Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am very pleased to introduce this, the second of two Bills which will implement the social welfare package of €900 million announced last December in budget 2008. This generous package, representing nearly half of all additional current Government spending announced in last December's budget, brings total expenditure on social welfare in 2008 to just under €17 billion.

This Bill provides for the implementation of certain social welfare improvements announced in budget 2008. It also contains the statutory basis for the administration of the blind welfare allowance and the domiciliary care allowance by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. These schemes are currently administered by the Department of Health and Children and their transfer is part of the Government's health service reform programme. In addition, the Bill provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 and the Pensions Act 1990, and consequential amendments to the Family Law Act 1995 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996.

The social welfare budget package set aside approximately €148 million, or €194 million when the early child care supplement is included, to improve the range of supports provided for children. Budget 2008 provided increases of 6% or above in overall child income support through a combination of child benefit, qualified child increases, back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the early child care supplement. The impact of these measures is best illustrated by way of an example. Let us take the case of a social welfare-dependent family with three children, one of them under six years of age and another over 12 years of age. As a result of budget 2008, the combined value of child support payments to that family will increase by €718 in a full year, bringing their total child income support to over €12,000 next year. This equates to an income support payment of €77 per child per week and represents an increase of over 6% in the value of their current payments.

The policy direction followed by successive Governments in recent years included the dedication of substantial resources to the universal child benefit scheme. This represents part of an ongoing objective of reforming income support for children to reduce work disincentives by making child income support more neutral vis-À-vis the employment status of the parent. The policy focus was driven, in part, by the recognition that the loss of qualified child increases by social welfare recipients on taking up employment could act as a disincentive to taking up available work opportunities.

The introduction of the national minimum wage in 2000 together with improvements in the in-work FIS scheme in recent years, including the re-focusing of FIS income thresholds on larger families from January 2006, have further reduced the impact of the loss of qualified child increases, QCI, in the decision to take up full-time employment. In view of these changed circumstances, QCI rates were increased somewhat in 2007 and 2008, the first such increases since 1994.

The agreed programme for Government also contains a series of welfare reforms aimed at prioritising the interests of families and children. Under the terms of an earlier social partnership agreement, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, was asked to examine the feasibility of merging the family income supplement with qualified child increases with a view to creating a single second-tier child income support. Such a payment would be aimed specifically at targeting child poverty by channelling resources to low-income families without creating significant disincentives to employment. This commitment to examine such a change was embodied in subsequent social partnership agreements including the current Towards 2016.

The NESC has decided not to adopt a definitive position on the issue and has instead recently published a paper in its research series, setting down the complex policy and technical challenges that are involved. I expect the paper will helpfully inform further developments in this area. The importance of targeted income support to families and children continues to be a high priority for me and for this Government and recent changes have seen substantial improvements in this area.

Budget 2008 provided for payment of an additional €2 per week in the qualified child increase, formerly called the child dependent allowance, which is paid to all social welfare recipients with children. It also provided for increased weekly income thresholds for all FIS family sizes with additional resources being directed at larger families, as research has shown this is where poverty is more likely to exist. These improvements will benefit some 26,500 existing families and entitle a further 2,700 families to that payment.

These changes represent a more selective approach to child income support through targeting children in poorer households while at the same time limiting the extent to which employment disincentives are increased. Maintaining this balance will remain a priority in consideration of future policy changes in this area.

I am also pleased to continue the policy of increasing child benefit this year. This Bill provides for an increase of €6 in the lower monthly rate of child benefit and €8 in the higher rate, bringing the new monthly rates to €166 for each of the first two children and to €203 for the third and subsequent children. The increase in child benefit will be effective from April 2008 and will benefit more than 570,000 families in respect of approximately 1.1 million children.

The Bill, on behalf of the Minister of State with responsibility for children, also provides for an increase of €100 in the annual rate of early child care supplement bringing the annual rate to €1,100 and the quarterly rate to €275. This increase will apply from the first quarter of 2008 and will benefit some 420,000 to 430,000 children by the end of 2008.

The Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, recommended expansion of the availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents, an extension of the national employment action plan to focus on lone parents and the introduction of a new social assistance payment for low income families with young children.

Recognising the high levels of consistent poverty among lone parent families, the report also recommended that the upper income limit for the receipt of the new social assistance payment should be €400 per week. Budget 2007 realised this increase and I am happy to go further in this Bill by increasing the upper earnings limit for qualification for the one-parent family payment to €425.

The EU Survey of Income and Living Conditions statistics for 2006 suggest that we have still some way to go in alleviating the risk of poverty faced by many lone parents. I am still convinced that the long-term aim of the proposed new social assistance payment — to help people to achieve financial independence by supporting them into training and education and enabling them to enter the labour force — offers the best way out of poverty and social exclusion.

As I recently reported to the House, the development of any new scheme to support low income parents can only be introduced when the necessary co-ordinated supports and services are put in place on the ground by other Departments and agencies. This is why the non-income recommendations contained in the discussion paper are being tested currently in two areas: Coolock and Kilkenny. These tests are focused on identifying and resolving any practical and administrative issues that may arise in advance of the scheme being introduced. The tests are now scheduled to run until at least the end of February, with a report then being made to the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion. The tests will allow for operational and logistical co-ordination between the relevant Departments and agencies to be considered and will facilitate the development of the policy and operational details of the new social assistance scheme and accompanying supports.

As we all will be aware, carers play a critical and much valued role in ensuring that our older people and people with disabilities can remain in their own homes for as long as possible. Supporting and recognising carers in society has been a priority of the Government since 1997. I assure the House that we are committed to supporting care in the community to the maximum extent possible.

This commitment to carers has been reinforced in the national partnership agreement Towards 2016 and in the programme for Government which both include significant commitments in the area of caring. These include commitments to increase the level of the respite care grant, to keep the scope for further development of payments to carers under review and to ensure that those on average industrial earnings can continue to qualify for carer's allowance. The Bill provides for an increase in the respite care grant of €200, bringing the value of the grant to €1,700 for each care recipient. This measure will benefit over 48,000 carers in 2008. The increase in the respite care grant will take effect from June 2008.

The primary objective of the social welfare system is to provide income support. As a general rule only one weekly social welfare payment is payable to an individual. Persons qualifying for two social welfare payments receive the higher payment to which they are entitled. This had been a cause of particular concern to persons in receipt of a social welfare payment when they became carers. As Members will be aware, budget 2007 provided for a fundamental reform of the social welfare system for carers in this regard.

Under the new arrangements which came into effect in September 2007, a person in receipt of certain social welfare payments other than carer's allowance or benefit who is providing someone with full-time care and attention can now retain his or her main payment and receive another payment, depending on his or her means, the maximum of which is equivalent to a half-rate carer's allowance. These new arrangements apply to almost all weekly social welfare payments and to persons in receipt of qualified adult allowances. The beneficiaries of these new arrangements are persons currently in receipt of carer's allowance who may have an underlying eligibility for another social welfare payment such as contributory State pension and persons currently in receipt of other social welfare payments who are also providing full-time care and attention who may now qualify for an additional payment. To date, almost 7,000 additional carers have benefited from these new arrangements.

One of this Government's key commitments is to the development of a national carer's strategy. This strategy will focus on supporting informal and family carers in the community. While social welfare supports for carers will clearly be a key issue in the strategy, other issues such as access to respite and other services, education, training and employment will also feature strongly.

Co-operation between relevant Departments and agencies is essential if the provision of services, supports and entitlements for carers is to be addressed fully. For that reason all relevant Departments and agencies are involved in the strategy and there will be appropriate consultation with the social partners.

