Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister, Deputy Burton, is in possession.

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

I have finished what I had to say.

Catherine Byrne (Dublin South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been ruled out of order.

Acting Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 are related and are to be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 7, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:“Social Welfare Appeals

6. The Social Welfare Appeals Office shall ensure that all appeals are processed and responded to within 21 days of receipt of the application to appeal a decision.”.

Appeals related to medical matters take longest. There is no reason for them to take so long. A closer working relationship needs to be built up between the Social Welfare Appeals Office, the hospitals and HSE to allow for a quick release of files or for consultants to release the required documentation to facilitate appeals.

Consultants have a waiting list for the typing queue which applicants are waiting on. That causes a problem at the initial application stage and also at a later stage.

In some cases, I cannot figure out why there would be any reason for delays of 30 or 40 weeks. We all recognise there has been a huge jump in the number of people who are dependent on and applying for social welfare. In a reply the Minister said there was a jump from 17,500 in 2009 to 32,000 last year, and the same is probably the case this year. It shows the scale of the dependency in this State on the social welfare system.

If appeals were processed and expedited within a set time frame set in primary legislation and if waiting lists were dealt with in the same way the system would improve. If it is dealt with in the same manner the Minister indicated family income supplement was dealt with, we would be a long time waiting to address the social welfare list. More social welfare inspectors and additional appeals officers need to be appointed to ensure that, for once and for all, we bring the list under control and it does not increase thereafter.

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

Amendment No. 6 reads:

In page 14, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:“9. Section 311 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3):

“(4) (a) An appeals officer shall decide an appeal within a prescribed time of 60 working days from the date of receipt of the appeal.

(b) Where notice of a decision under section 311 is not given to the appellant who made the appeal concerned before the expiration of the period specified in section 311(4)(a), a decision upholding the appeal shall be deemed to have been made upon such expiration.

(c) An appeals officer may apply to the Chief Appeals Officer for an extension of time to consider the appeal in exceptional circumstances but the appeals officer must demonstrate the reasons for the delay and the appellant shall be informed of the reasons for

the delay in writing.”.

Those who apply for invalidity pensions are usually in pretty dire conditions. I have a number on my files who, despite various medical ailments which I will not go into, have been refused invalidity pensions on the basis that they are not sick enough. People who apply for disability or carer's allowances are finding initial applications can take up to a year. I know of cases which took more than a year.

In a reply to a recent parliamentary question the Minister said an appeal for an invalidity pension, disability allowance or carer's allowance decision will take about nine months. That is without an oral hearing. If there is an oral hearing it could take longer. We are talking about average times; some cases could take longer. Somebody caring for a very ill relative who applies for carer's allowance, fails and has to appeal could be waiting for two years or more. That is not acceptable. The same applies to invalidity pensions and disability allowance.

The Minister has taken some steps, as has been said, to reduce the time within which appeals can take place, but unfortunately it always seems to creep up again. My experience is that the waiting times are now the same, if not worse, than before. My amendment is simple, namely, that the chief appeals office has 60 working days, or 12 weeks, to decide on an appeal. If it cannot decide on an appeal within that period the appeal will be deemed to have been successful.

I recognise that there can be exceptional circumstances or peculiar situations where, for one reason or another, an appeal cannot be decided within that timescale, and I am providing for that. An appeals officer can apply to the chief appeals officer for an extension of time, but he or she must demonstrate the reasons for the delay and the applicant must be informed of the reasons for the delay in writing. That is a perfectly reasonable amendment.

People waiting for decisions on carer's allowance, invalidity pensions and disability allowances have already spent quite a long period waiting for an initial decision. They face the prospect of waiting nine months or more for an appeal, or longer if the case has to go to an oral hearing. Increasingly we advise people to go to an oral hearing when they appeal because their chances of success increase by about 50% or 60%.

At the time of the first Croke Park agreement I recall one of its kernel parts was mobility of staff between departments. Staff from FÁS have gone into the Department of Social Protection. Community welfare officers do their jobs, as do FÁS staff. There is an appalling lack of staff in local offices in Limerick and Ennis which is causing great hardship. I am not trying to make a political point.

I spoke to a number of social welfare officers today. The absence of staff is leading to untold misery among some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency and surrounding areas. Excluding those who are on activation schemes in FÁS and community welfare officers who are doing the job they did when they were under the aegis of the HSE, how many new staff have been redeployed to the Department of Social Protection?

Without wanting to be insulting or condescending in any way to the public service, I was a Minister in a number of different Departments and know staff in many Departments are not exactly overworked. How many staff have been deployed to man the offices? Limerick has a major regional office. What additional complement of staff has been provided as unemployment has risen? Has the level of staff kept pace with demand? The delays would certainly suggest otherwise.

The Minister has put some extra people into the appeals office and perhaps she can clarify whether there are plans to put in more. What plans does she have to redeploy people to local social welfare offices so that people who are ill enough to have to look for invalidity pension or disability allowances, or whose circumstances warrant them receiving carer's allowance, will not have to wait for an unconscionable period, as they are now?

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

I support the amendment. The 60 day is proposal is reasonable and should allow the vast majority of decisions to be made. A high number of decisions are overturned; I understand it is in the region of 30%. One has to ask if a bad decision was made in the first place which requires cases to go to appeal. Could administrative time be better used? A cohort of decisions could be reviewed to see why they were made. It is part of the origin of the delays.

I have received several replies to parliamentary questions from the Minister when I have tried to find out the average waiting times. The figures do not match the experience of people who come to me. I do not believe I am an outlier in terms of knowing a disproportionate number of people who are waiting a longer time for decisions. I use the Lotus Notes software which the Oireachtas has provided and catalogue every query which comes to me. If a lot of people come to me to raise a particular issue it prompts the questions I will ask.

I am not speaking from an anecdotal perspective. Rather, I am approaching this issue on the basis of the very real and very serious situations facing very many people.

Another area in which large numbers of appeals are being generated is where people's invalidity payments are being revoked. A constituent of mine, a 65 year old with emphysema who is barely able to walk, has had his invalidity payment withdrawn after being in receipt of it for eight or nine years. One might be forced to conclude that there are more miracles happening in the Department of Social Protection than in Lourdes. We are seeing people being taken off an invalidity payment who have a demonstrated need for it over a period of time. I am not saying there should be no reviews, but the question does arise as to what methodology is being used. Decisions are being made which are eventually, at significant administrative cost, being overturned by the Social Welfare Appeals Office. People are being put through absolute torture for the time it takes to obtain a decision.

Another issue I have encountered is where people's applications for a disability payment are turned down on the basis that they are adjudged unlikely to be ill for a year. After waiting a year for a result, a decision is then made in their favour because they have proved they were in fact ill for a year. I can give the Minister the names of people who have had this experience. What is going on in the Department when one can point to these types of situations? Are we generating appeals needlessly for some reason that is wholly unclear to me?

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment. The people coming through the door of my office week in and week out seem to confirm the perception which is out there that there is a default position, or even an instruction, whereby if any excuse can be found to refuse a payment, then it will be refused. The perception is that the Government hopes that a significant number of people will simply give up and go away, while those who are willing to persist for the very lengthy period it takes to go through the appeals process, including oral hearings and so on, may eventually be granted a decision in their favour. That has been my experience and it is forcing large numbers of applicants into the appeals process. People are completely flummoxed as to why they were refused particular allowances, often, as Deputy Catherine Murphy observed, to do with disability. We, as local representatives, are just as flummoxed as to the reasons for such refusals. We write letters on their behalf and submit parliamentary questions and, in many cases, their entitlement is eventually acknowledged and granted. This must stop.

The amendment is an attempt to force the hand of the Department to ensure appeals are dealt with quickly. This would also act as a discouragement to any tendency that is developing to refuse people on a default basis, whenever and wherever officials believe they can get away with it. Some of the cases I have encountered are truly awful. This week, for example, a woman came to see me whose respite care grant has been withdrawn. She has a severely disabled daughter who is going to Canada for three weeks to receive treatment. Her payment was withdrawn because the three weeks happen to coincide with the date on which applicants must be performing a caring role, which apparently is a particular day in June. In other words, because this woman's daughter will be in Canada on that date, her respite care grant is being withdrawn even though she cares for her daughter throughout the remainder of the year and will be caring for her for all the years ahead. That is astonishing. This person will now have to appeal the decision and I will make representations to the Minister on her behalf and so on. It makes absolutely no sense and is utterly unfair, unjust and unacceptable. I mentioned on a previous occasion - one of my amendments deals with such cases - a person whose children are paying his mortgage because he cannot manage himself and would otherwise lose his home. That money is being assessed as means by the Department, with the result that the individual's jobseeker's allowance has been reduced. That decision is also being appealed and will take just as long as all the other appeals.

I urge the Minister to accept this very reasonable amendment. The current delays in appeals are unacceptable and the level of refusals is frankly suspicious. Something must be done to prevent this unfairness being inflicted on people.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding levels of refusals and appeals, I have found, especially in cases involving a medical report, that in many cases the application form is grossly inadequate and the additional medical evidence that can be provided entirely insufficient to express the true extent of the applicant's disability or ailment, which leads to a high level of refusals. These people then approach us as public representatives and we are obliged to seek the information that will be adequate to present to the medical assessors for review. This process could be speeded up if the Department would introduce, following discussions with the medical profession, some type of process to streamline the delivery of accurate information from GP to the medical assessors. This would, in many cases, expedite an initial decision and ensure that neither a review nor appeal is required.

There was a useful arrangement in the past whereby departmental staff would inform an applicant or public representative when a decision was approved in principle by the medical assessor's office or, where an application was likely to be refused, staff would indicate that this was because of inadequate medical evidence. Now staff refuse point blank to give out that type of information. Where in the past people were told that there was not adequate medical evidence in respect of a particular application, there was an opportunity to go back, obtain the additional evidence and present it to the medical assessor for decision.

A whole paper process would be gone because the file would leave the medical assessor's office, go back to the local office which would write to the person who would then have to go to the general practitioner to get the additional information. That would have to be sent in and the file returned to the medical assessor's office which was delaying the whole process. Some streamlining of these processes could help to address some of the problems at a much earlier stage in the process rather than forcing people into an appeal.

The correspondence sent to members of the public needs to provide far more clarity regarding their position in respect of a review. The correspondence sent out gives the person the opportunity within 21 days to look for a review or to go for an appeal. People panic and submit an appeal to the social welfare appeals office. In many cases if it was clearly stated to them that if there were additional circumstances that were not considered in the original application or additional medical evidence that was not considered they could submit that for a review and decision they would do so. If there is no additional information to be provided then by all means let them go through the appeals process. When new evidence is brought forward it goes into the appeals system and clogs it up when really it should be a review which could expedite the application and reach a decision much earlier. This would deal with the applicant's issue, the financial hardship that sometimes arises from that and take some of the pressure off the appeals office.

