Dáil debates

Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Social Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage

 

SECTION 1

8:30 pm

Photo of Seán BarrettSeán Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 23 and 24 are related and will be discussed together.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), line 11, after “Welfare” to insert “, Pensions and Miscellaneous Provisions”.
The amendment might look simple but ultimately it would capture something of the purpose of the Bill, which is not simply to amend the Social Welfare Acts. In the definitions the Redundancy Payments Act is referred to and several other issues have been thrown into the pot with this Bill, including other provisions not specifically in the Social Welfare Bill but which should have been included. These include changes or cuts announced by the Minister in the budget which do not require primary legislation.


I have tabled several amendments, some of which, regrettably, have been ruled out of order. Some were definitions to set down the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and the back to education allowance in the legislation to ensure that in future years or even this time around the Minister would have to introduce a specific change that could be debated in the Parliament.


For the information and benefit of Deputies, I will list the amendments that the Ceann Comhairle has ruled out of order. Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5, 7 to 10, inclusive, and 15 and 16 have all been ruled out of order.


I am suggesting that this be called a miscellaneous provisions Bill because I had intended to insert a social welfare amnesty provision. The Minister referred to this in her closing comments on Second Stage. Regrettably, the Ceann Comhairle has ruled it out of order and as a result a discussion on the specific proposal cannot take place, but it is a cost saving measure which we have costed and which, I believe, should have been included and would have ensured that at least one of the cuts the Minister is proposing need not go ahead within the confines of her arithmetic, although not within the confines of the arithmetic we have put forward.


Other changes need to be brought to people's attention, including what the Minister has indicated in her list of amendments. There are usually technical amendments when a Bill is rushed and one misses a comma here or a full stop there. However this time in her haste to publish the Bill and rush it through the House the Minister has forgotten one or two things. She has decided to implement a major change with one Committee Stage amendment, that is, to get rid of one of the key victories of the working classes held for many years, the fact that Sunday has been recognised as a day of rest. It is no longer recognised as such in terms of jobseeker's benefit. This is one of the changes the Minister proposes to insert in the legislation. We will come back to it at a later stage if time allows but the debate will be truncated given that it is expected to be guillotined tomorrow at 2 p.m.


Before I am misrepresented, I do not intend to labour on this amendment. I want to get to some of the amendments which are severely odious and I wish to debate them properly across the floor of the House, back and forth as Committee Stage allows. One amendment relates to the one-parent family payment for which there has been some small but welcome respite. I have no problem welcoming it when I see a progressive measure. The problem is that it is only a short respite: it is not as long as it should be. A third amendment relates to household budget, by nature a miscellaneous matter, and this should be included in the description I have to capture it. This might seem like a progressive measure but there are major dangers relating to deducting any payments from social welfare. Given the dangers I would have preferred a longer debate to tease it out in a proper committee but I do not believe we will have the time.


These are not the only changes. The Minister has also suggested a change in terms of deducting the overpayments at a higher rate. Let us suppose a person has received overpayments and has not paid back that payment and this is coupled with rent payments. This would leave such a person limited. Such a person is likely to be limited anyway but he would be even more limited in terms of the choice of what to do with his money on a weekly basis rather than a monthly basis. We will have that argument at a later stage.


This is the reason I have proposed the amendment. It is a miscellaneous provisions Bill although if the Ceann Comhairle or the rules of debate in the House had allowed me, I would not have used the term "miscellaneous provisions" - I would have suggested something more akin to "draconian provisions". Anyway, in the past when I have made such suggestions they have been ruled out of order for being mischievous or whatever. I am within the rules in using the term "miscellaneous provisions". Within the Bill there is a range of measures that are miscellaneous rather than specific to the social welfare code. I hope the Minister is listening.

It also provides Deputies in the Chamber now with an opportunity to speak at an early stage about the other provisions in the Bill, including the cut in the respite care grant. While there has been some debate on that issue thus far, it is hoped there will be further discussion on it.