An interdepartmental working group has been established to draw up the strategy. The group is chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach with the secretariat provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It includes officials from the Departments of Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and Health and Children, as well as the HSE and FÁS. The expertise of other Departments and agencies will be called on as required. It is expected the strategy will be completed by mid-year.

The recent improvements in the income supports available from the Department together with the improvements in home care and related services provided by the Minister for Health and Children in recent budgets, represent a further realisation of our vision of a co-ordinated approach to services and supports for carers in the community. The development of a national carer's strategy provides us with an opportunity to build further on these improvements and to consider other areas where progress can be made.

The transfer of the administration of blind welfare allowance and domiciliary care allowance to the Department of Social and Family Affairs will enable both the Health Service Executive and the Department to achieve a number of benefits. From the HSE's point of view the transfer will allow it to concentrate on its core health functions and in particular on other aspects of its reform programme. From the Department's point of view, the transfer will provide opportunities for enhanced customer service and more effective and co-ordinated administration of income support payments.

The legislation provides a framework for eligibility for these payments. It provides a set of clear and detailed guidelines which will apply to the administration of domiciliary care allowance and blind welfare allowance. Accordingly, mainstream income support eligibility and assessment criteria will be applied. Most recipients of domiciliary care allowance and blind welfare allowance are also in receipt of child benefit or another social welfare payment and are therefore already customers of the Department. The transfer will make it easier for the Department to increase awareness of its services and to give information on access and entitlements to all its payments. It will in effect mean that a person's income needs will be dealt with in one Department.

It has been decided that both payments will transfer in the first instance on an "as is" basis. The rationale is to ensure that the transfer of both payments runs as smoothly as possible and without any disruption in service to recipients of these payments. This approach will also ensure that any necessary linkages between the income support and health systems are preserved. The transfer will be achieved through appropriate adjustments being made in manpower levels in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the health sector. This will be done on an Exchequer and staff numbers neutral basis.

The legislation proposes to remove the existing means test for domiciliary care allowance that is applied solely to the income of the child. I did not feel that it was appropriate to include this part of the existing scheme in the proposed legislation and on transfer of domiciliary care allowance this means test would no longer be applied. The transfer of these payments within mainstream income support legislation is an appropriate development and one which will provide a more streamlined, consistent, and efficient customer-oriented service to recipients of both domiciliary care allowance and blind welfare allowance.

The House will be aware that the Green Paper on pensions was launched in October 2007, following an intensive review of the pension system by several Departments and the Pensions Board. Publication of the Green Paper was a Towards 2016 commitment and the document comprehensively addresses issues relating to social welfare and supplementary pensions in Ireland. The Green Paper does not recommend any particular course of action but rather sets out the challenges facing our pension system now and in the future. It clearly sets out the current situation and the implications, from an economic and social perspective, of various courses of action which have been suggested.

Views are being sought on the issues raised in the Green Paper through a consultation process which is under way since its publication. This process is being facilitated through the website, www.pensionsgreenpaper.ie. The website allows people to make a submission and gives them the opportunity to express their views on the important issues raised in the Green Paper. It also provides information on the Green Paper and on upcoming events relevant to the consultation process. Some 47 submissions have been made through the website to date.

Interested parties can also make submissions directly to the Department. I invite all Deputies to use this consultation process as an opportunity to express their views on this important issue and would welcome their input. In addition, the Department has organised a number of regional seminars which will take place in Dublin, Waterford, Cork, Tullamore and Sligo during the last week in February and the first week of March. These seminars will be followed by a major conference in Dublin in May. The consultation process will provide important and valued input to the process of developing a framework for comprehensively addressing the pensions agenda over the longer term. The Government plans to develop this framework by the end of 2008.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill, which includes new measures, amends the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, the Pensions Act 1990, and a small number of other Acts. Sections 1 and 2 provide for the Short Title, construction, collective citation and commencement provisions of the Bill and contain definitions of certain terms as they apply throughout the Bill.

Section 3 provides for an increase of €6 in the lower monthly rate of child benefit and €8 in the higher rate, bringing them respectively to €166 and €203 per month. The increase in child benefit will be effective from April 2008. Families who receive the monthly payment via their bank accounts will receive the budget increase from April 2008, while those who receive payment via personalised payable order books encashable at post offices will be paid, as has been the case in previous years, in the first week in May 2008, backdated to April 2008.

Section 4 provides for an increase of €100 in the annual rate of early child care supplement, bringing the annual rate to €1,100 and the quarterly rate to €275. The increases will apply from the first quarter of 2008.

Section 5 provides for the implementation of Council Regulation 259/68 to allow an official employed in an EC institution to transfer the actuarial value of their pension rights from the social insurance fund into the pension scheme of the European Communities Institution, PSEC, and for the transfer of the actuarial value of their pension from the PSEC to the national system. Currently a person employed by a European Commission institution is not covered by the protection that normally applies to EU citizens under EU Regulation 1408/71 which ensures that other member states take account of PRSI contributions paid in Ireland. This section makes provision to enable the transfer of any such contributions from the social insurance fund to the PSEC. It also provides for the transfer of contributions from the PSEC to the social insurance fund.

Section 6 provides that a person transferring back to illness benefit from invalidity pension will be entitled to a full personal rate of illness benefit where he or she has the required number of contributions in the relevant tax year. Section 7 provides that a person moving from disability allowance to State pension, non-contributory, at age 66 will not receive a lower rate of payment due to a less favourable capital disregard on the State pension, non-contributory, scheme.

Section 8 raises the earnings limit for receipt of one-parent family payment to €425, as announced in budget 2008. It also makes provision for the income to be assessed in a manner to be prescribed by regulations. The regulations will provide for the disregard of social insurance contributions, health contributions, superannuation contributions and trade union subscriptions for the purposes of assessment of earnings for one-parent family payment. Section 9 increases the respite care grant to €1,700 as announced in budget 2008. The increase will apply from 5 June 2008.

Section 10 provides for the deletion of the outdated term "penal servitude". It also provides that a person shall not be considered to be detained in legal custody for the purposes of entitlement to disability allowance when he or she is detained for treatment under an admission order or renewal order made under the Mental Health Act 2001, or an order made under section 38 of the Health Act 1947, or an order made under section 4 or section 5 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, or an order made under section 17 of the Lunacy (Ireland) Act 1821, or an order made under section 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, and that these provisions which are beneficial to the individuals affected will be deemed to have come into effect on 1 June 2005.

Section 11 provides that the term "a homemaker" may include a person who is resident in the State or who is, or is the spouse of, a member of the Defence Forces or a civil servant in the Civil Service of the Government or the State, is in the service outside the State, of the Government, the State or an international organisation, or is a volunteer development worker. The section also provides that a deciding officer may decide the question as to whether a person is to be deemed a homemaker at any time.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 set out the conditions for entitlement to blind welfare allowance, the rates of payment, the provisions for the calculation of means, the consequential amendments and the transitional provisions to allow for the transfer of the administration of the scheme from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, with effect from early 2009.

Sections 15, 16 and 17 set out the conditions for eligibility for receipt of domiciliary care allowance, the rates of payment, the consequential amendments and the transitional provisions to allow for the transfer of the administration of the payment of an allowance for the domiciliary care of children from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, with effect from early 2009.

