Dáil debates

Wednesday, 19 November 2014

Social Welfare Bill 2014: Second Stage (Resumed)

 

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

10:50 am

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

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae was in possession when the debate was adjourned yesterday.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, for attending and the Technical Group for allowing me to use some of its speaking time.

I propose to continue in the same vein as my contribution last night. The purpose of social welfare is to protect vulnerable people and ensure sufficient money is available to take care of people with particular needs such as the disabled, the elderly and those who are ill. The Government has done a great disservice to such persons by establishing Irish Water, on which it has wasted hundreds of millions of euro. When one includes the cost of the bureaucracy involved, the real cost of installing each water meter is between €800 and €1,000. How can the Minister of State stand over such waste, especially given the probability that none of the water meters will ever be read? This waste is occurring at a time when we are trying to save money and provide services for vulnerable people such as the disabled.

The Department is engaged in a witch hunt in which it seeks, through the review of entitlements, to cut off benefits to social welfare recipients. Under these so-called reviews, persons who receive a review letter and make a mistake in their responses, fail to submit sufficient information or miss the deadline for responding will have their payments cut. The individuals concerned are experiencing difficult and perhaps traumatic times in their lives through illness and other factors. A frightening number of my constituents are undergoing reviews and the position in my constituency is reflected throughout the country. It is similar to what occurred in the case of reviews of discretionary medical cards, on which the Government was forced to do a U-turn when it was given a kicking in the local and European elections. The practice is disgraceful. Why is the Department picking on vulnerable people by reviewing such a large number of cases and hurting so many when it has no problem in creating a monster, Irish Water, and wasting hundreds of millions of euro on it?

If the Tánaiste and the Taoiseach are running Irish Water, why does the company need a chief executive officer? What does the CEO do and why is he being paid if the Government is running the show and doing so many U-turns? The Government leaked figures for what would be the water charges. Its announcements on Irish Water depend on how many thousands of people protest on the streets. It expresses surprise that the mood among water protestors has turned to anger. While I do not agree with violence or nastiness, I can understand the reason for what has happened. The Tánaiste looked down her nose at people and taunted them about having excellent cameras in their mobile phones. What type of nonsense was that? Who, in the name of God, does the Tánaiste think she is in looking down on respectable people who engage in protests and making smart comments? The Government then wonders why people are outraged.

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

The Deputy is straying from the Bill.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking about money.

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

The Bill deals with social welfare.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I am speaking about money for social welfare payments. Why is the Department trawling through people's entitlements in an effort to reduce payments? The Government has wasted large amounts of money and will go down in the history books as being a disgrace for creating Irish Water. Government backbench Deputies have been in a coma and did not open their mouths about Irish Water. They saw nothing wrong with it and went along with the Government's bidding, which was disgraceful.

Photo of Derek KeatingDerek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Deputy's contribution is not related to the Bill.

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

Yes, he must conclude in one minute.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not realise Deputy Keating was running the show. I am entitled to speak.

To return to the money from the Department that is to be repaid - a point raised by Deputy Robert Troy in an earlier discussion - from where will the money needed to repair the pipes come? The pipes should have been repaired in the first instance. The Government has created a monster without a single pipe being repaired. It seems not one penny will be available to repair pipes because all of the money will have been wasted on bonuses. The trade unions have stated Irish Water staff want their bonuses. The Government has completely lost the plot. Backbench Deputies on the other side were in a coma and did not open their mouths about the issue, choosing to remain silent when the House debated and voted on it.

Photo of Derek KeatingDerek Keating (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The debate on water services will take place later.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The only reason Government Deputies are now running scared is that they dread the prospect of an election. Whatever hammering they are given and whatever is said about them by good people, they will deserve it. They will be judged on what they did in this House and what they have done is shameful. They created a monster and wasted hundreds of millions of euro, believing they would get away with it, yet Deputy Derek Keating chooses to interrupt me.

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

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

Photo of Michael Healy-RaeMichael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad that I had an opportunity to speak on this issue. It is a pity no one in the Government showed a little common sense.

Photo of Robert TroyRobert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Social Welfare Bill. It must be acknowledged that the legislation contains a number of positive elements, including an increase of €5 per month in child benefit, a 25% Christmas bonus for long-term welfare recipients, an increase in the living alone allowance to €9 per week and the introduction of a back-to-work family dividend of €29.80 per week per child for 12 months, to be paid at a reduced rate of 50% in the second year. While these measures are welcome, they must be viewed in the context of the measures taken in previous social welfare legislation. The increase in the living alone allowance for elderly people amounts to an additional 20 cent per day. Elderly people have, however, lost the household telephone allowance and the household benefits package has been filleted through the withdrawal of assistance with electricity bills. In addition, despite promising to abolish the prescription charge of 50 cent per item on taking office, the Government has increased prescription charges to €2.50 per item. One must also bear in mind the reduction in income limits for medical cards and changes in the items covered by the cards. While the recent budget contains a number of welcome and positive changes to which the Bill will give effect, they must be viewed in the context of the measures introduced in the lifetime of the Government. Unfortunately, the Government has frequently targeted the less well-off, the vulnerable and those who do not have the wherewithal to stand up for themselves.

I intend to focus my attention on the lack of progress in tackling the issue of affordable child care. A recent UNICEF report was discussed with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs during Oral Questions this morning. The report shows that child poverty rates in Ireland have increased dramatically. The Minister stated that the matter was primarily one for the Minister for Social Protection and pointed out that the best way to help children out of poverty was to get their parents back to work. I agree that the best way to support families is to ensure someone in the household is earning a decent wage. In recent years report after report, both at national and international level, has noted the high cost of child care in Ireland.