Few people, including those in the media, have to date commented on other changes such as the cut in entitlement to jobseeker's benefit by three months for some people because they might not qualify for jobseeker's allowance given that it is to become a means tested payment. This will affect people who have paid into the social insurance scheme on the understanding that they would get the benefit for the period allowed. We have heard much about the other changes. It is a pity that the Minister proceeded with the cut to child benefit for a second year prior to publication of the report which the she indicated she was eagerly awaiting. The Bill also provides for changes to voluntary contributions and the farm assist payments, which are major changes that should not be included in this Bill.

Welfare is supposed to protect and support people. Rather than supporting people, this legislation undermines their ability to survive out of poverty. The Minister mentioned those at risk of poverty. It will be interesting at the end of next year to see how many people have been put at risk of poverty or are in poverty because of the provisions contained in this Bill. There are a number of other changes which, if time permitted, I would have suggested be included. The Bill was published on Monday last. I thank the officials for the briefing they provided to my staff on Monday, despite the time restrictions under which they operate. While I am somewhat understanding of the restrictions under which the Minister operates, she is the master of her own timetable. There is no reason for the Bill being rushed through in this way other than the timetable set by the Minister for the commencement of some of its provisions from 1 January rather than the end of March or April. In the past, social welfare changes came into effect in April and, often, June. Not all changes took effect from 1 January. This timetable has been set by the Minister. I regret that this Bill is bring rushed through, which is also obvious from some of the ministerial amendments which propose major changes to the Bill. The Minister, perhaps, decided that as the Government is getting away with everything else people would not notice their inclusion in the Bill.

8:40 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I take this opportunity to again record my grievous annoyance at the way this Bill is being dealt with by Government. There is no reason ample time could not have been provided for us to debate these amendments in detail. What we are discussing are wide-ranging changes which will impact hugely on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, yet less than one hour tonight and two hours tomorrow has been provided to debate them, which is regrettable. Regardless of the timetable in terms of these provisions having to come into effect on 1 January, we could have spent all day tomorrow and Friday on Committee Stage. I do not understand the Government's unseemly haste to have Second Stage of the Finance (Local Property Tax) Bill 2012 done and dusted by 6 p.m. on Friday evening. The Revenue Commissioners will only begin implementing this measure some time in May or June next year, yet Second Stage of that legislation must be completed by 6 p.m. on Friday evening and Committee Stage is to be taken next Tuesday. This is clearly being done for political reasons, which I regret. It flies in the face of all the promises we heard about the new politics to be introduced following the election of this Government in terms of the way business in this House is done and the use of the guillotine. It does not appear new to me.

I do not have any strong views in regard to these amendments. As stated by Deputy Ó Snodaigh, the Bill deals with more than social welfare. Perhaps the wording of the Bill would be improved if these amendments were accepted. I am not sure. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to same about them.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept these amendments. I am informed by the office of the Parliamentary Counsel that the Title, namely, the Social Welfare Bill 2012, is sufficient in terms of the various provisions therein. The proposed amendments, including those in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh, are also covered by the Title. In the circumstances, there is no need to include a reference to "Miscellaneous Provisions" in the Title.

A reference to "pensions" in the Title is only required where there are amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 included in the Bill, namely, changes to occupational and private pension schemes. The amendments to the social welfare pension schemes included in this Bill are encompassed in the general Title "Social Welfare Bill". As no amendments to the Pensions Act are proposed in this Bill, a reference to "pensions" in the Title is not required.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh made specific reference to a number of amendments, which I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in some detail later. There is a proposal in the Bill regarding the deduction of payments through the Post Office household budgeting facility. I would like to explain this to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, with whom I recall having a discussion on this issue early in the lifetime of this Government. The Deputy will be aware that where a person obtains tenancy through a local authority, under RAS or otherwise, he or she is often asked by that local authority, including the one in Dublin city, to sign up to the household budgeting system via An Post and is happy to do so. However, as referred to by the Deputy, having signed up to pay the rent on a weekly or monthly basis through the budgeting system of the Post Office, which is a good facility and is a good use of the services of the post office, people often sign off without any reference to the local authority.