Section 18 clarifies the provisions on appeals of supplementary welfare allowance and inserts amended provisions on the administration of supplementary welfare allowance, including the transitional provisions for the continuation of payments under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme as determined by the Health Service Executive on the transfer of the operation of the scheme to the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

Section 19 clarifies the late claims provisions with regard to respite care grant. Section 20 clarifies the provisions concerning the making of regulations relating to payment to persons other than the claimant or beneficiary. Section 21 corrects an omission from the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007. Section 22 amends section 343 of the principal Act by removing the provision that a decision on any question relevant to criminal proceedings shall be conclusive for the purposes of such proceedings and replacing it with the fact that any such decision shall be admissible as evidence in such proceedings. Section 23 provides for a technical amendment to correct the text inserted by the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007.

Section 24 provides for the disregard, for the purposes of rent and mortgage interest supplement of any amount of carer's benefit in excess of the basic rate of supplementary welfare allowance, in line with current arrangements for carer's allowance. It also provides for changes in the rules for the calculation of the income disregard. The legislation is being amended to clearly state that the disregard applies to all income and to clarify that additional income includes earnings, family income supplement and all maintenance. Section 25 provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007.

The amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 mainly arise from the recommendations of the report of the Pensions Board to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on trusteeship. The report was published in November 2006. The recommendations in this report are aimed at enhancing both the governance of occupational pension schemes and the protection of the pension rights of scheme members. These changes will facilitate the implementation of recommendations in this report.

Section 26 provides for the definition of principal Act for the purposes of Part 3. Section 27 proposes to bring registered third party administrators of pension schemes under the remit of the Pensions Act. Third party administrators are currently unregulated in terms of scheme administration work carried out on behalf of the trustees of pension schemes. The Pensions Act is being amended to bring such third party administrators within the remit of the Act regarding certain core functions they perform on behalf of trustees. Pension scheme administrators will now be required to register with the Pensions Board before they can carry out these core functions and the Pensions Board will have responsibility to audit administration service standards and to remove registration or apply sanctions if required standards are not met.

Section 28 provides for enhancements to the existing provisions in relation to the training of trustees of pension schemes as recommended in the report of the Pensions Board on trusteeship. While trustees are required, at the moment, to disclose in their annual report whether they have access to trustee training, continuous and quality training is not compulsory and research has indicated that ongoing quality training is not the norm. The proposed amendments will put an obligation on employers to arrange trustee training for each individual trustee within six months of their appointment and at least every two years thereafter and will put an obligation on trustees to undertake this training. Section 29 and Schedule 2 provide for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 which are mainly technical in nature.

The Bill provides for a small number of amendments to other Acts as follows. Sections 30 and 31 of the Bill provide for consequential amendments to the Family Law Act 1995 and the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 to mirror the amendments made above to the Pensions Act 1990 on the definition of "defined contribution scheme". I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to a constructive debate.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill and related matters. The 2008 budget was the Government's opportunity to show it was serious about tackling poverty and disadvantage, however, other than tinkering with the figures, the larger issues remain ignored.

While Fine Gael welcomes the increase in child income supports we have serious concerns about the real impact these changes will have on tackling child poverty and delivering to those who are most in need. In 2006, according to the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC, which the Minister quoted, 11% of children under 14 were living in consistent poverty and 20% were at risk of poverty, effectively children living in families whose income was below 60% of median income. Compared to this the budget 2008 provision for child income support is minimal, with less than a €6 per week increase for school-going children under six and less than €4 for children in secondary school.

Parents with children under the age of six will see the qualified child allowance increase by €2 per week, child benefit by €1.39 per week, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance by 39 cent per week and the early child care supplement by €1.92 per week. In total, child income supports for children under six years of age have increased by €5.69 per week. Parents with secondary school children will also see the qualified child allowance increase by €2 per week, child benefit by €1.39 per week and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance by 39 cent per week bringing an increase of €3.77 per week.

Under this Government one in nine children live in consistent poverty, poor as part of a family, and if we are to tackle child poverty we need to support families. The Minister will accept that child poverty is not a catchphrase or buzzword but a harsh reality for many Irish children. It is about children going to bed hungry, malnourished and cold, without a change of shoes or a winter coat. An increase of €5.69 and €3.77 respectively will do little to assist the poorest children in our society and will do nothing to end the scandal of child poverty.

This is all the more disappointing considering the Government made a commitment to reduce the number of children in consistent poverty to below 2%, and to eliminate child poverty by 2007. Deputy Cullen will probably tell us the timescale was too optimistic, which is a nice way of telling us it meant little in the first place. It is yet another commitment that was not fulfilled.

I welcome the increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance of €20 per child, however real reform of this payment is needed. Why must this payment remain a stand-alone payment requiring a separate application process? Has the Minister examined linking it to other payments such as the qualified child allowance and making it an automatic payment? There is also considerable merit in making the payment in two or three stages to help families budget better. Any parent will tell you the cost of sending a child to school does not begin and end in September.

Budget 2008 saw no increase in direct provision, the weekly payments for asylum-seekers and their children. The children of those living in direct provision are expected to survive on €9.60 per week. The Minister and I, and our colleagues, have debated this issue on many occasions. I welcome the Minister's call for constructive debate on the Bill so we will probably have more debate on the point. He is due before the committee next week. Despite his stubborn approach to this issue and the fact he and his Department are hiding behind the Attorney General's advice, I still hope he will look at this issue from a compassionate viewpoint and realise the policy his Department is pursuing is exclusionary, deeply unfair and discriminatory.

Existing policy excludes the children of those living in direct provision from receipt of child benefit. Not only is this policy unfair to children, I still maintain, despite the comments of his officials at committee last week, that it contravenes the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and is contrary to the State's policies for the reduction of child poverty. I am still awaiting a note from the Department on the Attorney General's advice. I do not know whether Deputy Shortall has received it. The Minister is probably aware that we were refused access to the Attorney General's advice, which is par for the course, so I am not sure what will be in the note. I ask the Minister to make as much information as possible available to us so we can see the thinking behind this rule.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I outlined that in some detail in one of the debates.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister outlined it, but last week we went through it in detail in committee and the officials said there was more information but they could not give us the full advice they had received from the Attorney General. Deputy Shortall requested a report and we were to receive that.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputies got the officials to agree to that. Fair play to them.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will wait and see what is in the report before we get too excited about it.

In 1992, Ireland ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, under which the State agreed to protect the rights of all children "within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind" including any prejudice based on their parents' status. Article 3 expressly states that in "all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration". The right of every child to "benefit from social security" is provided for under Article 26. On direct provision, chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, Mr. Robin Hannan recently said, "The effect is not only pushing people into poverty and isolation, but it has also been extremely dehumanising and has caused a lot of stress and, in many cases, depression." Approximately 3,000 children in receipt of direct provision are being deprived of basic necessities such as clothing, school books and medicine because their parents cannot afford to buy them. I am disappointed that budget 2008 did not provide the opportunity for Ireland to increase direct provision to a reasonable and acceptable level and to live up to its commitment in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The most recent poverty figures show that a one parent family with one child will be "at risk of poverty" in 2007 if its income is below €282.51 per week. Before budget 2008, a family of this size relying on social welfare would have a total weekly income of €258.22. This includes the following allowances, which I have calculated for this purpose on a weekly basis: the one-parent family payment of €185.80, the qualified child allowance of €22, child benefit of €36.92, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance of €3.46 and the fuel allowance of €10.04. This is still more than €27 below the income level that puts them at risk of poverty. It is for this reason that almost one third, or 32.5%, of one-parent families were in consistent poverty in 2006. In 2008 the increase in social welfare payments to one-parent families with one child under the age of six amounts to €18.04. When adjusted for inflation, the minimum required to maintain the true value of social welfare payments was €13.60. Therefore, in real terms, the increase for such families is less than €4.50. For families with children over six years of age, the total increase amounts to €16.12. Again, to maintain the value of this payment when considering inflation, such families would have required at least €12.65 and are therefore better off by less than €3.50.

