Brian Stanley (Laois, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is fair to say it is a tidying-up exercise. There are many tidying-up measures in it in terms of the various areas of social welfare schemes. I welcome some of the measures, in particular the changes to be made for those in receipt of disability allowance and the blind person's pension.

One issue I want to speak about is the implications of the Bill for Irish emigrants returning from England. Some people who were born here, educated here and worked here and who, through no fault of their own, were forced to emigrate to seek employment in the 1970s, 1980s or another time are now back. In some cases, they are elderly and in bad health and cannot claim a social welfare payment, or they find it extremely difficult to claim one. For this group, the bar is raised very high. The habitual residency clause is used and the affected individuals have to establish where their centre of interest is, their employment history, the length and continuity of their residence in Ireland, the continuity of their residence in another country, and their future intentions. The guidelines do state that a person who has previously been habitually resident in the State and moved to live and work in another country and then resumes his or her long-term residence in the State "may be regarded" as being habitually resident immediately on his or her return. It does not state "will be regarded". It should be changed to the latter. It seems that the affected are getting a double blow in that the habitual residency clause is being used such that they have to prove their case, which can take a considerable period.

Another issue concerns the children of Irish emigrants who come here to live.

I dealt with a case a number of years ago where a person returned to Ireland to care for an elderly citizen, her grandmother. She has no intention of returning to live in England, but faces significant difficulties. The person concerned is related to one of the signatories of the 1916 Proclamation, which is somewhat ironic given what happened. I do not want to name which one because it will identify the person. There was nobody else to look after the woman's grandmother. She has spent a lot of time in County Offaly over the years, travelling back and forwards, and developed a special relationship and bonded with her grandmother, relatives and extended family. She was deemed not to be habitually resident in the State and faced significant problems in trying to make any headway. She was persona non grata for a number of years. I am highlighting the case because while I understand EU rules prevent discrimination on the grounds of nationality we need to have some balance. I do not want to be nativist but we need to consider those who have emigrated.

One person who returned to Ireland was housed by an approved housing body, a small housing co-operative. Despite having a lease the person had difficulty establishing habitual residency. Such issues need to be considered. The rules seem to be very unfair. People have worked hard here for a period of time and, through no fault of their own, emigrated. They may return home following the loss of a relative in order to be with their extended family in the later years of their lives or may have fallen into bad health. I ask that such cases be examined.

I refer to women's pension entitlements. The Minister of State was not the relevant Minister in the previous Government. I and, I am sure, the Minister of State are aware of a number of cases in our constituency offices of women who left the workforce due to childbirth. There was a marriage bar in the public sector for married women during the more Taliban period of our history which, thankfully, we have moved out of. We need to deal with the situation.

The changes made by former Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, discriminated against women and penalised them because they were forced out of work due to the marriage bar or child minding duties. In those days there were no child minders or crèches, things were difficult and families were bigger. Such situations necessitated one person being in the home, typically a woman. It was not ideal that they were forced into that. It is time that we examined the issue.

There is a cost involved which is, I understand, approximately €60 million. I am open to correction, but I read such a figure in recent research. The figure may be higher. We need to move on the issue because we should bring the women affected back into the system.

There is a lot of huffing and puffing and false information about single parents. There is fraud in every area, and I am not here to stand over that. Any parent who runs a house on €220 week, gets a child to school - in particular if he or she is attending secondary school and needs shoes or anything else - and is able to keep a roof over their heads is doing well. People are paying top-ups for private rental accommodation because we do not have rent controls, in particular in the constituency I represent. Those living in social housing should get medals by the time they have paid for everything.

We need to re-examine the income disregard related to returning to work in order to allow people to return to the workforce. A seven-year old child is not old enough look to look after himself or herself, regardless of what subsidies are available. There are question marks over what can be done in respect of childcare. We saw what happened in crèches following recent initiatives. Initiatives to subsidise child care are welcome. The problem is that many are being absorbed through increased costs. We need to examine how we can balance the system and get the best return for State money.

We are in favour of child care assistance and making it easier for women, in particular, to get back into the workforce. Things are very difficult for single parents. There are difficulties around the 14 or 15 weeks of the year when children are not in school. Some separated people, usually women, have two or three children and are trying to manage those situations.

The cut-off threshold needs to be examined. I am not trying to pick on the former Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, but it was during her term of office that the age was reduced to seven. As a parent and grandparent, I would not like seven-year olds to be left with just anybody or to wander the streets all day if I was going to work. We need to try to provide some extra support to lone parents.

We also need to stop the trail of misinformation. People have come to my office about different issues and have referred to lone parents. There is no doubt that there is fraud in every system. When I point out to them that parents are running households on €221 a week they are gob smacked and cannot believe it. They think I am not telling them the truth and I have to show them the rate book in order for them to understand the payments. They should get more. Let us make it easier for people to get back to work and try to give them child care support to enable them to do so. The age limit is too low. I have seen the effects in my neighbourhood, where women are trying to juggle and hope they can work through the summer until the children are ready to return to school.

See this speech in context