Many members will previously have been members of a local authority and will be aware of the large build up of arrears down through the years in some local authorities. Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I have on a previous occasion discussed what happens when people get into rent arrears, in particular with a large local authority such as that in Dublin. This often leads to very difficult situations for families and women, who often manage payment of the rent. This provision provides that when a person is offered a tenancy he or she must agree to sign up to the household budgeting system and can only sign off from it with the agreement of the local authority. The purpose of this is to reduce the risk of large arrears being built up, which is a reasonable objective. Deputy Ó Snodaigh will be aware that where people build up large arrears this can lead to other problems in the family, particularly for women who are managing on tight budgets. It often leads to the situation whereby because the family is in arrears it is not entitled to be considered for transfer to larger accommodation as the family grows. I recall that I discussed this matter with Deputy Ó Snodaigh on a previous occasion.

It was challenging to draft this and get the agreement of the Office of the Attorney General because, of course, people have to agree to an arrangement for payment. My impression during previous discussions was that the Deputy was quite in favour of this. Almost everyone in this Chamber, including myself, has formerly been a member of a local authority and is very aware of the problems that arise for families when large rent arrears build up. This is actually meant to be helpful to families and I am not quite clear why Deputy Ó Snodaigh would have a problem with it.

On the question of overpayments, I have a disagreement with Sinn Féin. At the moment it is often possible to recover only €2 per week in arrears from the basic primary social welfare payment of an individual. The amendment I am proposing is to increase that to up to 15% of the primary social welfare payment of the individual who is in arrears. Therefore, if an individual is claiming jobseeker's allowance, for example, with an income of €188 and is also entitled to claim for a dependent spouse and children, the only payment that the arrears would be taken from is the primary payment of €188. The other payments relating to other people in the family would not be affected. Most Deputies know of situations in which people have been involved in significant abuse of the social welfare system. The money they owe can only be recovered at €2 per week and compliant people up and down the road in a local authority estate or on a landing in a flat complex find it deeply unacceptable that they are paying their rent and doing everything right while other people who have scammed the social welfare system only have to repay €2 per week. Furthermore, if such people repay extra, they can then go to their local community welfare service and recover any amount they have paid in excess of €2. This amendment aims to change that situation.

Where overpayments relate to errors or mistakes on the part of the Department, leeway is provided. The 15% referred to is the upper limit. I am anxious to send out a message that if people owe money to the social welfare system, they will have to repay it at a reasonable rate. I believe that a rate of up to 15% of the individual's primary payment, but not any other payments in respect of children, dependent spouses or other adults in the household, is a reasonable arrangement. It would max out at about €26. This would send out a strong signal. At the moment, the Department of Social Protection is owed, according to the recent report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, somewhere in the region of €350 million because of fraud, overpayments and so forth. I do not think it is realistic to expect that we will be able to recover most of that but if we could recover even half of it over a three- to five-year period, it would take the pressure off other areas of the social welfare budget. It would mean that the pressure regarding payments to carers, about whom many Deputies have spoken tonight, pensioners and others would be eased. If we could recover €175 million over three to five years, we could recover anywhere between €20 million and €30 million per year. Also, as overpayments occur and we become aware of them in the future, we will be able to recover the money in a timely manner. Deputies will know of situations in which the build-up of arrears plunges families into deep difficulties, but if we are able to recover the overpayments in a timely fashion, this will reduce problems for families. If money has been defrauded from the system we need to recover as much of it as possible, if not all. Where money has been overpaid by mistake or in error, we also need to recover it so that it can be used in other areas such as those of carers and pensioners, about whom Deputies spoke so convincingly tonight.

8:50 pm

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to make a suggestion related to the issue of arrears. In my constituency, if people get into arrears with Waterford City Council, after a few weeks they are obliged to go the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, which stops arrears from building up over a long period. Perhaps the Minister could place such an obligation on those who run into difficulties. I understand that there is fraud within the social welfare system, and I do not condone that, but there are many people who have difficulties with money management. I propose that the Minister recommend that all local authorities encourage people to contact MABS at an early stage when they run into arrears. I also urge her to revisit the MABS budget because it does tremendous work. The number of people using the service has quadrupled in recent years and it could do with extra funding. The valuable work it does in terms of money management could stop arrears from building up. It would be simple to instruct the councils to meet those who get into arrears at a very early stage and make an appointment with MABS on their behalf. MABS would be delighted to get involved and the Department would save a lot of money in the longer term by preventing arrears from building up.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not expect to be dealing with these amendments so early in the proceedings but seeing as the Minister has elaborated on them-----