I ask the Minister to outline to the House at the conclusion of this debate tomorrow what exactly is contained in his proposed overhaul of the lone parent's allowance. He gave only a little detail in his speech today. We are now being asked to approve the increases I have mentioned and we will because effectively none of us wants to delay them for families. However, it would be better if, in doing this, we were aware of what the Minister intends to do, in totality, in this area. I believe his proposals involve assigning individual lone parents with a trained welfare officer from his Department to help them access supports for training, education and employment. The Minister was quoted as saying in early January: "The best way to deal with this is to deal with lone parents on a case-by-case basis, to examine their individual needs, whether that is child care, issues to do with literacy or education, before getting them into different schemes or part-time work." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Minister's sentiments in that regard but I have grave concerns about the ability to follow through on this.

While I appreciate the Minister has said that the conclusions of the Coolock and Kilkenny experiences will not be available until February, with a report subsequently, I ask him to make that report available for public discussion and to Members of this House. In that way, we will be able to determine how the experiences in Kilkenny and Coolock are informing the Minister's thinking in this area. Assuming that the proposals will be carried out on a national basis, who will be trained to carry out the work? Will it be people already working in the Department or new people and who will provide training for them? Often when people go before an official, for example, a community welfare officer, certain prejudices prevail, sometimes on both sides. It is important that if there is to be real interaction between people and if lone parents are to feel comfortable dealing with these officials and be put on the right path, then proper training must be provided for those who will facilitate this process. In that regard, how many facilitators will be required? The Minister appears to be amused by my last point, but it was a genuine one. How many facilitators will be required to carry out this work across the country?

It has been reported that officials in the Department are alarmed at the cost of the lone parents allowance. In that context, I am concerned about the angle from which the Minister is approaching this issue. Reforms must be put in place that assist people rather than put further obstacles in their way. It is also vital that we have a much more co-ordinated Government response, as the current system where each Department effectively goes on its own merry way, attempting to address problems in isolation, often only creates further problems. I welcome the fact that there is a degree of inter-agency involvement on this issue.

The Government published a strategy on one-parent families approximately two years ago. However, little change has taken place to date, except for the two pilot projects I mentioned earlier. Who is involved in the implementation group within the Department for these proposals, how often do they meet and, crucially, what cross-departmental communication is taking place? What role, for example, has the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brendan Smith? Has the Minister for Social and Family Affairs examined the potential impact on lone parents of the Minister of State, Deputy Smith's proposals relating to the community child care crèche area?

Under those proposals, which admittedly have been temporarily postponed, lone parents who make the transition, proposed by the Department of Social and Family affairs, from welfare to work will immediately have to pay €30 more for a place in a community child care crèche by virtue of the fact that they will be moving to the family income supplement, FIS, from the lone parents allowance. They will also have to wait a considerable period of time for their FIS application to be processed, but will not receive the payment they received prior to making that application. Such people will also receive less in terms of their rent supplement. The bureaucracy involved in that process will not make the transition very appealing for lone parents. It will be quite daunting a road to ask them to go down.

While I agree that we cannot simply stay as we are, I am concerned that in the context of this legislation, we are talking about making changes in the dark. People involved in the sector are unsure as to where the Minister is going with his proposals. He said today, and I welcome the clarification, that the National Economic and Social Council has decided not to adopt a definitive position on the flexibility of merging payments. While the NESC might have the luxury of adopting such a position, the same luxury will not be afforded to the Minister. We must adopt positions in this regard. I appreciate the complexity of making changes in social welfare payments and the often unanticipated knock-on effects they can have on other payments. That is why we must see the detail of the Minister's proposals at an early stage so we can discuss them, examine their potential impact and poverty proof them prior to the budget. The Minister has commented to the effect that he would like to see some of these changes introduced in the next budget but we must have a genuine debate on the proposals long before budget day.

Despite the fact that the Government has stated that it wants more lone parents to go back to work, the budget was clearly not welfare-to-work proofed. For example, part-time workers stand to lose €2.40 from their FIS payment. Part-time workers are entitled to claim a reduced level of one-parent family payment as their earned incomes are so low. They will benefit from the increase in this payment, but because the increase in the FIS threshold was lower than the increase in basic social welfare payments, this is clawed back in the FIS means test, with the effect that their FIS payment will be lower than in 2008. In addition, lone parents working part time are also not entitled to claim the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. Therefore, working lone parents will not benefit from the minimal €20 increase in this payment. Working lone parents are often restricted to part-time work because of the high cost of child care and the lack of availability in many areas. However, lone parents who are working part time will gain even less from budget 2008 than one-parent families that are totally reliant on social welfare. For example, a lone parent with a child under six years of age will gain a total of €18.04 from budget 2008, a part-time worker on the national minimum wage will only gain €14.91.

Under the provisions of budget 2008, the early child care supplement is to increase by €100, bringing it to €1,100 per annum, which I welcome. This payment was originally introduced to help parents to meet the costs of child care in Ireland. However, because it was linked to child benefit, it became available to people whose children are resident outside the country. At the time of its introduction, the Government was unaware of the implications of the payment being linked to child benefit. There has been considerable Cabinet confusion on the costs of the scheme for children who are not resident in Ireland. I appreciate this occurred prior to the Minister's appointment, although he was in the Cabinet at the time. In January 2006, the Taoiseach, during Leader's Questions, said the cost would be €1 million. Ten days later the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Seamus Brennan, said a cost of €2.7 million would be accrued by the end of that year. On April 26, the then Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said the cost would be €10.8 million by the end of the year. However, on May 22, the Minister, Deputy Brennan, said the cost could be up to €4 million and on May 23, the Taoiseach said it would be €9.5 million.

The current Minister is probably confused now and so were many others at the time. According to the 2007 Estimates, the total cost of the payment for that year, linked with child benefit, was expected to be €406 million. However, in October, the Office of the Minister for Children called for an additional €19 million because it did not anticipate the strong upward trend in population growth for children under the age of six.

Given that the supplement was introduced as a child care cost measure designed to meet the costs of caring for children in Ireland, a special provision could have been introduced to ring-fence the money for the cost of child care in Ireland, but this never happened. Fine Gael has no difficulty whatsoever with the payment being made to all children under the age of six, of whatever nationality, who are resident in this country and whose parents have to cope with the costs of child care here. We believe that the capital offered through the early child care supplement should be ring-fenced to assist parents in meeting the costs of child care here. How much of the €406 million and €19 million is for children who are not resident in Ireland and need not cope with the costs associated with child care here? In the Minister's conclusion or on Committee Stage, will he outline for the House what checks are in place to ensure all claims are legal and valid?

We are all aware that, every week, 3.5 million hours are worked by 150,000 family carers, yet fewer than one in six of these qualify for the carer's allowance. The Carers Association estimates that the work of Ireland's family carers saves the State more than €2.1 billion per annum, but the carer's allowance has only increased by €14. I welcome the increase in the respite care grant and the changes in respect of the half-rate carer's allowance. Most accept that carers provide a service that the State would otherwise need to provide. Fine Gael believes carers should have their means assessed individually. To reflect the fact that it is the carer and not the carer's partner who provides the care, Fine Gael believes the carer's partner's income should be excluded from the means test.