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

I do not propose to accept either of these amendments. By its nature and because of its quasi-judicial function the processing of appeals does take time and it reflects the fact that by definition the social welfare appeals process cannot be a quick one. The appeals system involves cases where there is a difference between the views taken by the Department and by the person making the claim for a particular allowance. Consequently, appeal cases inevitably involve contention to a greater or lesser degree. I think this has been acknowledged. We can discuss Deputy Naughten's point about the incomplete applications further. There is an appeals process which is often endlessly repetitive as people put in additional evidence and in some cases never put in adequate evidence in the beginning. That inevitably delays the process.

If the appeal is to get the consideration it merits, further investigation of the grounds advanced in the initial appeal must be carried out in many cases, whether this involves a further medical assessment or an investigation by an investigating officer of the Department. I understand the sentiments of the Deputies who put forward the amendment. Putting a statutory time limit on the process of an appeal in these circumstances may well mean that in many cases an appeal would not get the consideration it deserves because in our system, as has been said, we allow multiples of additional information to go into the system at different times. That is in a certain sense a positive feature of the system but in another sense it is an enormous delay factor. Deputies with long experience of the appeals system know exactly what I am talking about.

In the event that statutory deadlines were going to be imposed, as both Deputies envisage in their amendment, it is very likely that the system would become much less flexible in accepting additional documents and evidence from the appellant at various stages of the appeal process in order to ensure that the deadlines being proposed in these amendments are met. That would be to the detriment of the person applying. The Deputies have to be careful about what they wish for in these amendments.

Deputy O'Dea's amendment proposes that where appeals are not processed within the specified deadline a decision upholding the appeal would be deemed to have been made. This would appear to suggest that even where the underlying conditionality is not satisfied an appeal would therefore be allowed. This would lead to a situation where it would be in an appellant's interest to delay the appeal by constantly submitting new information beyond the statutory deadline in order to achieve the result.

It is worth reminding Deputies that up to 2009 the average number of appeals received was 15,000 per annum. This was at a time when resources were much more flúirseach and flaithiúileach than they are now. In 2012 the social welfare appeals office received 35,484 appeals. That represents an increase of 136%. Deputy O'Dea asked a very pertinent question about the staffing levels in the Limerick office. I do not have the information directly to hand now but I will certainly get it for him. First, however, I want to reflect on what the Deputy's party in government did at that stage. It did it for a good reason. Until then when somebody went on medical or illness benefit the illness benefit could last indefinitely. There was no actual limit. In that year, partly as a response to the financial crisis, a new two year limit was put on illness benefit. There is a lot to be said for that but the consequence was that from 2011 a huge volume of the people who had been on illness benefit were coming of the benefit and in many cases sought to go on another payment. It would be appropriate to acknowledge, in looking at the workload of the office, that this has been a major contributory factor.

I am happy to say we have come through the worst of it even though the volume of appeals has gone up by 136% at a time when the Department has lost experienced staff due to retirements. Some of those staff members were retained for a period but also at a time when, as the Deputy knows, I have significantly increased the numbers of officials appointed to the appeals office. They have been trained up and it takes some time for them to be trained. Significant resources and efforts have been put into reducing backlogs and improving appeal process times for appellants. That includes the assignment of 15 additional appeals officers which Deputy Ó Snodaigh has welcomed very strongly and implementing a new operating model within the appeals office. Much of this is down to comments and advice from Deputies. On foot of these measures, processing times for appeals have shown sustained improvement since the end of 2011 when there was an enormous increase because of the change in the period of illness benefit duration. The average waiting time for an oral hearing in 2011 was 52.5 weeks as compared to the current situation in which it is 36.5 weeks. In fairness to the staff who work in the offices and the system, that is a very significant improvement. It is an improvement of four months while processing time for summary decisions has increased slightly, by 2.7 weeks This arises because the new model for processing appeals has rebalanced processing times as between oral hearings and summary decisions. I think Deputy Naughten recommended this rebalancing. I have had discussions with Deputies before in which I have emphasised that for summary decisions in many cases the quality of the information supplied to support the application needs to be improved. I will bear in mind what Deputy Naughten said about the design of the form. The chief medical officers work closely with the college of GPs and other medical institutions to improve the understanding by medical doctors of what is required for a social welfare application and appeal, where they support it.

Under the previous model for processing appeals, each appeals officer examined his or her caseload to decide which cases would be dealt with on a summary basis and which required an oral hearing. When an appeal required an oral hearing, that appeal then entered a new queue and would most likely have been assigned to a different appeals officer. That officer would then have to familiarise himself or herself with the case, leading to inefficiencies in service. There is no reason why a case which may be decided summarily should be progressed more speedily at the expense of a case which requires an oral hearing. Accordingly, under the new model introduced from 2011, where an appeals officer decides that an appeal requires an oral hearing, the officer then deals with that case.

This system has led to a much more efficient and effective service. The objective is that there would be no more than six to nine weeks between the times taken to process a case decided summarily and a case which requires an oral hearing. With the IT improvements which I spoke about earlier, I believe this is achievable.

We have reduced the backlog which we inherited. All the indications are that the improvements in processing times will be sustained right throughout 2013. One of the issues identified by the chief appeals officer is the length of time taken by the Department to respond to requests from the social welfare appeals office for submissions by the deciding officer dealing with a case. This is particularly the case for those schemes where the qualifying criteria are medically based. There has been a major process of redesigning and modernising the system. The most significant backlogs will be almost fully clear by the end of this month. The social welfare appeals office expects to finalise 6,000 more cases in 2013 than in 2012. The number of cases finalised so far this year indicates the office is well on track to achieve this target.

Deputy O’Dea requested additional staff be made available. We are rolling out the new Intreo offices. Having been in the Limerick office on several occasions, I am conscious of the fact a high proportion of the population in Limerick is dependent on one or other form of social welfare and this is a priority. We are also dependent on the Office of Public Works for office improvements.

One notable development in the appeals system is the amount of information that can be made available to Members. I have gone out of my way with the staff of the Department to provide information sessions to Members, particularly for new Deputies and their staff, on the system. It is a complex system. Entitlements are based on law, which is one of the strengths of the Department as it protects against arbitrary decision-making. Deciding officers have certain powers under the law. The suggestion that the Department’s officers are being encouraged to act unfairly or not to act within the law is not correct and unfair to many of the Department’s staff who go out of their way to assist people.

There were 51,000 invalidity pensions in payment at the end of April. The expenditure on these pensions in 2012 was €603 million. Since the illness benefit was reduced to two years, there has been a high demand for people to go on to another payment. Each week 220 new invalidity claims are received and are decided on within a few days of receipt of the relevant documentation. Almost 60% of the current claims are awaiting a decision for two months or less. The new IT and business processes that have been installed are processing claims which have increased, along with dealing with inheritance backlogs. The backlog of 7,300 claims which had built up was effectively cleared by the end of 2012. The target now is to process all new claims promptly upon receipt.

I must point out that the information supplied by the applicant in such claims needs to be as complete as possible. My Department spends €47 million a year on Citizens Information centres and MABS, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, precisely to help people to obtain information on their entitlements. In addition, since I became Minister, I have established an advocacy service to assist people with disabilities, for example, including intellectual disabilities, to receive their full social welfare entitlements. This has all taken place against a background of limited resources.

The Department has also taken over managing the domiciliary care allowance from the Department of Health and revamped it, giving significant additional time and information to parents involved in it. We have also taken over a range of schemes from the Health Service Executive, all of which required vast amounts of time. We have also increased the numbers in receipt of these allowances which has resulted in a huge increase in the amounts expended on all of the schemes.

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

The intention of my amendment is not to tie up the Department, other than that there would a response to the appellant within 21 days. I understand the Minister's point about the final decision.

One of the beauties of the system is that up to the date of an appeal, an applicant can submit additional documentation, and even during an appeal it might be noted that an applicant has additional information that was not supplied which can also be taken into account. Obviously there are and will be delays in the process. Applicants who submit appeals find it frustrating not to have any information regarding the status of their appeal. They submit their appeals and hope the Department will transfer their files to the social welfare appeals office as quickly as possible. They live in hope that their appeals will be dealt with, either summarily or by getting a date for an oral hearing, but sometimes they have to wait for months for a decision without receiving any indication regarding the progress of their appeals.

With all the advances in technology, a mechanism might be developed whereby an applicant could be given an appeal number that would enable them to check online what is happening regarding the progress of their appeal in that section or in other sections. That might satisfy the applicants to a degree and it might also put the skids under them to get their act together to submit additional documentation. On a number of occasions people have contacted me regarding their appeal, having submitted it a number of months previously, but they had not gone to the trouble of submitting the additional information. If would be useful if a system could be put in place under which they would be allocated a number that would enable them to track the progress of their appeal and note that a decision on it would be made in, say, another week, six weeks or eight weeks. That would also be helpful for the appeals office. I am not an expert on developing that type of system but it is possible for applicants to track the progress of their applications for other services. That might be useful and it may or may not have been tried.

The purpose of my amendment is not to tie down the appeals office to deliver the final result within a set time but to ensure an applicant is given some type of response. I am willing to withdraw the amendment if a promise is made that a commitment will be given - a commitment was made that the waiting times would be reduced, all things being equal - that applicants will be communicated with more quickly.

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

The Minister said that the appeals system is a quasi-judicial process, and I am aware of that. She said that the process takes time, and I am very much aware of that. In my amendment I am providing for a period of time in this respect, namely, up to three months - 12 weeks or 60 working days. The Minister pointed to the new resources that have been put in place and the changes that have been made. From the anecdotal evidence available to me, I believe the situation is beginning to slip back again. Longer delays are beginning to creep back in. We seem to reach a certain point and then regress.

The Minister made the point that if an amendment along these lines was included, people would find a loophole by deciding that they would keep sending in information or that they would not send it in and therefore a decision would have to be made in their favour within 60 days. That is ridiculous. That is the reason I included the other paragraphs in my amendment, which provide that if there is a compelling reason an appeals officer cannot make a decision within 60 days, the officer should obtain permission to extend the period and submit the reason for doing so in writing. If the wording in my amendment is not sufficient to meet that requirement, I am sure it is not beyond the wit of the Department of Social Protection to make the necessary adjustment to ensure there is not a loophole in the section.