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was just about to make the same point. I thought we were dealing with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's amendments.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Minister was responding to me on the issues I raised.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies; I was a bit confused. I thought the Deputy was raising a substantive amendment.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the record, we are dealing with amendments Nos. 1, 23 and 24, which are related and may be discussed together.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. They relate to the insertion of the phrase "Pensions and Miscellaneous Provisions". I accept the Minister's argument about the inclusion of the word "pensions" but redundancy payments do not relate to social welfare. They are dealt with in the Redundancy Payments Acts, which are not referred to in the principal part of this Bill. That is part of the argument here and, as I have said, a range of issues have been included. I am not too pushed about the amendment being accepted because the Bill has the same effect regardless of whether it is called the Social Welfare Bill or the Social Welfare, Pensions and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill. Either way, it is a draconian Bill.

On the points raised by the Minister, I did not say I was opposed to the household budgeting measures. All I said was that I would prefer a longer period to discuss them.

As the Minister acknowledged, these are technically challenging measures. Our experience in constituency offices and councils suggests that we could identify solutions to problems that may emerge in three or four years time.

This is a potential solution for people who may not be able to manage their money properly. We have, for example, asked that rent supplement be paid directly to the landlord. Similarly, some people cannot manage their social welfare payments fully because they are in distress, addicted or simply never learned to budget the little they have. That is the only argument I was making and I am not opposing the measure.

We do, however, put a different emphasis on overpayment and error. I recognise that overpayments should be recovered but I am being a realist in proposing an amnesty. The Minister admitted that it will not be possible to recover all of the money. At some stage the slate will be wiped clean and we are suggesting a line in the sand beyond which those who continue to commit fraud will suffer the full consequences. However, many of the overpayments are due to error. The Minister is introducing a penal regime which will take €28 from a payment of €188. That is a substantial amount given all the other changes affecting Irish society. Those who were wrong in taking overpayments should suffer the consequences and the State should recover what is owed to it but we should not put those who are at risk of poverty into poverty.

9:00 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For clarity, this issue is addressed in section 13. I take it that we will have an opportunity to debate that section. I tabled two amendments to section 13 but they were ruled out of order on the basis that they could constitute a charge on the Exchequer. The clause about a potential charge on the Exchequer is becoming a joke. The most liberal interpretation possible is being made about what could comprise a charge on the Exchequer.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy can raise the issue when we reach section 13.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He can also oppose the section. It is a decision of the Ceann Comhairle's office.

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputies Halligan and Ó Snodaigh share a common concern about preventing people from getting into arrears and debt. The allocation to the Citizens' Information Board, including MABS, has increased by over €1 million for 2013 from €45.7 million to €46.8 million. I concur with Deputy Halligan about the valuable services that MABS supplies, including its assistance in getting people to begin saving money in credit unions.

The reason for recovering more than €2 per week is to deal with people who have been scamming the social welfare system. For someone living beside tenants who have defrauded the system, €2 per week seems like a joke. The provision on recovering arrears allows for up to 15% recovery. Deputy O'Dea will know that in most streets in Limerick the tenants draw exactly the social welfare payments to which they are entitled. It is not fair on these individuals if others who cheat the system repay at a rate of €2 per week. The vast majority of people are honest about social welfare but if we discover that someone is scamming the system we will ask him or her to pay more than €2 per week. The recovery will take up to 15% of the primary payment for the individual concerned. That will work out at up to €28 out of €188 but it sends out a message that money taken from the system is money taken from the pockets of pensioners and those on disability payments. We will have enhanced powers to recover overpayments.