Many carers find it difficult to take up part-time employment, as the rules on working and receiving the carer's allowance are restrictive. Budget 2008 allowed an opportunity for the Government to ease this restriction by raising the working hours limit to 20 hours per week to enable more carers to take up part-time employment. This should be the case where the workplace is close to the residence of the care recipient, the employer confirms that the carer would be permitted to leave the workplace without penalty to assist the care recipient in an emergency and arrangements ensuring the needs of the care recipient are met while the carer is at work are in place.

There are 3,000 carers in Ireland aged between 15 and 17 years of age, yet they receive no formal supports to assist them in their caring roles. We have debated this issue previously. Some 7% of these carers provide 43 hours or more of care per week and 81% provide between one and 14 hours of care per week. They undertake a socially vital role at a young age, but this is not recognised by our Government. It is time the Government did something to recognise this group.

In the social partnership agreement Towards 2016, the Government promised to develop a national carers' strategy that would focus on supporting informal and family carers in the community by the end of 2007. Prior to Christmas, the Minister admitted to the House that this was one of those optimistic timescales. Consultations have begun, in respect of which I appreciate the Minister outlined some details, but will he outline to the House the terms of reference for those discussions? The Minister mentioned some of the Departments involved in cross-departmental consultation, but I noticed the Department of Education and Science is not involved. I ask that it be consulted in respect of young carers because some of their education can be affected by the care they give. It would be important to get the Department's opinions in this regard.

It is crucial that the Government enters these consultations with an open mind and that all issues can be placed on the table for discussion. Will the Minister make a public commitment that nothing will be off the table before the process begins? It is of particular importance that the Carers Association, in addition to making a formal written submission, can sit down with the working group to discuss and tease out the issues. As part of this process, we need to ensure that comprehensive services and supports are provided for carers, their health and well-being is enhanced and supported, there is an adequate and fair system of remuneration of carers, better education and training opportunities, work-life balance policies that support carers and access to up-to-date and accurate information.

Regarding the legislation's general provisions and technical amendments, what is the real purpose of section 6, which provides that a person transferring to illness benefit from invalidity pension will be entitled to a full personal rate of illness benefit where he or she has the required number of contributions in the relevant tax year? Is it to protect persons who become disqualified from receiving invalidity pension or is it to ensure that persons so disqualified cannot easily begin claiming sickness benefit? If the latter, would the Minister agree the explanatory memorandum does not create this impression? I will support sensible control measures but not concealed efforts at achieving control in savings. In my experience and for obvious reasons, people are unlikely to revert willingly to illness benefit from invalidity pension. Has the Minister concerns about illegitimate claims in this regard? If so, what are they and is it a problem that needs to be addressed in greater detail?

Sections 7 and 8 have provisions relating to means tests. A root-and-branch overhaul of the application of means tests, rather than the traditional piecemeal approach that seems to avoid stating clearly the underlying principles and objectives, is necessary. For example, does section 7 carry the implication that elderly recipients who do not transfer from the disability allowance will be treated less favourably than those who were receiving the allowance? If this is the case, is there no premium for the people who delayed seeking State assistance until they became 66 years of age? They appear instead to be penalised. Likewise in respect of the blind welfare allowance, which is payable subject to a means test to persons receiving blind pension and certain other benefits. It is not evident why the core blind pension is not simply increased and it is difficult to avoid the opinion that this fragmented approach operates to deter eligible persons claiming. Given the welcome integration of the allowance under direct departmental management, would the Minister agree to consider options for merging the blind pension and the blind welfare allowance to ensure that such persons are not required to make two applications?

Will the Minister request his officials to prepare a report on the pros and cons of integrating the domiciliary care allowance seamlessly with existing benefits and allowances to reduce administrative overheads and ensure that vulnerable claimants are not deterred from claiming their full entitlements? I intend to table an amendment on this matter on Committee Stage.

Section 5 provides for the implementation of Council Regulation 259/68 to allow officials employed in EC institutions to transfer the actuarial value of their pension rights from the social insurance fund into the pension scheme of the EC institutions, PSEC, and for the transfer of the actuarial value of their pensions from the PSEC to the national system. Currently, a person employed by European Commission institutions is not covered by the protection normally applied to EU citizens under EU Regulation 1. Could the Minster explain why this provision is being prioritised in the legislation? It may be the case that these people comprise the only group to be excluded, but such is unclear in the wording. While I am open to correction following the Minister's comments, this provision indicates the prioritisation of Ministers and civil servants who progress to the EU over and above those who do not work for EU institutions.

The arrangement for calculating the amounts to be taken from the social insurance fund, which is supposed to represent a concept of solidarity with less fortunate workers, should not be left to secondary legislation. It is important that the House sees the proposed mechanism to be applied to amounts transferred from the social insurance fund to the pension scheme of the EC and back again. Will the Minister agree to allow the House to scrutinise regulations prior to their adoption, allowing the Oireachtas to annul or modify the regulations in question so we have an opportunity to ensure solidarity concepts underpinning the SIF are not compromised? Will the Minster explain to the House what steps are being taken to prioritise and encourage greater mobility of pensions and pension entitlements within the EU for people who do not work in EC institutions?

Section 28 provides for amendments to the Pensions Act in respect of trustee training as a result of the Report of the Pensions Board to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on Trusteeship. Under the Pensions Act 1990, trustees have the main responsibility for the administration of occupational pension schemes and compliance with the requirements applicable to these schemes. According to the Irish Pensions Board, the central role of trustees is to ensure that occupational pension schemes are properly administered, scheme members' pension rights are fully safeguarded and they and their dependants receive their pensions.

The provision in this Bill places a requirement on employers to arrange trustee training for each trustee within six months of his or her appointment and at least every two years thereafter. I accept that trustee training is beneficial, as it assists trustees to develop the skill set required to perform their duties and functions effectively. Ongoing training ensures that trustees are kept up-to-date with regulatory developments and changes in the pensions landscape. Fine Gael supports this initiative, which will have a positive impact on the governance of pension schemes as well as consequential benefits for pension scheme members. It is vital that trustees possess the appropriate qualifications and experience to assess and advise on investment options and execute the investment decisions in respect of the scheme's resources.

Will the Minister advise the House on how initial and ongoing training will be administered? How much will it cost to introduce this training and will it be done by electronic means? When will employers be expected to comply with trustee training? Will trustees be tested on their training? Anyone can do a course but the issue is what one gets from it. Does the Minister foresee us moving towards a situation where all trustees will be certified?

Overall, particularly regarding the pensions provisions of this Bill, a great number of technical amendments are proposed that leave us with a very clear impression that the approach to drafting social welfare legislation has become haphazard. Apart from the fact that much of this House's time is diverted to debating how best to correct errors and oversights, the constant process of correction makes social welfare legislation more difficult to interpret. If the process cannot be made more accurate and less in need of constant patching, perhaps in future these technical amendments should be in separate Bills so we are not threatened with being blamed for delaying increases in payments when we try to get into the real issues behind these rafts of technical amendments. If we must do the work of the people supposed to draft robust legislation, we should be allowed a little more time to probe the issues. The officials have months and years, we get hours and days and because of this we cannot easily identify why so many technical amendments are needed year in, year out. There is a systemic problem and we need to get an understanding of it or standards will keep falling and this House will be kept busy merely rubber-stamping provisions that really need careful examination; the evidence of this need is in this legislation.