I am mindful of one case in particular, among many others, of a family in Limerick who are dear friends of mine. The mother became very ill and the daughter gave up her job and applied for a carer's allowance. Try as I might, and there was no shortage of evidence, which was submitted on time and was very compelling, I could not persuade the Department that the mother was sufficiently ill to warrant her daughter being granted a carer's allowance. This process continued for more than a year. We appealed the decision and the appeals process continued for approximately a year. The entire process took two years and two months. Ultimately last February, the appeal was finally decided in the applicant's favour and within a fortnight the unfortunate person who was being cared for died. The process involved in that case is unacceptable.

The Minister gave a long, detailed and comprehensive reply, but what it came down to was her justifying a situation whereby in the normal course of events the appeals office can be justified in dragging out an appeal for more than three months. I do not find that acceptable.

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

The Deputy indicated a case, which, from the timing he gave, started during the time of the previous Government.

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

That is beside the point.

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

I ask the Deputy to bear with me. We have had the greatest possible expansion in requests for payments of carer's allowance, family income supplement, domiciliary care allowance and particularly disability benefits. In 2009, the Deputy's party, when in government, reduced the illness benefit period to two years and there were good reasons for doing that. However, I ask him to think about this: there are 100,000 or more people on disability benefit at any one time. If, in effect, all of those are limited to two years, it means there is the potential of up to 50,000 people coming off illness benefit, in many of which cases it would be hoped people would have returned to work. Indeed, there has been a fundamental change in the numbers of people moving from a payment that was in place indefinitely to making a case to apply for another payment. That is one of the reasons for the huge increase in the volumes.

In regard to the carer's allowance and the domiciliary care allowance, the Deputy would have been very conscious when the delays involved were extremely difficult, but huge volumes of backlogs in those applications have now been dealt with and they are largely up to date. There is a separate issue, namely, whether everybody who applies will get the payment they are seeking. That depends on the quality of the case and, if it is a medical assessment, the quality of the medical information the applicant puts forward. We should bear in mind that there has been a loss of a quite number of medical assessor staff due to retirements. The Department has been addressing this issue. Three medical assessors were appointed in March of this year, a further medical assessor is scheduled to be appointed in June and another two medical assessors are scheduled to be appointed in September. The current panel will then be exhausted. The Department has approval from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to proceed with another medical assessor competition and we will ask the Public Appointments Service to run that competition. We are taking on significant numbers of very highly qualified staff. The chief medical officer is engaged in detailed discussions with the medical profession about how to assist the people who are in urgent need of the payment. There are also people applying who may not qualify for some of the payments they are seeking. Obviously in that case people may seek to enhance and expand the information they supply. Those types of cases take time but the time taken to process them has fallen dramatically.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands the amendment?

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

I will withdraw it.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move on to-----

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

I also have an amendment to the section but I note it will be reached later.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will be taken in due course.

Amendment No. 4 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

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

The general principle on which the Government seems to be operating in regard to pensions and the recommendations, as I understand them, of the OECD in its recent pensions report suggest that we will have to secure the pension base in this country and that the only way this can be done is by people contributing more, although certainly getting more benefits. However, this is a situation where people are expected to contribute more but, by definition, will get absolutely nothing for their extra contribution. Does that not fly in the face of the direction in which we are supposed to be going? How much more can people contribute?

People who were not subject to PRSI on this element of their income are now expected to pay henceforth at 4% with nothing in return. I am not suggesting they get an A type contribution in return. What I am simply suggesting is that it is counted as an S type contribution which, as the Minister knows, is much less valuable than an A type contribution because it entitles people to fewer benefits but it could make the difference. For example, in the case of a contributory pension, it could make the difference as to what band a person comes into in regard averaging how many contributions in total he or she has paid. It is very regrettable that we are introducing extra pay-related social insurance into categories which did not bear it previously but giving absolutely nothing in return.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea made a valid argument, which I support. For the vast majority of people, who will now be liable under this payment, the S class payment will be of no use to them anyway. One is talking about a very small cohort of people for whom the S stamp will be of value in the future. Many may end up being entitled to a non-contributory pension if there is such a thing in the future or some other form of top-up payment to bring them up to that minimum threshold.

Currently, a large cohort of people would fall under that category but over time, because of the introduction of the S stamp in 1988 or 1989, fewer people will fall into it. For one reason or another, people have fallen out of the system. Traditionally, it would have been women but thankfully a previous Government comprising Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Democratic Left dealt with that issue. It will, however, be a problem for a very small cohort of people in the future. Surely, the cost involved to the Exchequer would be minimal. At least people would feel they were getting something in return for making the extra PRSI contributions.

Another issue I wish to raise concerns trying to bring additional moneys into the fund. I have a suggestion for the Minister in this regard. There is a cohort of people who would like to put money into the fund but for whom there is no mechanism to do so. It would benefit the economy in the long term. We all accept that every entrepreneur is a potential employer. We are trying to encourage entrepreneurs and if we are to get this economy back on track, it will only happen through the indigenous economy with our own people creating jobs for themselves in the first instance and then creating additional jobs in the future. The projections are that the number of jobs from foreign direct investment will fall off, so we need to support and encourage our own entrepreneurs.

The reality is that risk does not always end in reward. Many people who are out of work were very good employers during the boom and paid tax and PRSI for their employees who were able to draw on it when the employers went to the wall but because the employers were self-employed, they could not draw on all the taxes and PRSI they paid. Many of them ended up in serious financial difficulties as a result of not being able to draw any entitlements or benefits and ended up worse off than the employees they had employed.

The UK has dealt with this issue over the past number of years by allowing self-employed people in certain circumstances to make PRSI contributions which would allow them access to social insurance benefits if they become unemployed. Serious consideration should be given to this, especially given the circumstances which we are in and given that the number of people who fall into that category is quite small. Additional conditions could be included but if someone is prepared to set up his or her own business, he or she should be allowed to make a voluntary PRSI contribution and if that business goes to the wall, he or she should be able to access some benefit as a result of the PRSI contribution he or she has made. It provides that person with a safety net if he or she becomes sick or if the business goes to the wall. If we are serious about trying to encourage entrepreneurs to set up businesses in this country and trying to support that entrepreneurial spirit, we need to provide some sort of basic social security safety net for them. If the UK has done it, I cannot see why a similar system could not be introduced here to encourage people to make a voluntary contribution on which they could rely in the medium term if they fall on hard times. It would be a clear message to the self-employed that we want them to get back into the system, start paying tax and PRSI and start employing people and that we will provide them with that safety net in the medium term should something happen. People getting some sort of social welfare payment are afraid they will lose it and end up back at square one. We do not want to see that happening.

Sadly, many of our best entrepreneurs are leaving this country because they do not believe they have the opportunity here to create the new businesses which will be the big employers of the future and they are making their future somewhere else rather than in this country. This would set down a clear marker and would help to provide a safety net.

I refer to the issue of civil partnerships. Provision is being made in this legislation to tidy up some of that area. Currently, a spouse can have his or her PRSI contributions recalculated to divide the contributions between the couple where both are involved in the business. Will that continue on foot of the amendment to section 5? Will that provision now apply to civil partnerships? Will it apply retrospectively to civil partnerships?

If two people have been cohabiting for a number of years, can they get their PRSI retrospectively recalculated now? That would make a big difference to their eligibility for a pension at a future stage.

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

I want to contribute to this part of the debate by supporting what Deputy Naughten has said. When we previously discussed the PRSI contributions of the self-employed, we mentioned that if they were to be the equivalent of the contributions of other employees, they would have to be 14% or 15%. Has any further progress been made in setting up a kind of scheme that would have the effect suggested by Deputy Naughten? I will leave it at that because we have teased this out at the joint committee and elsewhere.

I suggest that steps need to be taken with regard to employers. Some of them made contributions in the past when they were employees. When they changed their status, they were unable to continue making contributions at the same level. As a result, they lost their ability to be able to claim some type of protection. Some of them have ended up claiming supplementary welfare allowance. In some ways, it is a contradiction in terms that they are entitled to that. Others cannot make such a claim because the assets of their businesses need to have been ended in total and wrapped up neatly in order for them to be able to avail of any type of payment. Basically, the employer has to be destitute in these circumstances.

I would like to refer briefly to amendment No. 1 in my name. I am not asking the Minister to respond on this. The proposal was ruled out for some bizarre reason, because it is a cost on the people, not the Exchequer. This bizarre rule means that Opposition Deputies cannot make positive proposals to the Department. If amendments have a cost to the Exchequer, in most cases they are ruled out. This proposal involves trying to recover for the Department the moneys it has paid out in respect of somebody who has taken an unfair dismissals case. It is estimated that approximately €3 million could be recovered in this way if the recovery of such payments were allowed. I refer to payments made by the Department to people after they were dismissed, but before the Employment Appeals Tribunal found they were unfairly dismissed. I am not complaining about the making of such payments. I am not saying the person should have to pay those moneys back. I am saying the employer should be required to return the money in question to the Department. A mechanism that would achieve that should be considered. It is not a huge amount of money, but it would be better for it to be in the Department's coffers than in the hands of an employer who unfairly dismissed an employee.

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

The purpose of the measure provided for in this section of the Bill is to apply PRSI to the income of modified rate employees that is earned as self-employed income, but without providing for additional entitlements to social welfare benefits. This restriction on entitlement is necessary to ensure no additional costs accrue to the Social Insurance Fund. I understand why people are concerned. Modified rate contributors are already covered for occupational pensions by virtue of their public sector employment. These are not people without cover. They are public service employees. They already have entitlements to public service pensions. Therefore, there is no need to provide for additional cover for them. In addition, modified rate contributors are already covered for most of the other social insurance benefits that accrue from class S contributions, such as contributory pensions, or widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner's pensions. Similarly, modified rate contributors do not require separate cover for maternity and adoption benefits which are covered by class S contributions. As they are public servants, they are entitled to full pay for such periods. Restricting the social insurance entitlements of those who already have access to Exchequer-funded pension entitlements, as proposed in the Bill, is necessary to protect the long-term viability of the fund.

I will give an example. There are a number of extraordinarily well-paid professionals in the public service. Consultants, for instance, are paid significant amounts of money through the HSE on their public contracts. We know from the VHI that they may also earn very significant amounts from their private practices. My party colleague from Waterford, Deputy Conway, has been quoting recent figures from the VHI to the effect that 301 hospital consultants receive annual payments of more than €200,000 from the VHI, in addition to what they may earn in the public sector. An anomaly relating to ceilings, which probably dates back to when the PRSI structure was set up, means such people are charged PRSI on their public service employment only. This measure will extend the PRSI base to ensure it covers all the income of these people from their trades, professions or other employment. It is anticipated that this will yield up to €12 million a year. As these people are covered by public service entitlements, and because they are such high-paid people, they generally have significant pension entitlements. In addition, many of them invest in further pension funds through pension arrangements that benefit from tax breaks. Admittedly, many of those funds might not have done very well in the crash. This measure will expand the forms of income that are covered by the PRSI system. I would expect Deputies to welcome it from that point of view.

