which is healthy companies choosing to walk away from direct benefit schemes and choosing to renege on their pension obligations to employees. Timeframes are well and good but they do not deal with the substantive issue. They simply allow time to deliberate and debate when, in some cases, the direct benefit schemes simply should not be wound down or allowed to be wound down in the first instance. We can take Irish Life as an example of this. Its scheme has a huge surplus and has never been in deficit. It is moving to close the direct benefit scheme and move to a defined contribution scheme. This certainly raises serious alarm bells. Many other profitable companies are actively progressing to close down their direct benefit schemes.

The provisions in the Bill will do nothing for employees. It will not act in their interests and it will not protect their pensions. I ask the Minister who, unfortunately, is not here, to have a look at a Bill I introduced to the House in January when she is drafting her amendments.

I will be submitting my own amendments to reflect the Bill I introduced to the House.

This Bill consists of a number of tidy-up measures in various areas. I welcome some of those measures. I welcome, in particular, the changes being made for those in receipt of a disability allowance or the blind person's pension to remove the rule allowing the disregard of earnings only where employment is of a rehabilitative nature, as confirmed by the general practitioner. I note this is in line with the recommendations from the interdepartmental report Make Work Pay. I wholeheartedly welcome this move.

Another issue I want to raise concerns the provisions in the Bill on publishing the names of those convicted of so-called social welfare fraud. There has been a lot of talk about this issue, much of it brought on by the current Minister's predecessor at a very opportune time when he was going for election in his political party. As we know, that campaign, Welfare Cheats Us All, was based on all sorts of incorrect figures, offensive perceptions of jobseekers and calculations of savings based on assumptions. I do not want to get into the numerous flaws and inaccuracies in that campaign but there were certainly very many. It was very interesting to read some of the freedom of information material released to a journalist over the summer. It showed the concerns of senior officials in the Department on the use of language, the material and the figures. I and many others who saw this campaign for what it was saw the real motives behind it. It was not about dealing with fraud, which my party and I want to stamp out, be it in respect of social welfare or the white collar sector. There is substantially more fraud in the white collar area. It is not being tackled or dealt with, and there have been no high-profile campaigns initiated by the current Taoiseach or his predecessors.

The flaws in the campaign have been well highlighted and discussed. I wish to register my opposition to the publication of names, on the Department's website, of those who commit welfare fraud. The actual evidence shows it is minimal. First, there is no need for a second list of convictions. The data are already provided. There is no need for them to be duplicated. Second, I am concerned about possible data protection breaches if this legislation is to be passed. It is alleged the list will be left online for up to three months before being removed. There is no stopping it being copied and used elsewhere. Has the Data Protection Commissioner been consulted on the potential ramifications of such a measure? The Minister has previously said that the names published will relate only to welfare fraud in excess of €5,000, as put forward by her friends and colleagues in Fianna Fáil. Again, I see no need whatsoever for the duplication of this list.

On the public services card, regarding which there has been much confusion, largely brought about by the Minister herself through her use of language over the course of the summer, we are still awaiting clarification. There are numerous concerns raised by experts in the field, even including the Data Protection Commissioner and legal people. I wish to ask the Minister in her absence about the 49 questions submitted by the Data Protection Commissioner in regard to the public services card. They are critical because many of the concerns revolve around people’s personal data. It would be helpful if the Minister released and made public the 49 questions. More important, how will she respond to the serious concerns that were raised by the Data Protection Commissioner?

The provisions included suggest the card is a national identification card. I refer to the inscription of the date of birth and the confirmation of identity. Big questions have been raised by many about how all the personal information will be stored, who can access it and the legislative basis on which registering for the card is required. None of these questions has been answered. There has been no debate on any of this whatsoever. If this is an attempt to introduce a national identification card by stealth, it will be rigorously fought and opposed, certainly from these benches.

We have yet to see a comprehensive statement from the Government setting out in full the collective Government plan for the rolling out of the card and the legislative basis for its requirement across multiple Departments and agencies. It is ridiculous that we are still waiting for answers on these provisions, yet we are being asked to support this legislation.

