Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

The contents of this Bill are to be broadly welcomed in so far as they offer a small increase in payments for those in receipt of social welfare benefits. It is about time we started to begin the catch-up that is required regarding the incomes of those in receipt of social welfare benefits. They certainly went with very little or no increases for a long period, at a time when the cost of living was increasing for a great many people in terms of the additional charges and taxes that were introduced by the Government over the austerity years with which people are still saddled. It was people on fixed incomes, pensioners in particular, who were most negatively affected by those cuts. They had a fixed income and yet all of these additional charges and taxes came in without any consideration for people's ability to pay.

I also think this legislation lacks ambition in so far as the proposals are about maintaining the status quowith a small increase and do very little to address some of the systemic problems in the welfare system. I will start by talking about the national training fund. We are always hearing about the need to train, retrain and upskill the Irish workforce to reduce the very high rates of long-term unemployment. There is no doubt that this is very much needed. This is the reason why the national training fund levy increase was introduced but it is quite a small increase of 0.1% from 0.7% to 0.8% in respect of reckonable earnings. This is the first time this levy has been increased since the fund was established 17 years ago, which is just incredible given the level of demand for upskilling within our economy.

It also speaks volumes in light of the lack of action, for example on the new national internship programme.

We were promised when JobBridge was abolished that there would be something coming in to replace it. There is a need for a much greater level of investment in a training programme. We heard to much fanfare about the youth guarantee that was introduced on a pilot basis in Ballymun. It was reasonably successful but unfortunately it was not properly funded and was only a pilot scheme. That kind of approach is very much needed for young people who, for one reason or another, have fallen out of the education system at an early stage. Many have been failed by the education system because it has not been responsive to their needs. We have a significant cohort of young people who are trying to cope with a whole range of social problems affecting them or family members. In circumstances such as that, where people come from very disadvantaged families and communities, often the obstacles facing them in terms of staying in school, achieving in school and going on to further education or training are too great. There is a need for specific, targeted programmes to tackle that kind of deep-rooted, cultural problem of long-term unemployment. That was the thinking behind the youth guarantee but unfortunately it did not come to anything.

There is a need for a much more targeted approach in that regard. To a large extent, there are an awful lot of young people coming from disadvantaged families who are simply not in a position to avail of opportunities that are out there. It is fine to say there are equal opportunities for people but people do not start from the same position. The objective should be to achieve equal outcomes. That means recognising that some people are starting from a much lower or much more difficult position and very often are not able to avail of the opportunities that are there. Clearly there is a need for tailored interventions in that regard. Too often we fail young people, in particular young men, coming from difficult backgrounds because we are not providing the supports they need to participate fully and to be able to avail of education and work opportunities. It is an area that urgently needs attention.

The area of pensions is a very significant one and there are many different aspects to it. The €5 increase to the State pension is welcome but an awful lot of pensioners have been hit with very significant increases in the cost of living as a result of policies implemented by the previous Government. That €5 does not go very far in terms of coping with that. In a general sense, right across Government, there should be a much greater emphasis on cutting the cost of living whether for welfare recipients or people who are working. If we can cut the cost of living, the value of what people get in their welfare payments or wages would be greater. It makes much more sense to take a universal approach. If we had universal health care, universal free education, which we do not even have at primary level, and a universal programme of child care, wage and welfare payment demands would be much lower. It is a much more sustainable approach to our economy.

Another pensions issue is the very thorny issue of the people affected by the 2012 changes. There are people who are now approaching retirement age and who feel very hard done by and sore that they took time out of the workforce to look after children or do other caring duties. In many cases they were forced out of the workforce because of the marriage bar. They find themselves at 63 or 64, coming up to retirement age, being penalised for having done that. It is deeply unfair. At the time, in 2012, it was done as a way of saving money when the coffers were very bare. It was a very unfair measure. It discriminates and militates against women in particular because the vast majority of people affected are women. When this was highlighted in the media, the Minister said she would deal with it. It was reported she would bring a memo on the issue to Cabinet within a matter of days yet she seemed to back off it completely. The line from the Government completely changed. We had the Taoiseach repeating the mantra that the approach would change, it would be a total contributions approach, we would have the report on it and the changes will be introduced in 2020. Those kind of changes will not benefit people who are finding themselves facing their retirement years with significantly reduced pension entitlements. As the Minister recognised a number of months ago when she was new in the job, it is an issue that needs to be tackled. There is a growing movement among women in their 60s who are determined to see this injustice put right. The Minister gave them a commitment that she would tackle it. She needs to do that now at an early stage and not with some measure in 2020. It is people facing into retirement this year and next year who need to be given that kind of fair treatment.

The other point on pensions is the area of private pensions and defined benefit pensions. We had the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill earlier in the year. The expectation was it would provide for new legislation to prevent solvent companies walking away from defined benefit pension liabilities when the pension fund was in difficulty, which can happen even though the company is doing extremely well. There have been a number of examples of where it was allowed to happen and workers were left high and dry. It is not allowed to happen in the UK. It is not on for employers to treat their workforce like this. It should not be allowed here either. There was an undertaking in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill that it would be dealt with. The issue had come to prominence at the end of last year before that Bill was published, with the then Minister, Deputy Varadkar, highlighting it. It was made very clear in the scandalous behaviour of INM towards its employees and pensioners. We were promised this loophole in the legislation would be addressed yet when the Minister, Deputy Doherty, produced the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill it was not provided for in it. We were told before the summer that the Minister would table amendments on Committee Stage. What is holding it up? There seems to be a very long delay with it. When will we see it? When will we see the Minister's amendments? As we speak, there are employers winding up their pension schemes and pensioners are losing out. We should not be wasting any more time on this. There is the other issue of giving people notice of the intention to do this, which is an invitation to some employers to get in fast before the law changes. There is a real urgency about that.

The other issue is that the pension age has gone up to 66. The intention has been set out very clearly to increase it incrementally over the years. The problem is it has not been co-ordinated with the retirement age. I have been asking questions about this for the past two years. When will the retirement age be brought into line with the pension age? It is an extraordinary indignity to people who have perhaps worked since they were 15 years of age and find themselves having to retire at 65 because they have reached retirement age according to their contract. Such people have to retire but do not have an entitlement straight away to a contributory pension even though they may have paid into it for 50 years. It is a disgrace that we have that situation.

There is an urgent need for that working group involving the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection, which I understand has been meeting for some time, to come up with a solution to that. It is no way to treat pensioners.

I note the change of name to the working family payment and there has been a small increase, which is to be welcomed. However, as many of us often repeat, the scheme needs to be advertised much more widely because the uptake is not as good as it should be. Social Justice Ireland has criticised the complexity of the application process. Its operation is complex in itself, but the application process has been criticised and the National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA, may have a role in simplifying it, especially as many of the people applying may have literacy difficulties.

Maternity leave and paternity leave are very important. While the Bill provides for small increases, it is important to point out that we are starting from an exceptionally low base. In most other European countries there is a full replacement rate for a person's salary. Our equivalent in full salary replacement terms only comes to 8.9 equivalent weeks. We are way behind our European neighbours and need to start to make significant progress in that area. On paternity leave, we are only at 0.6 weeks full-rate equivalent in European terms, which is a huge gap to be filled.

Of course, we need to extend the right to flexible work options and even unpaid career breaks. There is a very big demand for that and we should at least do that at an early stage.

I do not really have time to talk about the delays in processing payments. I have counted at least nine payments with a waiting time in excess of six months, which is not acceptable.

See this speech in context