I would like to respond to Deputy Naughten's query about civil partnerships. My understanding is that the Deputy is correct in what he said. I will get one of my officials to give him a copy of my more detailed briefing note on the matter.

The proposal made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh in amendment No. 1, which relates to unfair dismissals, is worth examining. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation is responsible for the legislation that governs unfair dismissals. The Deputy will appreciate that the Department of Social Protection has assumed responsibility for making redundancy and insolvency payments. In fairness to the staff of the Department, they have cleared a massive backlog that they inherited. Responsibility for the legislation continues to rest with my colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The Deputy might want to raise this matter with the Minister. He has made a fair point about the recovery of costs to the State.

Can I respond to the comments that were made about people who are self-employed? That matter is being examined by the advisory group on tax and social welfare. I anticipate that the group will produce its report on self-employed people and the PRSI system before the budget. I believe that is the undertaking. I think the group is on course to do that. The actuarial review that was published last year pointed out that the self-employed make a current contribution of 4% and get a significant benefit from the PRSI system. They get access to contributory pensions and to widow's, widower's or survivor's pensions.

We should certainly be looking to them coming in to the full social insurance system and, in the long term, as the country recovers, the concept of jobseeker's payments must be considered. However, in a lot of cases it is difficult to ask people to pay more contributions. The actuarial study suggested they would need to pay at least 14.5%, but in fact a little more, to cover the cost of the benefits. It might be that this can be addressed through the period for which they would get benefit being somewhat more restrictive, given they are self-employed people when it might be suggested they would be back working in a shorter timeframe.

I am very sympathetic to this, as I said in response to the Deputy and other Deputies. It is important that we look at the concept of jobseeker's payments. Years ago, there was a social welfare concept that people who paid in got proportionately more in the period immediately after unemployment - in other words, that it operates as an income protection. As a country, we do not have the resources to do that now but I personally consider it is one of the ways in which the social welfare system should move, as resources permit down the road. We are now in a system where somebody who has paid contributions gets, at best, roughly the same level of payment as somebody who has no contribution record at all. The difference between the two was eroded during the period of the Celtic tiger. The income protection concept, up to a maximum similar to that which exists in a number of other European countries, is something to which we should give full consideration as resources permit and the economy recovers.

With regard to self-employed people, this is an issue we will be looking at in the context of the budget. However, I am conscious of the fact many of the organisations representing self-employed people have expressed some reluctance about additional contributions being made at a time when people are still finding the going quite tough. We will await the report of the advisory group but we will also have to look at the resource issue.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

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

When does the Minister hope to commence this section?

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

Within a month or two. As the Deputy knows, we started the scheme last year so it is building up, with some 2,000 people now on it. We have been looking closely at how it has operated in practice.

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

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 14, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:

“9. Section 311 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3):“(4) (a) An appeals officer shall decide an appeal within a prescribed time of 60 working days from the date of receipt of the appeal.

(b) Where notice of a decision under section 311 is not given to the appellant who made the appeal concerned before the expiration of the period specified in section 311(4)(a), a decision upholding the appeal shall be deemed to have been made upon such expiration.

(c) An appeals officer may apply to the Chief Appeals Officer for an extension of time to consider the appeal in exceptional circumstances but the appeals officer must demonstrate the reasons for the delay and the appellant shall be informed of the reasons for the delay in writing.”.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 15, between lines 4 and 5, to insert the following:

“(4) Retained firefighters who have previously applied for a jobseeker's payment before the enactment of this Bill and have not had their claim approved shall be assessed on their current application.”

Amendment No. 8 in my name was bizarrely not ruled out of order for being a charge on the Exchequer. Somebody must have missed it because it probably would cost the Exchequer something. Standing Orders are bizarre. Perhaps it was an incidental charge. I am sometimes allowed to put forward such amendments whereas in other cases I am not.

The amendment seeks to ensure that those retained fire fighters who already had an application or an appeal made prior to the passage of this Bill would have recognition of that period of time for the purposes of arrears, rather than the effective date being the enactment of the Bill after the Seanad has dealt with it. That would mean each of these fire fighters would have to make a new application and their payment would only be from that date.

The amendment is a recognition that a number of individuals from various parts of the country who have been in contact with me are at various different stages of application, review or appeal. The number of individuals is not huge. If the issue could be dealt with practically, it would not have required this amendment but the information I received is that the Department was still adamant that they were not entitled to it in the past and they will only be entitled to it if and when this legislation is passed. I am asking for a common sense approach to these applications. As I said before, the change the Minister brought in was common sense. It dealt with the legacy issue from the 1970s and there will now be a proper procedure for the future. I am calling for some recognition of the transition period during the past year. While I am not suggesting we would go back to the 1970s, I ask that people with live applications at various stages get that recognition.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While it is almost 10.30 p.m., many fire fighters have waited a very long time for this and I believe we in this House can wait a couple of minutes longer. Many measures which are long overdue are included in this Bill and there are also many reforming measures, but this is a particularly important measure given the fact the great majority of fire services across rural Ireland are provided by retained fire fighters. Up to now, they have effectively been discriminated against because of their willingness to work for and serve their communities and, in many instances, they put their lives on the line for their communities. I am very glad that when this Bill is finally enacted, this will no longer be the case and they will be able to receive unemployment payments for days on which they are not called out and are not in receipt of a call-out fee. This is the very least they can expect for the very valuable service they provide to the State and our communities. On that basis, I greatly welcome the inclusion of section 9 by the Minister.

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

I thank the Deputies who have welcomed the sorting out of this difficulty finally for a group of people who are very important in Irish society. About 2,000 people are employed as retained firefighters. It is estimated that approximately 800 part-time firefighters are also in receipt of a jobseeker's payment. I am very grateful to a number of Deputies who approached me about specific cases shortly after I became Minister, including Deputies Michael McNamara and Aengus Ó Snodaigh. It took some time to find an approach that would work in the particular circumstances of the workers involved who carry out a vital public service for local communities. It is important to know that while we associate retained firefighters with rural areas, there are many part-time firemen on the fringes of urban areas. Retained firefighters are entitled to a jobseeker's payment for days on which they are engaged in firefighting or training. They are, however, required to satisfy the statutory conditions for the receipt of a jobseeker's payment of being available for and genuinely seeking work. Any person who fails to satisfy these conditions is not entitled to a jobseeker's payment.

Taking account of the unusual circumstances of retained fire personnel, a departmental working group was established to examine their position vis-à-vis jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance. The current practice of dealing with retained firefighters has its roots in an administrative decision apparently made in 1972 to disregard any day of firefighting or training when determining their entitlement to jobseeker's benefit or jobseeker's allowance. It is important to note that on foot of the work of the working group, I have advanced the position within the two jobseeker's schemes to cater for retained firefighters on a legislative basis. The Bill and associated regulations will advance the necessary legislative amendments to the jobseeker's scheme, thereby putting the current administrative treatment of retained firefighters on a statutory basis. The legislation will allow retained firefighters a reasonable and fair level of access to the schemes in the future. The revised arrangements will take effect from the commencement of the legislation and will not apply to previous disallowances made in respect of retained fire personnel. Generally, such disallowances were made having regard to the legislative provisions applying at the time of the decisions made. The legislative package will exempt retained firefighters from having to satisfy the substantial loss of employment, or sub-loss, rule under the jobseeker's benefit scheme. In addition, retained firefighters will be exempt from suffering the loss of a day's jobseeker's payment for every day of firefighting. This will mean that any day of employment as a firefighter will not reduce the individual's weekly jobseeker's entitlement other than by application of means under the jobseeker's allowance scheme. If people work five days as a firefighter, they may also have an entitlement to receive five days jobseeker's benefit. However, if they have other employment aside from firefighting, their jobseeker's entitlement will reduce by the number of days worked in their non-firefighting job.

The legislation also provides that when a retained firefighter is on call, for the purposes of jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance, this will not result in a disallowance on the grounds of non-availability. This was a major issue in different parts of the country. These legislative amendments, if commenced, will only apply to retained firefighters and will not apply to full-time firefighters. I am not in a position to accept the Deputy's proposed amendment.

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

I regret that the amendment cannot be accepted. I hope common sense will prevail on the part of those deciding officers looking at this issue, given the intention to make a change and take heed of the special contribution retained firefighters make. This indication had been given previously by the Minister and I ask that it be heeded, particularly in cases where there is no other income and where people have exhausted all of their personal funding to survive and stay within the fire service. They have survived on their meagre resources or funding they have received for firefighting when they have been called out or on call. They have made their own appeals to the social welfare appeals office. I appeal for the adoption of a common-sense approach to the matter.

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

Amendments Nos. 9 and 11 have been ruled out of order.

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

This section introduces a new provision. While I understand what the Minister is attempting to do, it does not address the change to the one parent family payment which was introduced in previous legislation. It is trying to undo something that should not have been done in the first place. When the Minister made her most recent changes to the one parent family payment, she said child care of the standard found in Scandinavian countries would be available. This is recognition that this will not be available for the foreseeable future and that we are stuck with this provision. This was cobbled together to try to take heed of that position, rather than repealing the changes she made which were regressive.

The transition payment will be only applicable to those who are in the system. It is not open to those who applied for the payment after the changes were made in the last budget and the previous legislation. That is regressive. If this provision is to stand, it should apply to all one parent family payments. When we were debating the changes affecting one parent families in the past few budgets, I remember a previous transition payment for those moving into employment. It allowed them to retain some of their benefits. That payment is not being reinstated because, obviously, jobs are not available, which is reflected in the fact that the unemployment level is high among those in receipt of the one parent family payment, even after the changes made.

While I welcome the fact that the Minister is making some steps in the right direction, the easiest way would have been to repeal the changes she made of reducing the payment entitlement for a child from 12 years of age as it was at that stage to seven years of age. What should have been done was to have reinstated it to 14 years of age as it was originally. The work should have been done to ensure the roll-out of the proper child care facilities and services throughout the country, such as after-school clubs and the additional supports to ensure children up to the age of 14 years could be protected. At the moment as the law stands, a child could be home alone from the age of seven years while a parent is working. In the past it was 12 years. At least at 14 years of age there is some maturity, but as a rule, even children at that age should not be left unaccompanied by an adult for long periods of time.

