Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Tá áthas orm deis a bheith agam cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille seo. There are two parts to this Bill. It is not the first time a Bill has had two very disparate parts and I understand why that was done, so I am going to treat them separately.

I remember suggesting when they were talking about an Irish language Act in the North that there should be two parts to that language Act, with totally separate provisions - one part for the Irish language that would reflect its status in the Good Friday Agreement and the other for Ulster Scots, reflecting a different status because it had a different status in the aforementioned agreement. I suggested this be done within the one Act. I believe there is merit in doing things like that and being creative when we are legislating.

I welcome this Bill. Anything that rationalises and eases the burden of social welfare means-testing will get my support. I hope that this is another step on a path of more changes to the means-testing regime. I have often said that if people are down, the State will provide a basic income, which is the welfare system. In all circumstances, people should be entitled to a welfare payment and that is the system we have. However, what I would argue is that for those just above that level, the minute they start climbing the ladder, we tend to haul them back at a fairly drastic rate. This is an inhibiting factor for people. It inhibits them from improving their standard of living and that is not a good thing. The minimum or basic social welfare rate should be seen as just that, a basic payment, but as many people as possible should be facilitated to have a higher income than that. Eventually, if they get high enough, they should come clean out of the welfare system and start becoming a taxpayer. That should be seamless but it is not. As the Minister knows, the means test penalty is much more severe in reality in terms of the financial penalty it imposes on people than many of the higher-end tax rates on individual citizens.

Basically, the changes here are twofold. The Minister is changing the means test vis-à-visthe child maintenance payment, which will no longer be assessed as means and I believe that is sensible. I have argued for this many times and was surprised when dealing with cases that this was not the way it was. This is an important step in the right direction because it stops people from being pushed into poverty. The Minister knows all of the positive consequences of not being in poverty. We all know the consequences of being in poverty, the dependency it creates and the disadvantage it leads to for children in particular. It often leads to educational disadvantage and can also lead to intergenerational disadvantage. What we should be doing is the opposite by trying to make it much easier for people to rise above that and to move on with their lives.

The second change is the discontinuation of the liable relative provision. Currently, where a lone parent is in receipt of the one-parent family payment, the Department has a legislative basis for carrying out an assessment of the other parent and issuing a determination order for that parent to make a contribution to the Department towards the cost. I would not think the Department took in much money. This is one of those old provisions that was a drag on the system and which, in the context of the Minister's €26 billion budget, was not providing any saving. In fact, it was just causing more grief, more administration and so on.

I hope that this is the first of many changes this year. The Minister has brought in changes previously and has done good work on the means-testing of the carer's allowance and the fuel allowance, in particular, which is very welcome. I am looking forward to the report the Department is preparing on social welfare means-testing and to a continuous roll-out of changes. I do not think it should be a big bang report or a big bang implementation. The best approach, always, is to do things step by step to ensure that any unintended consequences get ironed out fairly rapidly. I look forward to that happening.

The second issue I would like to talk about is the payment given to Ukrainians compared with international protection candidates, which I have always thought is completely out of kilter. It actually left them better off than Irish citizens because they were getting board and lodgings, even with the changes that were made, for something like €50 per week, whereas people on social welfare would have to pay €40 in rent, buy their own food and pay for their heat and light. While I think this change is sensible, I have some issues with it. First, the allowance of €38 per week for everybody who is seeking international protection, as well as for Ukrainians from now on, is low. That payment should be reviewed and raised because it is a very small amount of discretionary money for any person. That said, I do agree that everybody should be on the same rate.

The other issue that really worries me is the 90-day limit. I know this is not a decision of the Department of Social Protection but it is part of a suite of measures and I ask the Minister to carry a message back to her Government colleagues. What happens after 90 days? Where are they meant to go? If we put them on the housing list, the Minister knows what is going to happen. It will mean more competition within communities who are all queuing up for public or social housing, for HAP, and so on. If they do not go there, where are they going to go? That is the one part that really worries me because of the potential consequences within communities as well as for those seeking tearmann, asylum or refuge in this country who come from Ukraine. We need to think this out and admit that we cannot enforce a 90-day limit. All of the people seeking international protection do not, quite rightly, face a 90-day limit because they are not entitled to HAP or to go on the housing list. Even if we did make them so entitled, we would just increase the pressure and competition within communities who already feel that the housing lists are way too long. That one should be thought out again.

See this speech in context