In regard to enabling certain social welfare payments and benefits to be awarded online, can the Minister clarify exactly what payments and benefits are being referred to?With the domiciliary care allowance and the current waiting times in mind, I have written to the Minister. Unfortunately, I am still awaiting a reply on what action is being taken to deal with the matter. When we talk about the domiciliary care allowance, we are talking about the most vulnerable children in the State, those aged under 16 with a severe illness or disability. The current waiting time for the processing of the domiciliary care allowance is 20 weeks, or five months. I raised these concerns in May, at which time the waiting time was 18 weeks, which had jumped up from 15 weeks. I raised this with the current Minister’s predecessor, the now Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and asked him what measures would be put in place to tackle the serious delays in processing this critical allowance. It is very apparent that nothing has been done to tackle this issue because the waiting times are increasing. To me, that stinks. It is appalling that the most needy children in the State and their parents and families, all of whom need this payment, are left waiting for five months or more. I ask the Minister to revert to me, acknowledge the correspondence I sent to her and, more important, let me and the families who have been waiting for five months or more know what is being done to process the applications.

Having spoken to many families who are waiting and trying to obtain information on this, it now appears that the telephone lines for the domiciliary care allowance have been closed since last month, meaning that applicants can get no information whatsoever. There seems to be a shut-down of all systems. There is a blanket refusal to give any information to me or the families who have applied. Answers are needed, and they are needed straight away.

I listened to Deputy O’Dowd, who is not present at the moment, and found myself strangely nodding in agreement when he spoke about the inequality in our pensions system, particularly gender inequality.

We know that it was his Government which brought about that inequality, along with his cohorts in the Labour Party and the then Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, who made the changes to the PRSI bands in 2012 which have impacted mainly on women.

We know that since those changes were introduced in 2012 over 40,000 women have been directly impacted by the inequality measures. They are receiving reduced pensions. We know why that is the case. It is mainly women who take time out of their working lives to raise families, look after elderly family members and so on. I agree with Deputy O'Dowd that measures need to be put in place to change that.

Unfortunately, there is hypocrisy in the Chamber because Deputy O'Dowd, along with his colleagues in Fine Gael, voted against a motion my party brought forward in December 2016 to deal specifically with this issue which, as he rightly said, is affecting many women in the State. The motion would have brought about a change to the inequality which exists. Unfortunately, Deputy O'Dowd spoke out of one side of his mouth in the Chamber and did something completely different when he had an opportunity to do something.

The budget, which is coming up in the next number of weeks, provides another opportunity to address the matter. The current Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection acknowledged earlier that there is a serious problem, but said the Government does not have the money to deal with it. In the same breath, Fine Gael is able to talk about giving tax breaks to the wealthy in society who do not need them. It is able to create the perception that it cares about the women which its policies have directly affected. In our pre-budget submission last year, Sinn Féin showed that, using the same money the Government had at its disposal, we could bring forward measures to end inequality and reverse the bands that were introduced in 2012 which have directly impacted on over 40,000 women.

The National Women's Council of Ireland, Age Action Ireland and many other organisations have called for change over a sustained period of time. They called on Deputy O'Dowd and his colleagues in Fine Gael to support the Sinn Féin motion last December to end this inequality. That obviously fell on deaf ears.

I will conclude on a number of points. The Taoiseach said he wants to build a republic of opportunity. The Bill is an opportunity to deal with inequalities and issues across the social welfare spectrum which are having a negative impact. Unfortunately, the Bill, as presented to us, does not deal with those issues and is, essentially, a lost opportunity.

There are many issues within social protection and the provisions in the Bill ignore them. The Bill is about naming and shaming individuals and a useless and unnecessary public services card - even the Government is unsure as to its purpose.

There is nothing in the Bill to assist lone parents or young jobseekers who are discriminated against based on their age. There is nothing in the Bill to tackle the growing levels of child poverty which exist in the State. There is nothing in the Bill, as it currently stands, to deal with pensions, in particular defined benefit pension schemes which are being closed by profitable businesses as I outlined earlier.

The mantra coming from Fine Gael is that it wants to build a republic of opportunity. It should go back to the drawing board on that because it is presiding over something which is not a republic but, rather, a society of inequality.

Sinn Féin will bring forward a series of amendments when the Bill goes to Committee Stage to deal with all of the inequalities and issues around defined benefit pension schemes. We need to address those issues as soon as possible. Profitable companies are actively winding down defined benefit pension schemes as we speak.

See this speech in context