Other Deputies have expressed an interest in speaking on this section. Some of the various groups which have lobbied on the one-parent family payments have managed to obtain a cursory response, but none has made any detailed submission because, like us, they have not had sufficient opportunity. As I said on the Order of Business, it is ridiculous that this Bill was produced in such a hurry. There are a significant number of amendments with 24 pages of amendments from the Minister. We are dealing with Committee and Report Stages tonight. There is not sufficient time to tease out the details of the provisions in the proper fashion. I still do not understand the reason for the urgency to produce this legislation other than that somebody will benefit if it is passed this week as it will come into effect quicker. I do not think a delay of one or two weeks would have made a significant difference and it would have allowed us to tease out the positive aspects and, from our end, to have encouraged the Minister to be more positive in some parts of the Bill.

It is important to get it right. The original Bill was passed only a number of months ago and it contained some of these changes, but the Minister is unpicking it, despite the warnings from this side of the House that it is wrong. At least the Minister has listened and moved a little way. She should have listened in the first place and there should have been a proper debate on social welfare legislation on any of the pieces of social welfare legislation. This Government and the previous Government have been guilty of rushing Bills through the House. Sometimes there is a need to put legislation in place once the budget has been passed, but the second social welfare Bill each year is usually more considered over a longer debate. I presumed this would have been the case with this legislation.

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

I welcome the change which represents a substantial improvement on what went before, although I am bound to say I am a little confused at the idea that someone with a child up to the age of 14 years who has to transfer from lone parent's allowance to jobseeker's allowance because his or her child has passed the 12 years of age threshold will not be compelled to prove that he or she is looking for work. On the other hand, such persons will be compelled to engage in the activation process which is supposed to be something that prepares them for work. Perhaps what the Minister has in mind is the future when they are finally in a position to look for work or when they are in a position that they have constantly to be seeking work.

The difficulty is that a substantial proportion of the population of this country is at risk of poverty and is living below the internationally accepted poverty line. The Minister will agree that lone parents feature largely in that proportion. The risk of poverty is exceptionally prevalent among lone parents. It has been recognised that the best way to get oneself out of poverty is to get a job of some sort. That is the reason that, traditionally, people in receipt of lone parent's allowance have been entitled to hold on to their allowance while working and to earn up to a certain amount. A limit applies, and at that stage it begins to come down. The Government has reduced that limit, not once but twice. In other words, if people go out to work, they must earn less if they wish to hold on to their full lone parent's allowance. That is a disincentive. The net result of these changes will mean that as the youngest child reaches the requisite age, people will be taken out of the category of lone parent, in which they are permitted to work and earn while keeping the lone parent's allowance, and put on jobseeker's allowance which contains a disincentive to work because once a person is working, the allowance is deducted euro for euro. There is also the question of availability for work. One would probably lose the jobseeker's allowance once one goes out to work. That is regressive.

I presume my amendment No. 12 is out of order but it is an attempt to delay this process by saying that the Minister has discretion as to when to introduce the measure. It might not be the most elegant way to do it but that is what my amendment tries to achieve.

As for the people who will be directly affected by this section, I have a letter which a constituent of mine received from the Minister's Department. This case demonstrates very clearly that people who have gone out to work, many of whom are lone parents doing part-time work, will be badly affected. My constituent is working two days a week. Her net income is €173. She receives €190 lone parent's allowance and €40 family income supplement, FIS, payment because she in low-paid employment. The letter from the Department is dated 30 May 2013. It informed her that because her eldest child has now reached the age of 12 years, her lone parent's allowance will be due to cease from 27 June 2013. As a result of her losing her lone parent's allowance, she will get an increase in her FIS payment. She was given a phone number for information on the amount of FIS payment she would receive to compensate her for her loss of lone parent's allowance. As an experiment I tried the number myself. I tried several times and I might as well have been ringing another galaxy. I challenge anyone from the Department to start ringing this number - 043 3340053 - in the morning to see how long it takes to get through. Eventually, I pursued my own inquiries in the Department of Social Protection. The answer is obvious that she will get 60%. The increase in FIS payment will be 60% of what she is losing. She is losing €190 and she will get €114. That is a drop of €76 per week. This lady is in rented accommodation. As she is working part-time, she is unable to get rent allowance.

Her rent is of the order of €650 per month, which means her entire wage is going on it. Instead of living on €190 per week, she is now expected to live on €114 per week. That is the net result of the provision and it is replicated for any lone parent who is working in a part-time job and who will, almost inevitably, be in receipt of family income supplement on the basis that the combined lone-parent payment and income from a part-time job is under the threshold. It is a very substantial loss. This is a person who took it upon herself to go out and get whatever work she could. It is only a part-time job for two days a week, which is what she could get, but she is doing her very best to lift herself out of poverty. Yet this is the net result of the Government's legislation. While I do not know what the cost implications are, the Minister should reflect on the impact on such people. I can give her a copy of the letter and bring the exact case to her attention if she so desires. While I do not think it would change anything, I will send it on as I would like her to look at it to see the effect the policy is having on real people. A woman who was living on €190 per week is now expected to live on €114 while looking after a school-going child.

The Minister should reflect on what she is doing when introducing these changes. I do not care where they originated or what Government proposed them initially, but they will now cause great hardship to very vulnerable people and they should be delayed. I do not say there will not come a time when it is desirable to change the law along the lines the Minister proposes, but now is not that time.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 10 represents an effort on the part of the Minister to undo the damage that was done in the last budget. It is prompted by the protests of lone parents and organisations representing them, including SPARK and One Family, and points made on their behalf from the Opposition setting out how retrograde was the move to phase in the elimination of the one-parent family payment when children reach the age of seven. Prompted by those protests and expressions of concern, the Minister said she would not go ahead with the provisions unless we had a Scandinavian model of child care. That was a correct acknowledgement of the concerns that had been raised with her about the impact of this budget measure on lone parents, a group which, as the Minister is well aware, suffers disproportionately from deprivation and poverty. Self-evidently, as many of us thought would be the case, we do not have a Scandinavian model of child care less than one year on and are very unlikely to have one any time soon.

While section 10 is an attempt to undo the damage and fill the gap, it does not fully address the problem. Given the fact that we do not have a Scandinavian model of child care, it raises the question of why we do not simply reverse completely the move that was made in the last budget. That is what we should do. One of the reasons is that in the transition payment the Minister proposes, she defeats the very purpose of encouraging and incentivising people to work, which she would generally promote. As the Department's officials acknowledged in a briefing to Opposition Members and representatives of lone-parent organisations, lone parents who are working and earning €200 per week will lose €39 per week. That represents for them a direct disincentive to work. It simply cannot be justified, particularly when lone parents suffer disproportionately from disadvantage and poverty. How can the Minister justify it? It is utterly unfair.

Parenting is work. It is not sitting around doing nothing. Being a lone parent is double work. A lone parent does not have the supports one might get from a partner. There are all those extra difficulties. If people see a financial loss as significant as the one that will result from the Bill when they are working, it will be a direct disincentive to work as well as imposing significant hardship. It cannot be justified. While my amendment has been ruled out of order as it proposes a charge on the Exchequer, the Minister could amend the section to provide that people who are working do not suffer financially when making the transition to the new payment. They should not see a reduction in their incomes. If they do, it is a disincentive to work. That is self-evident. It is not the case for people who are not working as they will get the full payment, which is the result, as I understand it, of the difference in the income disregard for one-parent family payment and that for jobseeker's allowance. It is wrong and the Minister cannot justify it. She must address the problem.

SPARK raised a further issue in this context. There seems to have been no consideration of how maintenance payments will be treated in assessments of means. SPARK has urged the Minister to consider this issue, which may have a hugely negative effect on lone parents' incomes. SPARK says this issue illustrates how little impact-assessment research has been carried out as to how the changes the Minister is making might affect lone-parent families.

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

I am not sure the amendments proposed by Deputies Ó Snodaigh and O'Dea would achieve what they may have in mind. As worded, the amendments would delete or defer the transitional arrangements I have introduced to mitigate the effects of the recent changes and to make the system more positive. That would be an adverse result for recipients.

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

That is why I withdrew my amendment.

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

I accept that. I do not know if Deputy O'Dea has had an opportunity to consider.

On the general argument, while I accept that the Deputies who have spoken have the interests of lone parents at heart, we must ask ourselves a couple of honest questions as a society. We have had a system in which the social welfare approach to lone parents has been very passive. Someone who went onto lone-parents allowance could be left entirely alone.

With regard to those parenting on their own, it must be borne in mind there is a lot of work parenting a child or children. Many people parenting on their own have done very well at it. Although we are spending over €1 billion on the one parent family payment, none of the Deputies can explain why, in the context of the large spend, the outcomes on poverty for lone parents have been worse. That is a question that must be asked in the House.

I have many friends and know many people who parented on their own. Many of them aged from being lone parents by the time their children reached adulthood. I listened to what they have to say and they consistently tell me they regret not going back earlier to education, training and employment. Leaving the workforce and not picking up on education and qualifications means people run the risk of only being only able to go for low paid and temporary or casual work. Deputies know exactly what I am talking about. How has our system done that? It has done so by being passive and not providing a pathway. In the cases of very young lone parents, who had a child in the middle or later teenage years or early 20s, the best outcomes, and the lone parents who have done most successfully in terms of economic outcomes for themselves and their children, are those who have gone back to education or training or taken up some employment and retained a connection to the labour market. The women in these situations have often been from middle-class families or from parents who solidly supported them to stay in education, or to take a few years out while the baby was young and then to continue with education so that they qualify and are in a position to get the kinds of jobs they aspire to and, ultimately, to have a career with a living wage.

We must reflect carefully on the cases where that has not been the experience. From his experience in Limerick, Deputy O'Dea knows the sterling work by a series of community organisations in different parishes in Limerick. With his hand on his heart, Deputy O'Dea would not say the outcomes in Limerick city have been the kind of outcomes he would want in terms of progression for those parenting on their own. I refer particularly to the outcomes for children. This also applied during the height of the Celtic tiger. Much money went into this area.

It is a difficult job but what I am trying to do is to move social welfare from being passive to proactive. We can examine countries that have tried to do something differently and where the outcomes have been better. What is critical is a society where the emphasis is on parents being able to remain connected to education, finish education or return after a certain time to get the qualifications that enable them to get employment. This measure recognises the situation in the United Kingdom and the North, about which I have a discussion with Deputy Ó Snodaigh, where what is termed the lone parent "ageing out age" is seven years of age in the UK, with conditionality. In Scandinavian countries it is generally far younger. I referred to this in the debate in the Seanad and I am sure Deputy Ó Snodaigh recalls the modification on the point of people genuinely seeking work. The purpose of the amendment is to develop capacity to take into account the caring requirements and the real social needs to give enhanced opportunities and encouragement to lone parents to stay in education and, ultimately, to be able to get the kind of employment they aspire to and that will enable them to have a career.

