Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party will be supporting the Bill. We welcome the Bill, if only because it repeals the section in regard to the pension age. It is something we discussed in the last week on foot of the Sinn Féin motion and we welcome it wholeheartedly. Again, I wish to pay tribute to the Stop67 campaign, without which this issue would not have reached the level of political importance that it has reached in the past year or so. I want to pay tribute again to the National Women's Council, Age Action, Active Retirement Ireland and SIPTU.

In repealing that section, which was so injurious to all of those people, when does the Minister propose to give effect to that measure? Last week, the Minister stated:

In addition to repealing the increase in the pension age, I will also shortly be introducing regulations which will formally remove the current requirements for people aged 65 and over to sign on, participate in activation programmes or give an undertaking that they are genuinely seeking work. The idea, therefore, that any 65-year-old will have to stand in a dole queue is absolute nonsense. I am formalising an administrative practice which has already been in place for some time. While the payment rate of €203 for 65-year-olds is less than the full contributory pension rate, it is worth bearing in mind that a 65-year-old receiving €203 per week here is still better off than any pensioner in Northern Ireland.

Notwithstanding the commentary in respect of Northern Ireland, it would be very useful to hear from the Minister when she proposes to introduce the statutory regulations, if she has not already signed them. That will give a lot of comfort to people who are welcoming the repeal of that section in the legislation, but who do not want, to use the Minister's words, to have to stand in a dole queue. That is one issue on which I seek clarification.

Again, I want to pay tribute to the National Women's Council, Age Action, Active Retirement Ireland and SIPTU for their wonderful work in going out and campaigning, developing a strong consciousness around this issue and co-ordinating a strong campaign that has borne fruit. It is great to welcome this because they have been vindicated in their position.

I want to raise the issue of fraud with the Minister, particularly in respect of the PUP. We know there are matters which are before the courts today and yesterday, so I am very conscious of any public commentary in respect of the issue of fraud or alleged fraud with regard to the PUP. I merely wish to ask the Minister if her Department has made any projections in respect of amounts that may have been fraudulently obtained as a result of applications made for PUP. We absolutely welcome the initiatives whereby the Department of Social Protection is working hand in hand with the Garda National Economic Crime Bureau because it could be said, by any objective analysis, that this is bearing fruit. It is important work and I hope it would continue to be resourced because it is vitally necessary that the integrity of our social protection system is maintained, and that everybody has confidence in that system. The more resources that can be applied to that effort, the more confidence people will have in the system. It is important, if the integrity of the system is to be maintained for people who have entitlements, that where fraud exists, it is weeded out and eradicated, people are subject to the law and the law is applied rigorously where incidents occur. I would like to hear from the Minister in respect of anti-fraud measures. That is my second point.

Given the season we are in, I want to refer to seasonal employment. We are hearing on the ground that for many people who would have worked in the hospitality sector on a seasonal basis, particularly leading into the Christmas period but also during the summer period, there is a reluctance on the part of some to give up their PUP and to go back to that seasonal employment because they have a genuine fear that, if they do so, their PUP will be lost and gone forever. I seek an assurance from the Minister that where people do take up employment, albeit on a seasonal basis, there is no fear of them losing their PUP when they finish that employment.

If the Minister could speak to that issue to reiterate assurances she has given previously on that it would also send a very positive signal.

She stated in her contribution that if someone has to reapply in January, he or she will be able to do that up to an including 31 March. We take her at her word on that but it is important for that message to go out because I know from talking to employers that they are finding it difficult to bring people back into the workplace again. That is an issue I hope will be addressed.

There has been much news made of the fact that there will be a commitment to nine weeks paid parental leave. I put it to the Minister that the commitment by the Minister, Deputy O'Gorman, is welcome but that the nine weeks paid parental leave is a minimum requirement of an EU directive which the Government is legally compelled to introduce anyway. The payment is funded from social insurance contributions and not by the State. It is, therefore, funded by people's own contributions. It would be useful to have the perspective of the Minister and the Department of Social Protection on the nine weeks and whether there will be extensions beyond those nine weeks in the foreseeable future so as to make parental leave, as a policy, as family-friendly as possible.

Council Directive 2010/18/EU establishes a minimum of four months of parental leave. At least one out of the four months is non-transferable from a parent to another and there is no minimum compensation during parental leave at EU level. As of 2 August 2022, Council Directive 2019/1158 establishes a minimum of four months of parental leave. At least two out of the four months are non-transferable from a parent to another. At least the two non-transferable months have to be adequately compensated at a level to be decided in each EU country as of 2 August 2024 for the past two weeks and parents have the right to request taking the leave in a flexible - meaning part-time - and piecemeal way. It would be very useful to have the perspective of the Minister in respect of parental leave. While, technically, it is not her line Department, the issue of social insurance contributions very much dovetails with her Department and I am sure she has a perspective on that. What we want in any progressive society is to ensure that we do not operate to the minimum or to the directive but that we seek to find mechanisms to ensure greater flexibility such that working mothers in particular can avail of as much leave as possible, and working fathers as well.

If there is one thing the first lockdown has taught me as a public representative, it is that when there was an absence of childcare, it had a massive impact on working mothers in particular. I believe we have not fully analysed the impact it has had on working mothers in respect of their career prospects and as we are trying to move towards a more equal society and as the research becomes more embedded, and I know the ESRI has done some research on that, we need to ensure that we can create pathways for women, and working mothers in particular, such that no impediments are put in their way and that the parental leave arrangements put in place by the State are done in a progressive way and not just to a minimum EU requirement. I know the Minister will also have a view on that.

We welcome the Bill. We welcome also that the work of the Stop 67 campaign is very much inculcated and embedded within this legislation. I pay tribute to those involved in that. We believe this Bill is worthy of support.

I want to raise a final issue in the time available to me. The Minister has spoken to this issue previously and other Deputies have raised it with her. It is in respect of the requests for PPS numbers. Many employers and perspective employers have applied for PPS numbers for prospective employees. In the time since the Minister last spoke on that publicly and in this House, have further improvements been made such that when people make an application for a PPS number that application is expedited in as timely a manner as possible? I recognise that because of the PUP resources and people had to be allocated into that section. That is fully acknowledged by everybody here but if PPS numbers are being allocated it means that people are at work. If people are at work, they are contributing. I ask the Minister for an update on progress in respect of that.

See this speech in context