I was shocked on becoming Minister to find that arrears amounted to €350 million over a lengthy period of time. These arrears were referenced in all the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. As an accountant and a realist, I assume that much of this money will not be recovered but I want to send out the signal that we will be recovering arrears at a reasonable rate. Just as those who get local authority tenancies can pay through the household budgeting system, which is an enormous relief to most women who are responsible for paying rents, people will not get into arrears and they will be able to use the services of MABS in a more positive framework in terms of building savings in a credit union and borrowing at the kind of rates they can afford rather than falling into the hands of those who sell credit at expensive prices.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands the amendment?

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I withdraw it and we can discuss the issues arising if we ever reach the relevant section.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 is out of order.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, subsection (4), line 17, to delete “Section 13” and substitute “Sections 13, 15, 16 and 17"
Section 1(4) of the Bill as published provides that the measures contained in section 13 relating to the recovery of overpayments by deduction from weekly social welfare payments will be brought into effect by way of a commencement order. It is my intention to commence these provisions early in the new year. I am proposing three Committee Stage amendments to the Bill to provide for the deferral of the dates at which the age reductions for one parent family purposes will take effect from the beginning of January 2013 and January 2014 until the beginning of July 2013 and July 2014, respectively; an amendment to the household budgeting facility in the case of local authority accommodation; and the taking into account of Sundays for the purpose of determining entitlement for jobseeker's benefit and allowance. The changes to the one parent family payment will come into effect from the beginning of January 2013. The amendments to the household budgeting facility and changes to jobseeker's benefit and allowance in respect of Sunday working will be brought into force by way of commencement order. It is my intention to commence these provisions early in the new year.

9:10 pm

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the change with regard to the starting date for the change affecting lone parents as this alleviates the situation slightly. However, I recall the Minister telling the Seanad last year that she would not make any further alterations in the age limits for children in respect of whom the mother can receive the lone parent's allowance, until such time as we had a Scandinavian-type child care system available in this country. With all due respect, while I welcome the postponement of the starting date, I do not think we will achieve a Scandinavian type child care system within those extra couple of months.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are technical amendments to allow for future amendments. I will not delay on this now, but hopefully we will have time to focus in on these properly. This is why I have argued for a lot more time. These are very complex changes the Minister is suggesting for a whole range of issues. I do not believe we will have sufficient time tomorrow to debate them, unless the Minister asks the Government Whip and the Taoiseach to allow us more time. Tomorrow we will have from 11 a.m. until 2 p.m., just three hours, to discuss a huge range of highly complex issues which introduce substantial changes. I appeal to the Minister to do anything she can to allow for more time for this tomorrow.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is helpful that the change in the reduction to the qualifying age is being postponed, but commitments were made last year with regard to reducing the age of the youngest child. The situation in terms of child care for lone parents has not improved. The ideal situation would be that child care and jobs would be available. We are all aware that families most at risk of poverty are families where there is nobody in the household in work. Choosing to work is a Hobson's choice for the people we are discussing here, particularly where they do not have someone, such as a family member, available to assist with child care. In the absence of available child care for a seven year old, for example, what is a parent to do? It is untenable to leave young children without making proper provision for their care.

I know there is provision in the Social Welfare Bill for particular areas and that there will be some improvements. However, this problem is not confined to individual areas. Lone parents can be found in every town and village. Until there is some mechanism in place to assist them with child care, it is dangerous to make these changes. Are we suggesting children should be left at home on their own if there is no provision made for child care for them? I believed that when the commitments were given on this issue last year, there would be some debate conducted to ensure there would at least be reform that would provide for this, rather than just deferment of the commencement date.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last year, the reduction in the qualifying age of children for payments to lone parents was one of the most significant issues discussed in the Dáil. There was an outcry from all the children's organisations that this was happening and lone parent groups came out to protest at this change. The Minister, to stave off the attack on her Bill, gave a commitment that she would not make the changes in reducing the qualifying age unless we had Scandinavian style child care facilities in this country.

We see that an additional 6,000 child care places will be provided for after school primary children. This will probably help approximately 5,000 lone parents and people on low wages. This is not a Scandinavian style child care facility. What people expected to see was a complete reform of child care and of where and who it targeted. They expected change in care facilities for preschool, after school, primary school children, infants and even for children up to 15 years of age, who still need a certain amount of care after school.