I reiterate that I want to see us looking at parents as parents, not asking their relationship status. Much of the social welfare system was built upon relationship status. Although thankfully it is not so much the case nowadays, the child of a lone parent was seen as having a greater challenge than the child of a couple living together or married. Deputies referred to the poverty rates of lone parents. We must have the same ambitions for lone parents as we have for other people so that they can participate fully.

I have had an opportunity to visit and meet many of the organisations involved. Almost all of them are positive about lone parents being encouraged to take up employment and, particularly, education and training. There is a major increase in people in receipt of back to education allowance. I am happy to say we have developed and begun, on a pilot basis, 6,500 after-school places. These will be available to parents going back to work.

I am also conscious of the fact that our system must encourage married couples where no one in the family is working and both adults are in receipt of social welfare payments. We must encourage them so that no child, for a long period of childhood, is living in a house where none of the adults are at work. The research on those at risk of poverty or those with bad experiences of poverty identify jobless households as those with the worst of all outcomes, whether one or more adults lives in the house. The after-school child care system has been rolled out since April and it will be fully rolled out nationally by September, the start of the new school year. It is a start but it is an important one because for parents at work, when the children are in school, work within the framework of school hours suits best. The extra hour or two getting back after school can be a vital issue for parents whose children are at school.

We are rolling out the new Intreo offices and lone parents who are in the transitional stage will have access to all of the services of the Intreo offices, while taking into account that they might be more interested in part-time work given their caring responsibilities.

My ambition is to see one-parent families being enabled to become active in employment, education, training, work experience and work opportunities. Deputy O'Dea said that getting employment is one of the most important indicators. With regard to the case he mentioned, if he provides us with the details we will certainly examine it. It is hard to take in the details in summary form but perhaps he will give a copy to the officials. I believe having a focus on the fact that lone parents will be expected to be involved in education will put a very firm focus in the Department on looking at additional supports for lone parents, particularly child care and after-school child care. We will be spending approximately €14 million on the after-school child care places. That is a significant amount of money at a time when the budget is extremely tight. It is a development I really look forward to in this country.

The early childhood education development initiated by the previous Government was a very positive development. Obviously there is a long way to go in terms of rolling out the quality of services we would like, but huge numbers of children in my constituency avail of it and it has been hugely positive. My colleague, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, has said she would ultimately like a second year to become available, as I would, on a phased basis as resources permit.

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

I seek clarification on my amendment, No. 12. Does that inevitably result in deferring the change the Minister is proposing? Essentially, I am proposing that the arrangement the Minister is proposing to change should be put on ice, as it were. How does that imply that I am delaying it?

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

We have already changed the law relating to the changes that have been put into law. Based on the discussions we have had and the availability of child care, we are now making transitional arrangements. If one were to abandon everything, one would be returning to the old idea that lone parents would be left passive.

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

No, I am just talking about the amendment.

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

It is an extremely positive measure to involve lone parents in the full range of activation possibilities that are available for them. Under the Deputy's amendment, as I understand it, we would drop the transition arrangements which we are putting forward. As the Deputy said, he wants everything put on ice. I do not believe that putting things on ice is the correct way. I understand that the Deputy is probably trying to reverse it, but I do not agree to that. I genuinely do not believe it is in the best interests of lone parents. The Deputy obviously has a different view.

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

No, I am suggesting that we do not start to implement it until the economy improves, because of the extent of poverty among lone parents in particular. However, if the effect of the amendment is to defer the change, which is better than what was there previously, I will be happy to withdraw it.

I must take issue with the Minister on a number of points. She argues that the spend on lone parents did not yield the desired outcomes. Let us face the fact that this is a cost saving measure. It will save money and the Minister has already stated that. The figures have been given in the budget. The Minister is essentially saying that we will have better outcomes if we spend less, which is a dubious proposition at best.

Let us take the example of a lone parent who is not working and who must transfer from lone parent's allowance to jobseeker's allowance. They are not affected by this change. It is the lone parent who goes out to work who will be affected. The Minister says it is desirable to have an incentive to go out to work. However, if one is reducing the reward a person gets for going out to work, that is a disincentive, the opposite of an incentive. I do not buy this idea that one must force lone parents onto jobseeker's allowance to get them involved in activation measures, education, training and so forth. Surely there can be a provision whereby lone parents in receipt of lone parent allowance can get involved compulsorily with the activation measures that are available. It is not necessary to change the status of the payment they are receiving.

I tried to explain the net result in the case I outlined, and I will give the details to the Minister's officials. Most lone parents are in very low waged employment or they work part-time. Usually, if one adds their net income to their lone parent allowance, they are under the FIS threshold. It is approximately €506 for one child. They are getting some FIS but if one takes away their lone parent allowance, the FIS will increase because the income has dropped. However, FIS is 60% of the difference between the combined income and the target figure which, in the case of one child, is €506. In other words, instead of getting the lone parent allowance, they will now be compensated by an increase in FIS to the extent of 60% of the lone parent allowance they had been receiving.

My point is that this will hit many individuals very hard. It will not encourage them to go out to work and it will not compel or encourage them to get involved in activation, training and so forth. It is just a savage financial blow to a large number of vulnerable people who can ill afford it at this point in time.

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

I do not have a major problem with the proposition contained in the Bill. My problem was with the initial changes. If it provides a facility for single parents to return to education or encourages them in any way, that is a welcome step. It is very challenging for one - or two - parents to raise children in today's climate and anything that can be done to encourage people to get further education and to enhance their ability to do that is acceptable.

However, we must remember that the jobs are not available, so if there is a punishment for not engaging fully we must be mindful of that. The last available figures indicated there were 50 unemployed people for every job vacancy. It might have changed since due to the huge number of young people, and indeed older people, who left the country and, perhaps, skewed the unemployment and jobs figures.

I am still unhappy with the change in the age. If the Minister reversed the changes that were made from 12 years to seven years and this proposal continued, it would have been a recognition of the likelihood that there will not be a Scandinavian model in place for at least another ten years, if not more. That would have addressed many of the concerns because these are additional supports.

The Minister is talking about moving people from the lone parent family payment to the jobseeker's allowance once the youngest child reaches seven, albeit with certain transitional arrangements in place. It would be much easier if the lone parent family payment were retained until the child was 12, or 14, as was once the case, and if there were as much access to training and work as possible. A myth created in this debate is that every lone parent who was in receipt of the payment was in receipt of it from the birth of the child until the child reached the maximum age in respect of which the payment could be made available. My information is that the majority stopped receiving the payment when full-time work became available. I do not know the current position with work not being available. In the past, the majority took up work when it was available or they received training. The issue was addressed in the past.

The areas where the lone payment allowance was most concentrated were areas in which there were many difficulties, including disadvantage. It was not just lone parents - they were mostly women - who were suffering the consequences of disadvantage; the whole community suffered. These are challenges that society has not fully addressed. Recent changes to the social welfare code have exacerbated some of the problems in the areas in question. While this legislation is positive by comparison to the last social welfare legislation, it is not where it should be. Although I do not oppose the measure before us, I contend the reason for it is that the Minister examined retrospectively what the Opposition said about the consequences of the changes and noted the actions of groups such as SPARK or One Family in campaigning to highlight how lone parent families were disproportionately affected by the last two budgets cuts in particular by comparison with the majority of others on social welfare. In some ways, this Bill is a positive step but it does not address the changes and regressive steps that have been taken.

Since the movement of lone parent families to the jobseeker's allowance is a transitional measure, I tabled a related amendment, but it was ruled out of order. Amendment No. 2 concerns those who are forced to retire at the age of 65 because of their contracts. I intended that there should be some kind of traditional payment for them. The affected individuals are forced to apply for the jobseeker's benefit or allowance. If the Minister can make a transitional arrangement for a lone parent family, such an arrangement could be encouraged for those who are retiring at 65 so that the restriction pertaining to the jobseeker's allowance, namely, that one must actively seek work, will not apply. I argued that what is occurring is ridiculous. Workers are being informed at 65 that they must retire in some months although the State transitional pension has disappeared. There is no pre-retirement allowance of the kind that existed in the past. The Minister should reintroduce the pre-retirement allowance. It is not valuable for the State to be pursuing people of 65 and 66 to make them seek work actively for one year. Obviously, they should be encouraged to do so. If they are lucky enough to get work, that is fine. The number of individuals affected is reducing because most people from now on will have contracts lasting until the age of 68.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has not really addressed the substantial issue that has been raised by a number of Deputies and which is the basis of my amendment and argument. The argument was put to me by SPARK, bearing in mind the impact this legislation will have on lone parents who are working. It will hurt them financially and act as a disincentive to work. The measure is going in precisely the opposite direction to the direction the Minister claims she wants to go. When she states we all need to address seriously the question of lone parents engaging with work, education and training, she should start by acknowledging that a very significant number of lone parents want to do so. In so far as they have been given the opportunities, incentives and supports to seek work or training, they have sought them. The number engaging has fallen recently given the impact of the recession and cuts, yet approximately 36% or 37% of lone parents are working. The percentage was considerably higher some years ago. It is obvious that if the Minister wants people to work, she should incentivise their doing so. One of the best incentives is to have well-paid jobs available such that going to work would be beneficial financially to one's family. I acknowledge there is not much work at present. It certainly flies in the face of wanting to move in the direction of incentivising work if lone parents are to be hit and hurt financially if they are working when their children reach the age of seven. The Minister cannot justify or stand over this. She has not addressed the specific problem.

When one asks the fair question as to why lone parents suffer disproportionately from poverty and disadvantage, the Minister implies it is because the lone parent family system was too passive and did not encourage or assist lone parents in engaging with education, training and employment. There is a much more fundamental answer, namely, the cost of child care. The latter is the difficulty. The Minister acknowledged this. As a result of the lobbying and protesting of lone parents' organisations after the budget announcements, and having thought about the matter, the Minister said the Department would not go ahead with its proposal unless we had a Scandinavian model of child care. She acknowledged this. The answer is that one must have the supports and child care, but we do not have them. The Minister states there are 6,000 new places for after-school care but this is against a backdrop in which the Department estimates the budgetary changes will affect 63,000 claimants.

Of course it is an improvement, but 6,000 is a tiny drop in the ocean compared to the number of claimants who will be affected by the changes the Department proposes to make.