These extensive groups of amendments need not be put into a Bill dealing with urgent matters, such as increases in the rates of payment. The changes to the pensions Acts are nearly 18 years overdue, therefore the expectation that they can now be rushed through the Dail needs some explanation. For example, what is the urgency in deleting the provision for on the spot fines on pension scheme administrators? Put another way, this is an example of poor legislation being rushed through and having to be fixed later. If we removed from all the legislation coming before this House the provisions that aim to fix earlier poor legislation the already poor legislative record of this Government would look even worse. The thickness, rather than the quality, of legislation seems to be regarded as important and this is not a road we should go down.

I welcome the fact the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill was fixed, albeit belatedly, but why is the Minister so concerned with dealing with the pensions of a few people working within EU institutions when he has ignored the plight of those, mainly women, who have multiple small pension investments, often due to their efforts at juggling family responsibilities and the need to work to supplement family income? In these cases the different pension schemes impose all kinds of penalties when these women retire and raise impediments to the aggregation of their entitlements to minimise administration costs. This issue must be examined.

Recent media reports have exposed the ongoing problem of international cross-border fraud and the scamming of the social welfare system on a significant scale. The Minister will remember when I raised this with him in December with regard to a group of EU nationals that was understood to have been flying to and from Ireland on a monthly basis to collect unemployment benefit. More recently, a document drawn up by the Garda National Immigration Bureau illustrated cases wherein bogus asylum seekers claimed benefits of over €2,000 per month, while simultaneously claiming benefits in the United Kingdom, and then returned to their home countries where, in some cases, the individuals involved conducted personal businesses. It is time to put an end to social welfare fraud, whether national or international, so payments are dedicated to those who genuinely need them. What further steps does the Minister intend to take to combat international cross-border welfare fraud? Does he intend to assign additional social welfare inspectors to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to assist in the investigation of social welfare fraud and breaches of the immigration Acts? What consultation has he had with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this regard?

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this Bill and its provisions, which will not be opposed by the Labour Party. However, the Bill is more remarkable for its omissions than its provisions. The three major areas in social welfare relate to pensions, lone parents and carers and, with these in mind, I feel this Bill represents a missed opportunity because no attempt has been made to seek progress on these big ticket issues. Progress could have been made in the areas on which there is agreement at the moment but the opportunity this Bill presented to address such matters was not taken. Instead the Minister has taken the big bang approach, which is fine if he is prepared to stick to timescales and so on but already there has been a fair amount of slippage in these areas. Meanwhile people are living in unfair situations regarding social welfare. This Bill could have seen progress made in the three areas I mentioned and it is unfortunate this is to be delayed, yet again.

It has already been mentioned that considerable slippage has occurred regarding the carers' strategy and this Bill could have addressed many of the deficiencies in the current support system for carers, particularly those working long hours, both outside and inside the home. The Bill has failed in this regard and carers seeking support from the State for their important work must await the big strategy. I urge the Minister not to lose any more time in this regard and set out a clear timescale for the production of the strategy and implementation of its recommendations.

This Bill could have addressed many of the anomalies that relate to pension entitlements, particularly for women and retired people with integrated pensions. Again, these people must wait yet another year for assistance with the predicaments in which they find themselves. Progress could have been made in this regard.

I have welcomed the process the Minister has set out regarding the Green Paper on pension provision but, again, I urge him to give a clear timescale in this respect. I ask him to confirm for us that it is his intention to have the pension changes agreed and provided for in the budget at the end of this year. It is important that we do this because many outstanding pension issues urgently need to be addressed. Retired people cannot afford to wait any longer for these improvements and I would welcome the Minister's assurance in this matter.

I am disappointed that no steps have been taken to improve the situation facing lone parents. It is almost two years since proposals supporting lone parents were first announced yet many people are living in situations that are anomalous with regard to those proposals. Problems in this area have been identified for some time and one of the principal issues relates to cohabitation. The Minister previously indicated his support for reform in this area but families are now in situations that are intolerable with regard to official policy. This Bill could have tackled the issue of cohabitation and the rules relating to it. I ask the Minister to give an indication of the timescale relating to this major issue. Will drastic and necessary reform in this area be introduced by the middle of this year?

I wish to speak on the matter of welfare to work and I am not sure there is a will to tackle it, though references have been made to it in replies to oral questions. I have yet to see a strong commitment to put in place a robust system that would enable large numbers of people to move from welfare to work. This Bill does nothing in this regard. Every Deputy can relate umpteen cases of constituents who are better off remaining on welfare than taking a job. After a decade of unparalleled opportunity for reform it is unacceptable that this should still persist. Successive Governments led by the Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, were so obsessed with money that they completely neglected many critical social services that could assist people in making the important transfer from welfare to work. I will cite two cases which came to my attention in recent months and which illustrate very well the points I am making. The first case relates to a constituent of mine and the second to a constituent of Deputy Stagg's. They highlight two problems, one of which is the incredible plight of people who literally cannot afford to go out to work. This situation should have been ended as it is utterly indefensible. Those anomalies should have been addressed by now. The second case to which I refer illustrates the way the current system divides families because of the way in which cohabiting couples are treated.

I refer to the first case involving a constituent of mine. She stated in a letter to me:

I am a mother of 3, currently receiving lone parents.

Before my breakup, I was a full time employee, working at the highest level of my experience. For the last 3 years, due to my circumstances, I have been unable to work.

My youngest child is starting school this September so I decided to take the opportunity to try to get back into the workforce. The only entitlements that I have been receiving are my one parent family, rental income supplement and have received medical cards for myself and my children. I receive maintenance from my ex partner, which is declared and my entitlements have been means tested and the necessary deductions made.

I recently was successful in receiving a CE Scheme through FÁS to work locally. I took up this employment towards the end of June this year. Naturally I am earning a wage, but I took up the employment with the understanding from FÁS that CE Schemes were structured as a path to reintroduce people back to the work force, while enabling them to keep any entitlements they were receiving.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

My one parent family has now been reduced by €92.50 per week, and my rental income supplement has been slashed and they are now only providing me with €276.00 a month towards my rent (my rent is €1,200.00 per month — before I took up employment they paid €837.00 per month towards my rent).

As it stands, when I add up all the deductions, and factoring in that I now have to pay for childcare while I work, I would actually be €84.05 per week better off if I wasn't working!!

This is an intolerable situation. The Minister can pay all the lip service he likes to the desire to ensure that people can move from welfare to work but every Member of this House continues to hear of real-life cases like this. When people do the sums they discover they are far worse off by going out to work than by staying at home. It is clear there is no incentive. The Minister and the Department needs to ensure such situations no longer continue to obtain.

The second case is from real life and illustrates some of the inherent problems with the way in which the social welfare system works. This is an e-mail received by Deputy Stagg:

I am an unmarried mother of one. I am currently living with my partner who is a stay at home father. I wish to query the governments treatment of unmarried parents in this day and age.

My boyfriend applied for social welfare payment a few years ago before our daughter was born. He was told that due to the fact that he did not have enough contributions the welfare payment he was entitled to would be calculated on a means basis. He provided all relevant details to the official. He was told that because he was living with me and I was working, my income would have to be taken into account when assessing his means. At the end of this process he was told that he was entitled to a measly €20 a week. It is shocking that anyone would be expected to live on this amount.

Under the taxation rules I am not entitled to use any of his tax credits as we are not married. In addition to this I am not entitled to claim single parent credits as we are living together. I feel that it is very unfair that we are treated effectively like a married couple for social welfare purposes and as single people for taxation purposes but not single when it comes to claiming single parent credit.

If we did not live together he would be entitled to a far greater social welfare amount and be able to claim the single parent welfare payment and I would be legally entitled to the single parent tax credit. Is the current government trying to encourage unmarried parents to live in separate houses? This is what it appears to be. Surely it is to the best advantage of all society that the parents of these kids live together and raise their child together.