This proposal is not what people were expecting. We should make a big issue of this, because it does not deliver on the commitment made by the Minister. Now, the Minister is pushing back the starting date for six months to see if the money being pumped into providing the 6,000 additional child care places will work. If she discovers half way through the year that it is not working, will she push the start date back another six months? If this proposal is what the Minister suggests is Scandinavian child care, it is a joke. Most lone parents would say that.

Photo of Joan BurtonJoan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the situation in respect of lone parents, we had very detailed discussions on this last year. One of the most important reforms to the social welfare system is the effort to create a situation where lone parents here move to a situation that exists in most other European countries and also the North, where their exclusive status as lone parents ends as the child reaches schoolgoing age. As has been said, a range of child care facilities are available for these children, including both preschool and after school facilities. It is important we move to that situation and I want to see that happening along the lines of what is available in a number of other countries at affordable prices for parents.

The second big change in which I have been involved over the past year in terms of social protection has been the launch of the new type social welfare system. This is not a passive social welfare system which leaves people on social welfare indefinitely, leaving them alone without re-approaching them with opportunities such as education, training, work experience or work. We must change our social welfare system from a passive system to an active one. As Members know, most people on social welfare would like to get a job, or if they cannot get a job, they would like to get the education or training that will make them job ready when employment opportunities become available.

With regard to this amendment, this is the reason that where we have lone parents whose children will age out over a number of years, we want to have appropriate facilities available for parents returning to education, training and work. We also want to have a situation where we do this for parents in a way that is structured. I launched the first Intreo offices of the new social welfare activation model with the Taoiseach in Sligo a couple of months ago and there are now ten such offices operational throughout the country, some of which are in Dublin, including one in Kings Inn Street.

Essentially, what I want for lone parents whose children are surpassing the age at which their status in the social welfare system is defined exclusively by virtue of the parent being a lone parent, is to see their status change.

I want to move to an approach that sees them as parents and children, rather than using the kinds of label we have used in this country for many good reasons for over 40 years. Parents should have a range of services. Their local social welfare officers should approach them to tell them in advance that a significant change is taking place. They should meet them to see how they can be helped to get back into education, training or work placement. We need to see how we can assist. That is what happens in many other countries across the EU. In that way, the social welfare offices and the Intreo offices will help people get to a new stage of opportunity in their lives. We have just started to roll out the first ten offices in full, and we will open a significant number of additional offices next year.

In this amendment, I have sought to allow more time to make those services available to people such as lone parents so they can avail fully of the services offered to them. That is the purpose behind the proposal in this amendment to put the date back by six months. In practice, the new date will probably help parents because it means we will talk to them in May and June - before the school holidays - as they start to think about new opportunities in September and October, when their children will be at school. Deputy Joan Collins mentioned that we are expanding child care opportunities by more than 6,000 places, encompassing both preschool and after-school care, in a similar way to many other EU countries. The Deputy knows from her own constituency that after-school care is extremely popular with parents and children. It is very successful. By pursuing this model, we can copy many of the good things that are done in other countries. We can also examine the good practices that have developed in this country, particularly in many community and family centres. I hope we will get an opportunity to discuss this in greater detail at a later stage. I have set out the purpose of this amendment.

9:20 pm

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The proposal to extend the timeframe is helpful. The Minister will accept that we are starting from a very low base. Those who will be required to sign on will no longer be regarded as lone parents. One cannot sign on unless one is available for full-time work, as opposed to part-time work. Those who do not get child care places will have a serious dilemma. When they sign on, they may well be offered places on Tús schemes, community employment schemes or education placements. What can they do with their children if they accept such offers, as they might well love to do, but they do not get child care places?

Photo of John HalliganJohn Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Photo of Catherine MurphyCatherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will a place be available for every child who requires it on the commencement date targeted by the Minister? Will she have to come back to us to talk about the commencement, or will it happen automatically in the Department when the Minister signs the commencement order? This might be the only opportunity we have to argue that children could be put at risk by the State if those who are too young to be left without adult supervision do not get such supervision. That would not be something the State could stand over.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

The Dáil adjourned at 11.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 13 December 2012.