Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her opening statement. I welcome the announcement this evening of the reopening of the pandemic unemployment payment. It is important that we give workers and families some little bit of certainty given the changing public health guidelines that emerge as well as, unfortunately, some restrictions. As I always do, I welcome any increase in social welfare payments, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that I would like to see us get to a point where we are going with the minimum essential standard of living, MESL, when it comes to social welfare rates. It is unfair that we have the same debate every year prior to the budget about a €5 increase. That is unfair on people who are reliant on social welfare and have nothing else. I appreciate this cannot be done overnight. The Minister referred to the qualified child increase and that it continues her policy in relation to the MESL. I would like to see a guarantee that we would get to the minimum essential standard of living. I know it cannot happen overnight, but it would at least give people certainty, protect them from poverty and allow them to meet a minimum essential standard of living. In the first instance, that is something any social protection system should do.

It also goes without saying that when the PUP was introduced, it was introduced at a rate of €203 and it was very quickly increased to €350. I believe that is an issue of adequacy. Every year at the pre-budget forum, adequacy is raised with the Minister by stakeholders. Regarding the MESL, we also have a situation with young jobseekers. A lot of young people are living at home. The jobseeker's allowance is means tested. Some young people are on far less than €112.70 a week. It is very difficult for young people who are trying to do their best and trying to get on their feet while living on such a small amount of money simply because of their age. It is not based on anything else other than their age in the first instance.

I welcome the focus on carers in this budget. I hope they will not have to wait another 14 years to see a change in the income disregard. I acknowledge that it was a very welcome move. The State pension for family carers is most important. The Minister must engage with the likes of Family Carers Ireland to ensure family carers get a full State pension when they reach pension age. That is most important. It is the very least that family carers the length and breadth of this State deserve, many of them providing 24-7 care in their homes to loved ones.

I ask the Minister to consider looking at the total contributions approach, TCA, especially before it is fully rolled out. We must ensure that the total contributions approach is working for parents who spend time at home rearing children. It is fine if there is to be a mechanism for family carers, as they will not be as reliant on the TCA, but we must make sure that works for people who spend time at home rearing children and for the self-employed as well before the system is fully rolled out. That is important.

The Minister referred to the fact that today is International Day of Persons with Disabilities. It is also important on such a day that we hear about more than just the disability allowance itself. I would like to see movement on the cost of disability. In 2004, Indecon did a report on the cost of disability and acknowledged that costs exist. Everybody who has a disability lives with increased costs on a daily basis. The reports are done and research has also been done recently. We must see such a payment introduced. I appreciate that these things cannot be done overnight, but we need to start somewhere with addressing the costs of disability. On a day like today it would be great to see movement in that regard.

There are difficulties with the means test for people with disabilities on a disability allowance and also for those on the blind pension. I have raised this issue with the Minister many times. I only raise the blind pension specifically because it has been raised so often with me. Where there is a change in circumstances in a home where a person receives the blind pension, it can be reduced or lost entirely. The person is still blind but he or she loses the blind pension. I urge the Minister to look at that. She should at least explore the issue and try to see what can be done.

Another payment that needs attention is the widow's pension. It is 2021, but a person who loses their partner has no entitlement to a widow's pension unless they are married. We must examine the marriage requirement. I have met people and heard people speak about losing a partner who have dependants and children at home but are not entitled to anything based on the fact that they were not married. When it comes to the means-testing of payments, we take entire households into account, whether people are married or not, yet when it comes to supporting someone who loses a loved one, with a widow's pension, a person is left with nothing.

Again, I would like that to be looked at.

I welcome the further increase in parent's leave and benefit, which is important. Any time we raise the issue of parent’s leave and benefit, we should be encouraging employers, where they can, to top up that payment because for workers to take that time off work and receive €250 a week can be very difficult. We need to keep an eye on uptake and we also need to take every opportunity to encourage employers. Many of them are in a position to allow that top-up payment to be in place, which should happen.

There is also an issue regarding lone parents, who currently only receive five weeks, whereas two-parent families will receive five weeks each. I would like to see something being done in that regard because, at the end of the day, it is for the benefit of the child. Lone parents get five weeks when a child is born, whereas a house with two parents will get ten. That should be looked at.

I want to raise the issue of parent’s bereavement leave and benefit, which I had put forward to the Minister in our alternative budget. This has been rolled out in the North. In the past couple of weeks, my colleagues have put forward amendments to include people who have miscarriages. I would like us to introduce something similar here on a statutory basis for parents who lose a child. What I brought forward was in the case of stillbirth or the death of a child under the age of 18, whereby parents would initially be given two weeks paid leave. I would like to see that being considered by the Minister.