It is very difficult to argue with any of the points made in either of those letters. All the points stand up. It is indefensible to have a welfare system that penalises lone parents who decide to go out to work and penalises cohabiting couples for living together and rearing their children. The incentives seem to be there, both in terms of welfare and taxation, for such parents to live apart. In my view this is bad public policy. It is bad for families and for children. The Government's welfare and tax systems should not encourage this. It is long past time that those significant anomalies were dealt with.

We all know of such cases and we all feel helpless when they arise. If Members are aware of dozens of them, the Department has hundreds, if not thousands of them. If that is the case, why has so little happened to correct the problem? Either it is a question of the absence of political will or of internal procedures to focus the attention of senior officials and Ministers on eradicating the problem.

In 1993 and 1994 I was a member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs which commissioned a study carried out by Colm Rapple. This showed very clearly that couples who chose either to live together or get married stood to lose approximately 30% of their income if they did so. The report received a lot of publicity at the time and this finding was made quite clear. The sums were done and the figures were spelled out. I was contacted by departmental officials to go through the report in detail. There is no question of people not being aware of this serious problem but I do not know why nothing has been done.

Meanwhile, many Members have lots of constituents in this situation. I frequently deal with such people in my clinics. I do the sums for them and the only conclusion they can come to is that they would be crazy to live together or even to get married. The Minister needs to do something about such a policy.

Rent supplement has long been one of the key barriers to taking up employment. Despite some improvements once a single person earns in excess of €223.30 per week, net of certain deductions, the State begins to withdraw rental support. The sum of €223.30 is well below the minimum wage for a full-time worker. Once that person exceeds €423.30 per week, his or her rent support is withdrawn entirely. The rental accommodation scheme, whereby those dependent on rent supplement for 18 months or longer are transferred to a differential rent scheme under the control of their local authority, is fine in its concept and is a very good scheme. However, the difficulty arises with regard to supply. Whoever was involved in setting up this scheme completely underestimated the demand.

We are still waiting for the accommodation units to be delivered. Already 1,200 people are on Dublin City Council's waiting list for RAS tenancies, with the possibility that another 5,500 people could be eligible to join them. Meanwhile, one third of rent supplement recipients have a claim of more than 18 months' duration. Many people come to our clinics, such as the woman whose letter I read, who are trying to get on their feet and into a job so as to be as independent as possible. If they are in the private rented sector, however, it is virtually impossible for them to get out of this trap.

This poverty trap was recognised when the RAS scheme was established. It is not much use to people without an adequate supply of accommodation. The waiting lists are a joke and it is only tokenism unless the availability of an adequate number of units is ensured or at least an interim measure is taken. This Bill could have facilitated the transfer of all rent supplement claimants on a RAS waiting list to a differential rent scheme pending their transfer. This is one concrete step that could have been taken. They could have been shifted until sufficient accommodation comes on stream. The fact that the Bill does not do so represents another lost opportunity.

The activation measures to make the move from welfare to work which the Minister proposes or claims are already in place are tokenistic. The role FÁS plays in this area leaves a great deal to be desired. We have no sense of urgency about this or that FÁS will get involved with the Department and source training or employment places for people who are determined to come off welfare.

Mickey Mouse part-time jobs which pay minimum wage are pointless. People need decent career prospects. Initially, they need good quality training and we have a major shortage of training places. They also need support to move from welfare to training to the workplace and these supports are not in place at present, whether for people looking to come off unemployment assistance or lone parent's allowance. One can speak about the theory but in practice the services are not available and they must be put in place.

I concur with the points made on the new proposals for child care costs. They will have a negative impact and the amendments made by the Minister after the outcry will not tackle the nub of the problem. The poverty trap will kick in at some level of income with regard to subsidies for child care costs. We must face the fact that we need to provide State-funded child care.

It has long been the policy of the Labour Party that every child of three and four years of age is entitled to a free pre-school service for one year. If this were available it would greatly facilitate people in returning to work, as would access to full day care for children. It is also desirable in itself from the child's point of view. Many parents come to informal arrangements such as a grandparent picking up a child from pre-school at 12 p.m. or 1 p.m. and looking after the child for the remainder of the day. If a pre-school service is not available it may be too much for grandparents. I am extremely concerned about what is proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith. The amendments do not go far enough.

Why is it not possible to consolidate the Social Welfare Bill each year? Has a cost benefit analysis ever been done to see whether this would save money? It would certainly save time and effort. This Bill has several pages of technical amendments, small tidying up and comma corrections. This is a feature of the Bill most years. Would it be more efficient to completely update the Bill each year rather than have departmental staff sifting through half a dozen Acts at a time? Will the Minister consider this and respond?

A welcome provision in the Bill is placing on a statutory footing schemes previously administered by the HSE, namely, blind welfare allowance, domiciliary care allowance and supplementary welfare allowance. I trust the provisions will in time augment entitlements for recipients. It is hoped the provisions will allow the same amount of flexibility for community welfare officers while improving the procedures for appeals and redress.

I had hoped such changes would have lead to greater clarity of the circumstances under which children may qualify for domiciliary care allowance as decisions appear to be quite arbitrary at times. The definition used in the Bill does not appear to address this issue. A qualified child is one who inter alia requires "care and attention substantially in excess of the care and attention normally required by a child of the same age". What exactly constitutes such a child? We need far greater clarity with regard to this definition. In my experience, this definition has proved problematic for parents and decision-makers alike. I suspect that with many other payments which rely on medical certification, a high percentage of these claims will end up at the appeals office. What training has been provided for officers to ensure a consistent approach is taken to decision-making? Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us in his reply.

I would appreciate the Minister's advice on why he has not taken the opportunity to set the definition of a child at under 18 years instead of under 16 years in section 186C of the Bill. Perhaps the reasoning relates to transferring the child on to another welfare payment at that age. Will the Minister clarify that for us?

I also seek clarification on a number of other provisions. Section 21 changes provisions relating to habitual residence for carer's allowance applicants by inserting 186A(2) into section 246(3) of the principal Act. Is it the case that until the passing of the Bill the habitual residence condition cannot be applied to carer's allowance applicants? If so, will the Minister indicate how many people are affected and whether decisions have been overturned? At a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, FLAC highlighted the case of a person who claimed carer's allowance but was refused on the basis of the habitual residency condition. I am interested in the Minister's response.

The habitual residency condition is being used to deny Irish citizens entitlement to claims for welfare payments. That is extraordinary. The departmental officials told us the legal advice they received was that if it were changed for Irish citizens it would have to be changed for all EU citizens. I find this extremely difficult to accept because I am not aware the EU has competence in respect of social security payments. I do not see how it could be the case that the Irish State can be precluded from making welfare payments to its citizens, particularly in cases——

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This was the advice we were told the Department received. I would have expected an Irish citizen who returns from the US or England to care for an elderly parent for just a few years to be able to claim carer's allowance. The habitual residence condition is being applied to these individuals because the argument is that if an entitlement were given to Irish citizens it would have to be given to all EU citizens. I find this difficult to accept and have asked for a note on the legal advice provided for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Will the Minister kindly remind his officials to provide that note for us?

Section 25(a) changes provisions relating to a person residing with a claimant who is not the qualified adult. This appears to represent a positive move to ease the means test for the claimant but I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on this.