We need incentives for people to work, of which the most important is the availability of good, well-paid jobs, and there are not many of them. That is not the sole responsibility of the Minister's Department - rather, it concerns the Government - but it is what we need. We also need child care to enable people who have shown their willingness to work to do so. A high proportion worked when it made sense for them to do so or when jobs were available. The system may not be working for some people. We need to improve it and it could be more proactive. That is not just true of lone parents, to which the Minister alluded; it is true of many groups in our society. Many people who want to work are not getting the help they need. They want to get back into work and be retrained and educated, but are not getting the help and assistance to do so. We should be proactive in giving people assistance, but the problem is that there are people, such as lone parents, for whom it is difficult because of the lack of supports and financial incentives. Will they be subject to the very draconian amendments the Minister has tabled in terms of reducing or even cutting off payments if they do not engage with the system? I presume they will be subject to them. That is pretty serious, given that the cuts that have been imposed by the Minister are acting as a disincentive for people to work when it is already difficult for them to do so. They will be disincentivised and hit financially. If they cannot sustain work for whatever reason they could potentially be subject to draconian measures and be further punished for things that are not their fault. Parents are struggling to bring up children in difficult financial circumstances.

The Minister has not addressed the key issue. Lone parents want to work but it is difficult to do so, and it is more difficult when they lose money because of the fact that they are working, as is the case with the transition payment. It is better than what was announced in the budget but it is still a problem.

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

The purpose of the amendment is to take into account the fact that people are parenting on their own by relaxing the requirement, in regard to jobseeker's payments, that the claimant be genuinely seeking work to take into account the fact that people have child care commitments and to allow them to satisfy that commitment. I do not make any apology for insisting that the system, not just for a lone parents but everybody, move from being passive. People went on social welfare and were left there. There were never asked to attend an interview or find out what the Department of Social Protection could do for them. To some extent they were parked, and there was a lot of money to do that. However, many people get enormous satisfaction, personal, family and community esteem and ambition for their children by being able to take part in education, training, work experience and working for a living wage. That is the system to which we are changing.

The Deputy's suggestion is that it is very harsh. I do not think he is suggesting that entirely, because he said he welcomes people going back to work. As a society we have to build a child care system to reflect the kind of systems we would like to see. We have to move away from a completely passive social welfare system to one that will encourage people to work. As the Deputy said, more than 60% of lone parents do not work.

He asked if lone parents will be subject to the activation process. The answer is yes. Equally, there is a requirement for the public service, including my Department and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, to ensure work is available to those on the live register. Lone parents are a tremendous resource for the country. We have to see that resource released, primarily for the people, their families and their communities, but also for the whole of Irish society.

Social welfare is moving from being an income cushion to support people at different stages of their lives and in different conditions and circumstances to being a springboard or a trampoline to get people to where they want to be. That is how we will build a kind of welfare state that will be supportive of people, particularly those of working age. We envisage that such people would be participants from the time they finish their general education until they eventually retire. Given that life expectancy is increasing for most people, that is a relatively long period.

I understand that the change we are making in the social welfare system is probably difficult for many people, but everyone who has come to Ireland from almost every country around the world and looked at our social welfare system is shocked and surprised at how passive it is. Other countries do not have the same level of passivity that our social welfare system has. Why, during the boom when a lot of employment was available, did the number of jobless families almost double, from below 10% to 15%? Nobody has explained that to me. Why, during the boom, did the number of people on various types of illness payment, in a population which is relatively healthy, climb to the astonishing figure of 16%? We have to ask ourselves these larger questions because it is those at work who, through their taxes and social insurance payments, pay for the system.

Equally, we know most individuals and families would be better off if adults could participate in the kind of work they are interested in doing and for which they would be paid a living wage. It is increasingly the case that employers are employing people for relatively few hours and people are relying on the social welfare system for the balance of their income. Many changes are taking place in the world of work. In the second half of last year Ireland experienced the first increase in the number of people in work since the crash. That is a small sign, and it is nothing like the level I would like to see, which is why I have talked about investment and stimulus programmes, but it is important that we work on every element of this. That is why the approach will be to move to an active social welfare system with support and expectations, whereby the Department of Social Protection, in conjunction with the Departments of Education and Skills and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, will help people to get into education and training and back to work.

Equally, people will be expected to make an effort to do so. It is a system of mutual obligations to which people who are in work and paying taxes are contributing. Most people are happy to pay PRSI, with the conditionality that it goes to those who require it and recipients are encouraged to be active and become financially independent.

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

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 16, between lines 34 and 35, to insert the following:

"11. (1) Section 178B of the Principal Act (as amended by section 5 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012) is amended by inserting the following new subsection (5)--

"(5) Subsection (2)(b) and (c) shall be introduced at a time of the Minister's discretion.".

(2) Section 178C of the Principal Act (as amended by section 5 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012) is amended by inserting the following new subsection (5)--

"(5) Subsection (2)(b) and (c) shall be introduced at a time of the Minister's discretion.".".

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

Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 are cognate and will be discussed together by agreement.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 17, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“Jobseeker's benefit -- refusal or failure to engage with activation measures

12. (1) Section 62(5) of the Principal Act is amended in paragraph (a) (amended by section 5 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2009)--(a) in subparagraph (ii) by substituting "available for employment, and" for "available for employment,",

(b) in subparagraph (iii) by substituting “family circumstances,” for “family circumstances, and”, and

(c) by deleting subparagraph (iv).(2) The Principal Act is amended by substituting the following sections for section 62A (inserted by section 7 of the Social Welfare Act 2010):

“Refusal or failure to attend activation meetings relating to jobseeker's benefit

62A. (1) Notice may be given by or on behalf of the Minister to any person receiving jobseeker's benefit requesting the person, at the time specified in the notice, to comply with the requirement specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3).

(2) Where a person refuses or fails, without good cause, to comply with the requirement specified in the notice under subsection (1) at the time specified in that notice, or at any time thereafter as may be determined by or on behalf of the Minister and notified to the person, the weekly rate of jobseeker's benefit payable to that person in respect of any such period of refusal or failure shall, subject to this section, be as set out in section 65(2) or, as the case may be, paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 65A(2).

(3) A notice under this section may require the person to whom it is given to do one of the following, at the time specified in the notice, or at any time thereafter as may be determined by or on behalf of the Minister and notified to the person--(a) attend at a meeting arranged by or on behalf of the Minister for the purpose of providing information to that person which is intended to improve his or her knowledge of the employment, work experience, education, training and development opportunities available to that person, or

(b) attend for or submit to an assessment of that person's education, training or development needs.(4) Where jobseeker's benefit is paid to a person at the weekly rate set out in section 65(2) or, as the case may be, paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 65A(2) on account of a refusal or failure to comply with the requirement specified in the notice under subsection (1) for a period of not less than 21 days, notice may be given by or on behalf of the Minister to that person requesting him or her, at the time specified in the notice, to comply with that requirement.

(5) Where a person refuses or fails, without good cause, to comply with the requirement specified in the notice under subsection (4) at the time specified in that notice, or at any time thereafter as may be determined by or on behalf of the Minister and notified to the person, that person shall be disqualified for receiving jobseeker's benefit for any period of continued refusal or failure commencing on the date specified in the notice under subsection (4), but such period of disqualification shall, subject to subsection (6), not exceed 9 weeks.

(6) Nothing in this section shall prevent the provisions of subsections (1) to (5) being applied to a person where, on or after the expiration of such period of disqualification as is applied in accordance with subsection (5)--(a) notice has been given by or on behalf of the Minister to that person requesting him or her, at the time specified in the notice, to comply with the requirement referred to in subsection (1), and

(b) that person continues, without good cause, to refuse or fail to comply with that requirement.(7) Where, on the commencement of section 12 of the Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013, jobseeker's benefit is being paid to a person at the weekly rate set out in section 65(2) or, as the case may be, paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 65A(2) for a period of not less than 21 days--(a) a notice may be given by or on behalf of the Minister to that person requesting him or her, at the time specified in the notice, to comply with the requirement specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (3), and

(b) subsections (4) to (6) shall apply to that person where he or she refuses or fails, without good cause, to comply with that requirement at or after the time specified in the notice under paragraph (a), or at any time thereafter as may be determined by or on behalf of the Minister and notified to the person.Refusal or failure to participate in prescribed schemes, programmes or courses relating to jobseeker's benefit

62B. (1) Where--(a) as a consequence of attendance for or submission to an assessment in accordance with section 62A(3)(b), a request is made by or on behalf of the Minister to that person to participate in, agree to participate in or avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in--

(i) any scheme or programme of employment or work experience,

or

(ii) a course of education, training or development, which is prescribed for the purposes of this section and which is considered appropriate having regard to the education, training and development needs of that person and his or her personal

circumstances, and

(b) that person refuses or fails, without good cause, to participate in, agree to participate in or avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in such a scheme, programme or course, as the case may be, the weekly rate of jobseeker's benefit payable to that person in respect of any such period of refusal or failure shall, subject to this section, be as set out in section 65(2) or, as the case may be, paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 65A(2).(2) Where jobseeker's benefit is paid to a person at the weekly rate set out in section 65(2) or, as the case may be, paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of section 65A(2) on account of a refusal or failure referred to in subsection (1)--(a) notice may be given by or on behalf of the Minister to that person requesting him or her, at the time specified in the notice, to attend for or submit to an assessment of that person's education, training or development needs, or

(b) a request may be made by or on behalf of the Minister to that person to participate in, agree to participate in or avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in--

(i) any scheme or programme of employment or work experience,

or

(ii) a course of education, training or development, which is prescribed for the purposes of this section and which is considered appropriate having regard to the education, training and development needs of that person and his or her personal

circumstances.

(3) Where a person refuses or fails, without good cause, to--(a) comply with the requirement specified in the notice under subsection (2)(a) at the time specified in that notice, or at any time thereafter as may be determined by or on behalf of the Minister and notified to the person, or

(b) participate in, agree to participate in or avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in any scheme, programme or course referred to in subsection (2)(b), that person shall be disqualified for receiving jobseeker's benefit for any period of such refusal or failure commencing on--

(i) the date specified in the notice under subsection (2)(a), or

(ii) the date of refusal or failure to participate in, to agree to participate in or to avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in any scheme, programme or course referred to in subsection (2)(b), as the case may be, but such period of disqualification shall, subject to subsection (4), not exceed 9 weeks.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the provisions of subsections (1) to (3) being applied to a person where, on or after the expiration of such period of disqualification as is applied in accordance with subsection (3)--(a) notice has been given by or on behalf of the Minister to that person requesting him or her, at the time specified in the notice, to comply with the requirement referred to in subsection (2)(a), or

(b) a request has been made by or on behalf of the Minister to that person to participate in, agree to participate in or avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in any scheme, programme or course referred to in subsection (2)(b), as the case may be, and that person continues, without good cause, to refuse or fail to--

(i) comply with the requirement specified in the notice under paragraph (a) at the time specified in that notice, or at any time thereafter as may be determined by or on behalf of the Minister and notified to the person, or

(ii) participate in, agree to participate in or avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in any scheme, programme or course referred to in paragraph (b).