I also want to mention child maintenance, which is an issue I have raised consistently. We have brought forward proposals on this, mirroring what is in place in the North of Ireland in regard to a child maintenance service. Unfortunately, while the maintenance review group was established, which I welcome, we are still awaiting its recommendations. I hope those will be put forward and I ask that we establish a child maintenance service similar to what is in place in the North of Ireland. The current situation is that the only option for a lone parent, if they cannot get maintenance, if mediation does not work and if they cannot get an agreement, is to go to court. They can go to court and maintenance can be ordered at a certain amount, but if that is not paid, it is back to the lone parent again. A warrant can be issued but that usually sits on a desk somewhere and, again, it is back to the lone parent all of the time. The courts are not the place to sort out maintenance. Where maintenance is ordered, it does not mean it is paid, but it is taken as household means for other social welfare payments whether it is paid or not. We need a system that takes it out of the courts and that assists and supports lone parents in seeking maintenance, in getting it and in ensuring it is paid. I hope we will see that review group report before the end of the year and that we will act on it.

I want to raise the fact that we saw in committee this week, on the Supplementary Estimates, that the budget is down in 2021 for the rural social scheme, community employment, CE, and Tús, based on a lower number of participants. I accept that Covid has been an issue, which goes without saying. However, I raised this matter last week and it was stated in respect of the lack of referrals that we had lower unemployment pre Covid. JobPath was established in 2015 and from then until when I was elected, as the party's adviser, I looked at the figures for referrals in regard to JobPath, local employment services and community employment. Very starkly and clearly, there was no issue in regard to unemployment and JobPath got the referrals, but CE in particular was really squeezed and there is still an issue there in regard to referrals. I welcome what the Minister said this week at committee in regard to changes she will be putting forward to Cabinet, and that really needs to happen. Measures like the rural social scheme, CE and Tús are very important, especially in rural communities and constituencies like mine and the Minister's. We need to ensure we ramp up those schemes to ensure the work they do on the ground is continued. I ask that the six-year rule in regard to community employment and the rural social scheme be looked at in cases where the participant wants to and is able to remain on. Perhaps people are in their late 50s and want to remain on in the scheme, or they cannot be replaced and that community service is at risk. In such cases, we should look at relaxing those rules and allowing some flexibility for those schemes.

In talking about the schemes and the wonderful work they do, I want to reference local employment services and job clubs. The Government supported a motion this week to halt the current tendering process that is under way. Unfortunately, despite that support, I do not get the feeling that it is actually going to happen and that what the motion calls for is going to be acted upon, which is regrettable, particularly for workers. It caused a lot of confusion that the Government spoke in opposition to the motion but then allowed it to pass, which was regrettable. If the Government has a position in regard to what is happening in the tendering process and it believes in that, it should have stuck to what it said that night in regard to the motion. There was no point allowing it to pass when the Government does not have any intention of doing anything, and I do not think that should happen. When we democratically debate and vote on things in this House, much more attention should be paid to those matters.

The Minister knows the Committee of Public Accounts has looked at JobPath. It released a report and concluded that the JobPath model has not delivered value for money for the taxpayer and the committee recommends that the Department of Social Protection explores other avenues to provide better value through localised, non-profit driven employment services. I should add that the majority of members on the Committee of Public Accounts come from Government parties.

Again and again, we are hearing that JobPath has failed. We had a motion in 2019, which was passed by this House, calling on the Government to end referrals to JobPath. Over 376,000 people have been through JobPath and 26,000 have sustained a job that has lasted for 12 months. Whatever people say about it working or not working, and whatever one's ideology in regard to job activation, a 6.8% success rate in the space of six years at the cost of €275 million of taxpayers’ money is not a success. I do not know why we are now pursuing that privatisation agenda when JobPath has been such a failure. The Committee of Public Accounts report is just one of many that says that.

As the Minister knows, energy costs have increased. They continue to rise. The 71% increase in the cost of heating oil means that families will more than likely spend between €500 and €600 more this winter. Many workers and families will be affected by what has been announced today and will go onto the PUP in some cases. They, with many other low and middle income workers, have no access to the fuel allowance, so we need something additional. Again, I ask the Minister to look at the discretionary fund that my party has put forward, as has the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I know the Minister tells us about the urgent needs scheme but, clearly, if the urgent needs and exceptional needs payments were working through the community welfare officers, we would not have the Society of St. Vincent de Paul paying out millions of euro every year to help families with their energy costs, nor would we have them seeking a discretionary fund.

The Committee Stage debate on the Bill is to take place the week after next. I ask that the Minister might consider some of the amendments that will be brought forward by the Opposition. The Minister will know we are very limited in what we can bring forward where we would like to see changes, some of which I have outlined this evening, and we have to seek reports. The Minister's predecessor allowed a number of reports to go through in regard to carer’s allowance, young jobseekers and the Indecon report we had sought on the impact on lone parents of the reduction of the age to seven for the one-parent family payment. There is some wisdom on this side of the House. I ask that the Minister might consider allowing some amendments to go through on Committee Stage which will give us information and data and maybe assist us on where we need to go in respect of social protection as a whole. I ask the Minister to consider that.

See this speech in context