Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I, too, am happy to speak to the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017. The new Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, introduced the Bill on Second Stage before the recess in July. I wish her well in her new role.

Section 4 has generated significant controversy. It provides that, "From the beginning of 2018, a quarterly compilation and publication of the list of persons who have been convicted of an offence under the Social Welfare Consolidation Bill Act 2005 or welfare fraud related offences under the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001..." The apparent aim is simply to increase public awareness of the consequence of such activity. After three months the list will be removed from the Department's website, which will be refreshed. As many have observed, it is very striking that this particular list is being prioritised over, for example, a list of the bankers and financial wizards who have conned the country out of billions. Where is the list for them, the white collar criminals who will have our grandchildren paying for the blackguarding with which they got away? There was no regulation then, or, at most, light touch regulation. There is one law for the rich and another for the poor; shame and public disgrace for those who in engage in social welfare fraud but protection and anonymity for the high level financial operators. This is simply not good enough and we wonder why people are cynical about politics. It is unacceptable in the extreme.

Another section that has generated significant concern is the one dealing with the public services card and the circumstances in which it will be mandatory. Much has been made of the Minister's celebrated remark that the card is mandatory but not compulsory. What is the difference? Which comes first? I am not sure that this provided the reassurance for which many were looking. I do not believe it provided any.

In terms of the other aims of the Bill, I certainly agree that it is vitally important that we protect the interests of employees with respect to their defined benefit pension contributions and that we do all that we can to produce a more robust and effective mechanism to ensure that will occur. I understand the Minister will be introducing amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage in this area, but it might be too late for that. Why are they not in the general body of the Bill? Many will have found it quite shocking that there has never been a statutory obligation on employers under Irish law to engage with trustees and members to address deficits in their defined benefit pension schemes. This is found to be the case particularly with big business and corporations. Not enough conditions have been put on employers who wish to terminate their liability to contribute to their defined benefit pension schemes. We have seen how they have been abandoned and closed down overnight, which is not acceptable. I am glad that the Minister is intent on introducing clarity in that regard. We are waiting to see what measures she will introduce. From what she has previously indicated, the amendment she is intent on introducing will not permit an employer to walk away at short notice. I hope that measure will be well ring-fenced and supported by legislation because it applies to many big employers who move and change companies.

The amendments will also provide for a 12-month notification period to enable negotiations and discussions to take place between all sides. I welcome these amendments. Where a scheme is in deficit, they will require employers to enter into dialogue with trustees to develop a plan to sustain the scheme. It is only where these steps fail and no funding proposal is in place that the Pensions Authority will determine a funding obligation in the form of a schedule of contribution amounts and dates by which they will have to be paid.

As the Minister also noted in her remarks in July, the Bill includes a measure which will confirm the special position within the welfare code of guardians who take responsibility for caring for children who have been orphaned or whose parents are unable to take care of them. The Bill also includes a measure supporting people with a disability who take up employment. I will be very interested to hear the thoughts of someone like Senator John Dolan and the Disability Rights Federation. It is very important that we look closely at this measure and do not just pay lip service to it.

Like my colleagues, Deputies Michael and Danny Healy-Rae, I salute and praise community welfare officers. The previous Government closed down facilities and stopped community welfare officers from meeting people in places such as health centres and elsewhere and put them all in big offices in a couple of towns. They withdrew their support from the community and it could not have been done at a worse time when community welfare officers were never needed more. They are on the front line trying to deal with issues, but they are not available because they have to get taxis to get into towns to meet people who are out of the comfort of their own surroundings. We must respect community welfare officers and support them and allow them to do the job they have always done.

See this speech in context