Is the Minister aware of the financial contributions scheme? While not used much outside the Dublin area, it is used to very good effect in Dublin, particularly by Dublin City Council. An elderly couple on a small pension, living in local authority housing which they had purchased may need to renovate the house with a downstairs bathroom or bedroom, but existing grants or their income may not allow them to fully upgrade the house. The scheme involves the local authority buying back the house from the couple and making a contribution to them, obtaining a modern, good quality senior citizens' apartment. For the couple, they can move from their house, which they may not have been able to maintain, to new accommodation with excellent facilities. They also end up with a nice nest egg as they are allowed to keep the bulk of the proceeds of the sale. In return the local authority gets back family houses which it can do up to let. Everyone is a winner.

The scheme is a success and popular in areas such as Finglas. I recommend it to those Members whose local authorities may not operate it. However, the one difficulty with the scheme is that the Department of Social and Family Affairs cannot deal with those involved when it comes to means-tested allowances such as fuel allowance, and the HSE is not much better. Entitlement to a medical card or a nursing home subvention can be affected. Going by the book — the Social Welfare Act of the day — people involved in the scheme lose out on benefits. Many of those involved are in their 70s, 80s and 90s, an age when their benefits must be protected. Such a scheme has many benefits and can do away with the need for someone to go into a nursing home.

Greater flexibility must be shown by the Department in dealing with such cases and in the approach to providing services for older people. The person's requirements must be seen in their totality and not through a blinkered, departmental and demarcated approach. When I raised this with departmental officials, they either did not know of the scheme or, when I explained the circumstances, they claimed that as it was a means-tested payment there was nothing they could do. A more creative approach than that is needed.

I will table several amendments on Committee Stage to deal with the issues I have raised. I also propose to make it compulsory that every case where a deciding officer or job facilitator identifies a person whose financial circumstances would be better on welfare than in work should be reported to a principal officer, at least, in the Department. Some issues crop up on the ground and come to the attention of public representatives or deciding officers in local offices. A reporting mechanism should be in place to deal with such issues. Cases where officials find people who are clearly better off on welfare than in work should be reported to a policy unit.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Public representatives on all sides of the House are familiar with the social welfare system and the impact social welfare provisions have on the less well-off in society. Certain anomalies will always crop up. In recent years the Government has addressed some of these anomalies in social welfare payments. I compliment the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, and his officials on the provisions in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008 and the welcome increases in payments.

I wish to raise several issues, both positive and negative, the first being the carer's allowance and the carers strategy. Many of those caring for elderly relatives or children with intellectual or physical disabilities have formed groups of carers' networks. These provide fantastic support for those providing care in their own homes. Some 15 years ago the whole notion of a social welfare payment called the carer's allowance would never have been considered. I am glad there has been an improvement in the understanding of this area.

I welcome the Government's commitment to the national carers strategy. I meet regularly with the representatives from the Duhallow Carers Network who outline the anomalies that crop up in the system from time to time. When thinking about carer's allowance, we often just consider those caring for elderly relatives. Many of the network groups are attempting to expand to include all those providing care and assistance in their own homes. I hope this will be linked to the national carers strategy.

During the term of the last Government the telephone allowance, which provided credit for mobile phones, was introduced. However, if a person with a disability lives in a house with a landline for which telephone allowance is claimed, he or she cannot obtain an allowance for mobile phone credit. The Minister should consider changing this provision. It would not be a great cost to the Exchequer but would be of advantage to those on invalidity pension and particularly those receiving disability benefit. I hope the Minister will take this into account.

The previous speaker mentioned the habitual residency clause but in a different context. I have mentioned several times the plight of Irish citizens who have dedicated their lives to foreign missions and religious orders around the world, some of whom have spent 40 years or more in places such as Brazil, the Philippines and Africa, who, when they come back to Ireland to retire in their twilight years and in fading health find they must be resident in Ireland for two years before they qualify for a pension due to the habitual residency clause. It is important that this is dealt with. These people have, in the words of President Mary McAleese, been ambassadors for Ireland across the world and have done excellent work. I speak of this in a personal capacity also as I have an uncle who has spent 45 years in Brazil working with the Redemptorists. Thus, I know first hand the difficulties faced by those who come back in failing health and must rely on their houses or their orders to survive. The Minister should consider changing the provision for those in this category.

I compliment the officials of the Department on the professional manner in which they conduct appeal hearings on social welfare and pensions, which we all attend on behalf of constituents. One might think appeal hearings are just another element of the work of the Department in making a judgment on a previous departmental decision, but the hearings are fair and independent and if there is a case to be made based on regulation or legislation it can be put to the Department. Some of my constituents worry about these appeals, but I compliment the officials on the way in which they deal with them.

I wish to address a few other issues in this Bill. The domiciliary care allowance, whose administration is being transferred to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, has always been paid by health boards or the HSE. Its transfer is welcome as it streamlines the system. For other allowances, such as the blind welfare allowance, the HSE is now working almost in parallel with the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This is to be welcomed. Many people have benefited from the domiciliary care allowance and the scope of the scheme is excellent. The only problem is that of children who reach the age of 16 and switch to the disability allowance and, because of their disabilities or medical conditions, will have to stay on it for life. The invalidity pension is based on contributions — although the word stamps is still universally used — but the Minister might consider instituting a permanent disability allowance similar to the invalidity pension to prevent anxiety among recipients that it may not be paid because of some particular circumstances.

The budget provision for the respite care grant is to be welcomed. This grant is provided in cases in which a person is providing full-time care and assistance for another person. Some people who do not qualify for carer's allowance may qualify for the respite care grant. This payment eases a huge financial burden for many people and is to be welcomed. It is a great initiative and I welcome the Minister's decision to increase the grant. Long may it continue to increase because it is of great benefit.

There is also an issue with entitlement to disability allowance due to the fact that the disregard is currently higher than the State contributory pension. I am glad the Minister has included a provision in section 7 that this will not affect the State pension because some people are concerned that it may affect them by the time they reach the age of entitlement to the State pension at 66.

There are numerous provisions in the Bill that are to be welcomed as they are helping to alleviate poverty throughout society. Deputies on all sides of the House know well that the smallest changes in the social welfare system can have a major positive effect on those who are less well-off or at the margins of society.

I wish to return to the decision of the Government to develop the national carers strategy. As public representatives, we should be taking the lead on this and encouraging the various carers' networks. Leader groups and partnership groups throughout the country have been working to set up these networks. We should work to disseminate information on this. While I welcome the existence of carers' networks, which are doing excellent work in getting people involved and providing emotional and financial support, there are many people who are not tied into a network or group but access information through their local politicians' clinics, which are of major benefit. The Government and public representatives must try to get more people involved. There are many positive things we can do and I know the Minister will be only too delighted to take these on board so we can facilitate this.

Responsibility for the carers strategy is shared with the Department of the Taoiseach. Officials of the Department of Finance, together with the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Health and Children, as well as the HSE and FÁS, are also involved. As we develop the strategy, it is important that we take into consideration the issues affecting people. This is an opportunity to focus on carers in the community. The home care packages and other initiatives by the Minister for Health and Children have developed great impetus, but we need to build further on the improvements that have taken place since the carer's allowance was introduced 15 or 16 years ago. It is important that we drive this process. We must also make sure we obtain the best possible information for the people on the ground who are providing care. As has been stated in the House many times, these people are unsung heroes. In addition, we should ensure that those who provide and avail of services for people with intellectual and physical disabilities are included in the strategy.

There are many other issues of interest, including the State pension and the section of the budget dealing with homemakers. There are a number of issues that have developed over the years since the introduction of the provision concerning PRSI and the self-employed.