Giving of notice under section 62A or 62B

62C. A notice under section 62A or 62B shall be given in writing and may be given in such other form as may be considered appropriate, including electronic form.”.

(3) Section 65(2) (inserted by section 7 of the Social Welfare Act 2010) of the Principal Act is amended by substituting “subsection (2) or (6) of section 62A or subsection (1) or (4) of section 62B” for “section 62A”.

(4) Section 65A(2) (inserted by section 7 of the Social Welfare Act 2010) of the Principal Act is amended by substituting “subsection (2) or (6) of section 62A or subsection (1) or (4) of section 62B” for “section 62A”.

(5) Section 68 (amended by section 7 of the Social Welfare Act 2010) of the Principal Act is amended--(a) in subsection (6) by inserting the following paragraph after paragraph (a):

“(b) has refused an offer of suitable employment,”,

and

(b) by deleting subsection (6A).”.

As a means of achieving the engagement of jobseekers who do not comply with activation measures, including the National Employment Action Plan, sanctions were introduced in April 2011 providing for reductions of up to €44 per week in the personal rate of payments. The Department has significantly increased the volume and efficiency of activation work in recent years by bringing groups of customers to information sessions prior to one-to-one engagement. Referrals to group engagement sessions have more than doubled to 38,100 in the first four months of 2013 compared with the same period in 2012. The group engagement process, combined with notifications about the possible sanctions for failure to engage, has resulted in improved levels of customer engagement and increased attendance at one-to-one interviews. The number of interviews achieved through the referral process has increased from 29,000 in the first four months of 2012 to 32,000 in the first four months of this year.

Under the current arrangement, a reduction of up to €44 per week in the personal rate of the jobseeker's payment is applied where a person fails to engage in the employment action plan or refuses to avail of appropriate training. In other words, a person in receipt of a full weekly rate could have his or her payment reduced to €144. The current engagements also preclude the payment of supplementary welfare allowance to compensate for this reduction. Under the revised arrangements, it is proposed that the sanctions which currently apply to refusals to participate in training and education options be extended to prescribed employment programmes and education courses. The revised arrangements also provide for a strengthening of the sanctions in the form of disqualification for up to nine weeks where a customer continues to fail to engage with activation measures after the weekly rate of payment has been reduced for more than three weeks.

The imposition of these sanctions can be appealed to the Social Welfare Appeals Office. It is intended that the proposed provisions will also generally prevent the payment of supplementary welfare allowance to compensate for the imposition of the disqualification, but payments of increases for qualified adults or children and supplements such as rent supplements will not be affected by the nine-week disqualification condition. It is applicable, in other words, to the individual's principal personal payment. The imposition of the nine-week disqualification may be lifted at any time if the person demonstrates a genuine re-engagement to the satisfaction of a deciding officer. Transitional arrangements will allow for the new disqualification provisions to be applied to people who have had their weekly payment reduced under the current provisions and who continue to fail to engage with activation measures after the Bill has commenced.

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

I recognise that this amendment simply represents an extension of an existing provision, but it also comprises a substantial strengthening of the sanctions. Why was this significant change not included in the original legislation? The Minister will no doubt say it had not been cleared by the Attorney General's office but, if that is the case, why not hold the Bill until such time as significant provisions, including this amendment and the earlier provision regarding attachment orders, were included in the Bill as drafted? That would have afforded us an opportunity to take advice, consult people at the coal face and come in here properly briefed for the Second Stage debate. The Government's legislative programme advertised the fact that change in the priority system for defined benefit pension schemes would be central to this Bill, but there is no provision for same. This amendment, on the other hand, amounts to a very significant change introduced at the last moment and shoehorned for discussion on the graveyard shift, in which nobody is taking the slightest interest. That is probably the intention. I could never work out exactly what the two parties comprising the Government were talking about when they spoke in advance of the election about a constitutional revolution and an entirely new way of doing business. If this is the new way of doing business, if this is the revolution, then people who are worried about constitutional change can certainly rest easy in their beds. This is no revolution. It is, in fact, an appalling way of doing business.

The amendment provides that sanctions will kick in where a person refuses or fails, without just cause, to comply with the requirement to engage with the specified labour activation measures. The Minister made the point that people can appeal a decision in this regard. The reality, however, is that while welfare recipients may believe they have just cause, the harassed and overworked local social welfare officer who is dealing with 50 or 100 cases at once might not feel disposed to examine in very much detail whether or not that is the case. At what point can a person appeal and if an appeal is instituted immediately, will the sanctions be stalled pending the outcome of the appeal? In other words, will an appeal prevent the sanctions from kicking in or will we have a ridiculous situation where sanctions kick in immediately even though the individual believes he or she has very good cause for not complying and is waiting six months for the appeals officer to make a decision on the matter?

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

I echo the concerns raised by Deputy Willie O'Dea in regard to the procedure for dealing with these proposals. We are stuck here at this hour of the night without yet having reached the pensions provisions. This is unacceptable, notwithstanding the merit of some of those proposals.

This amendment would require much longer than ten minutes to deal with adequately, but I will be brief in order to accommodate other speakers. This is another section which is all about sanction and stick, with no carrot whatsoever. The vast majority of people I know who have lost a job - we are dealing here with jobseeker's benefit and allowance - would love to have employment. They want to be out of the house every day earning money and have no wish to sit around doing nothing. Sometimes, however, the enormity of what has happened to them does not hit for some time, while in other cases it happens quite quickly. Some people go into a depression which prevents them from engaging properly. That is not, however, an excuse not to engage with activation measures. The valid reason for a failure to engage is when no activation programmes are available and there is no access to training and education at a given time. A person might, for example, be laid off in June but the education course in which he or she wishes to participate does not commence until later in the year.

There is no definition of just cause in the Bill. I presume that is up to the inspector in an office to decide, but nothing is ruled in or out. One person's just cause might not be another's and that is when one appeals to the social welfare appeals office. Given that the first amendment deals with jobseeker's benefit, it is pointless because by the time the appeal will be heard, if the current delays continue - I hope they will not - the person concerned will have transferred to a different payment, especially given that earlier this year the Minister reduced the length of time for which people are entitled to draw jobseeker's benefit. I know that in Finglas, for example, there are very few community employment places available. Most of them have been taken up. There are no courses available and there is very little training because the places have been taken up. That means that the majority of those on jobseeker’s allowance or benefit want to engage. If one can find courses in any FÁS centre for which there is no uptake and demand, I would love to point some of the people in Ballyfermot towards them. The area has always had a high level of unemployment, but the people there want to take up courses and ensure they have the opportunity and the skills required when jobs become available. However, they do not have access to courses and by courses I mean meaningful courses which are fit for purpose, but we do not have them as yet. I believe the Minister is working in that direction with the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn. If SOLAS and the changes to FÁS were in place, if the changes to the VECs, with tutors travelling to community employment centres to give courses, were rolled out and if there was no uptake or people sat back waiting, one could argue for this amendment. However, I cannot see a huge level of refusals to engage in any community. I asked when we discussed the last amendment about the 65 year olds who would now be on jobseeker's benefit. This also applies to them. It is absolutely crazy that, having reached the retirement age set when they started work, they will now be punished and whipped into line to ensure their activation, even though the likelihood is they will not end up in any meaningful or full-time employment in the vast number of cases, given the state of the economy. I am not saying 65 year olds should not work if they can find it, but I am being realistic. There should be some recognition, through a transitional arrangement, for those who are 65 years or over, but the last State transition pension was payable at the age of 65 years.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister says we need an active rather than a passive social welfare system. I agree and suspect most of us do. This amendment concerns the difference between what the social welfare system can do for or to one. It is all about what it can do to one, not at all what it can do for one. That is what needs to be addressed. Other speakers have said people want the education courses, training and the jobs. One does not have to go far to find this out. One has to go as far as talking to just about anybody who has lost his or her job in the past three or four years, which is the majority of those dependent on social welfare. They want to get back into work and education and training. They want assistance.

The amendment concerns punishments and so on, which is not the best incentive. In fact, it will get people's backs up, but there is also a real danger that it will end up as a box-ticking exercise. There was an element of this in what the Minister said. How many meetings did she say she had had this year with what we now call "customers", which is an interesting term? Will it end up as a statement about the number of meetings held with customers? Will it be a box-ticking exercise, after which the Minister might say, "We had 25,000 meetings with customers this year. We are doing really well in activating people. We have got so many people on this or that course"? What happened at the meetings held? What were the courses for? Where did they lead to?

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

For a lot of people, to employment, actually. They are delighted to be working or on community employment schemes or engaging in various other activities.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many of them are, which shows that they do not need the stick as much as they need the carrot. This is all stick and no carrot. The Minister needs to examine that issue. If she really wants to help to activate people, instead of Departments inflicting punishments on people, she could set up local employment fora and bring in people on social welfare to ask them what she could do for them to help them to get back to work and be trained. If the Department gave people what they asked for and wanted, she would go a lot further in creating jobs.

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

On a point of information, that is exactly what the group engagements are about; people come back to the Department to thank it because they did not appreciate the full range of supports available. We are constantly thanked. Maybe the Deputy is not, but we are.

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

There are 450,000 people who do not want to be customers. People come to me to ask how they can get onto a community employment scheme, if there is a vacancy anywhere, how they can get on a Tús scheme and I have to tell them that is not how it works, that a list is generated and if they are on that list, they will be called for interview. There is a willingness and a desire to work because, as the Minister said, many believe they are defined by what they do. To whom will these further sanctions be applied? I do not meet them.

Dealing with this issue at this time of the night means that it has not received the consideration it needs from outside and inside, which is nothing short of a disgrace. The initiatives introduced late at night tend to put people at a serious disadvantage.

To reiterate Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh’s point about the recipients of the transition pension, people who are aged 65 years, who have probably worked all of their lives, perhaps from the time they were 15 or 16 years, must wait one year after their job requires them to retire at 65 years. That is untenable and it takes people by surprise. I know the arrangement will kick in from next year, but the Minister should study it again.

Does the Minister intend to accept any of the amendments we will not reach tonight?

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

The people who have been involved in a sanctions regime absolutely failed to engage and there is no response from them. They must have some accountability for the public income and support they are receiving and take part in the activation process.

As Deputy Catherine Murphy said, the majority of people are anxious to engage. Those who do not are a small group of people but, if they fail to engage, it can be demoralising for everyone else involved and for the staff.

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

As it 12 midnight, I am now required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Social Protection and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section or as appropriate the section as amended is hereby agreed to in committee; the Schedule and Title are hereby agreed to in committee; the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House; Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and the Bill is hereby passed."