11 o’clock

The most recent Indecon report commissioned by the Donegal county childcare committee highlighted that the cost of child care was preventing people from returning to work and forcing families out of work. The Government has done nothing to tackle the problem. In the almost four years it has been in power we have only had one debate on the affordability of child care, a debate which was facilitated in Private Members' time and which I initiated.

Some may ask what this issue has to do with social welfare, but it has everything to do with it. I acknowledge a step was taken in the budget in terms of the family dividend. If a person returns to work, he or she is allowed to keep €29.80 a week, which goes some way to help. What about those who are in work and in receipt of a low wage and who will be forced out of employment because of the cost of child care? Are we telling them to give up work for a while and claim benefits in order that they can receive €29.80 a week for 12 months and 50% of it thereafter?

I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, to the Chamber. When she announced changes to the eligibility criteria for receipt of the lone parent's payment two years ago and reduced the age up to which people could claim, she said she would not bring in the changes until we had a Scandinavian model of child care in Ireland. We certainly have no Scandinavian model of child care today. However, there have been reductions in the lone parent's payment, a commitment on which the Minister reneged. Last year she introduced, as part of the budget, 6,000 places for the after school child care programme, for which €14 million was allocated. At the end of June this year, only 154 of the 6,000 places had been taken up. I would appreciate it if the Minister listened because I am identifying a problem in a scheme she announced last year.

11:00 am

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

I am listening.

Photo of Robert TroyRobert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There has been an uptake of less than 3% of a scheme that was meant to tackle the issue of affordable child care. Where was the balance of the money invested? It was not invested in tackling the issue of the affordability of child care.

The former Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, now Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, announced at the launch of the Indecon report last year that she would review the community child care support scheme, operated in conjunction with the Department of Social Protection. Persons in receipt of social welfare can avail of the scheme, but some 12 months on there has been no review and no extension of the scheme and no increased supports for those on low incomes and in receipt of family income supplement or lone parents. Earlier this week the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy James Reilly, in reply to a parliamentary question, announced what he would not do in tackling the crippling cost of child care. He said he would not consider tax allowances which he ruled them out for a number of reasons. He said tax credits favoured the wealthy. That is rubbish. They could be constructed in a way which favoured the wealthy, but as the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, knows from her profession, tax credits can be constructed in a manner which favours the less well-off. Tax credits could be available only to people who use registered child care providers. If they are registered, they are regulated by the Department and if a proper system of inspection is in place, there should be no issue with quality. While it is not exclusively the responsibility of the Minister, her Department has a significant role to play in tackling the crippling cost of child care, which is a major issue. We all read a recent letter published in the national media from a mother living in the south of Ireland who outlined the stark challenges and choices she and her husband faced as a family every day because of the cost of child care, about which the Government has chosen to do nothing.

I refer to the issue of homelessness. Last weekend we read in a national newspaper that 700 children were living in emergency accommodation. Yesterday, in a reply to my party leader, the Taoiseach said there was a protocol in place that was working. He talked about new social welfare housing schemes which would come on stream in 2020 and the 1,800 voids in the Dublin City Council area, which is disgraceful. There should be no voids anywhere. Who were the lead parties on Dublin City Council in recent years who allowed this to happen? It should not be allowed to happen, but it does not take away from the point that there are 700 children living in bed and breakfast and hostel accommodation. My party leader quoted one young child who said he or she could not paint a picture of his or her house because he or she did not have a house or a home.

I do not mean to be political, but the Minister has to take an element of responsibility for this issue because she introduced changes to the rent allowance scheme which are having a direct effect on those looking for accommodation in the private rented market. It is in place to help people because we do not have a sufficient supply of social housing. Something needs to be done to address this issue. It should not be addressed by way of a protocol or using the 1,800 voids in Dublin. They are welcome but will take time to be brought on stream. The construction of new houses and the extra resources allocated are welcome, but it will take time for them to be available. Is the Minister prepared to consider increasing rent allowance to take account of the current increase in private rental costs to support families who have no homes and the 700 children living in hostel and bed and breakfast accommodation?

The purpose of the mortgage-to-rent scheme was to deal with people who were at risk of losing their homes. I do not know what the figures are and would appreciate it if the Department would revert to me on the matter. My evidence, based on dealings with constituents at my clinic, is that many families who would like to avail of the scheme are being put through unbelievable bureaucracy and ultimately turned down. I would welcome the figures for the uptake of the scheme.

I refer to the social dividend from NAMA housing. It was constructed in such a way that housing would become available to support the less well-off in society, but it is not happening. The former Minister, Mr. Phil Hogan, who was in charge of the shambles that was Irish Water, an issue we will debate later today, promised in 2012 that 2,000 houses would be transferred under NAMA.

To date, including 2012 and 2013, fewer than 500 houses have been transferred. This is not right or proper and must be addressed by the Government.

11:10 am

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

The Deputy is moving away from the Social Welfare Bill when he speaks about NAMA and housing.

Photo of Robert TroyRobert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am dealing with the issue in the context of homelessness and of the reduction in the rent allowance and in the context that the Department of Social Protection has a direct influence in this regard. This is the reason I raised the issue. The Minister should be aware of the situation, because we cannot tackle the issue of homelessness in a silo. It must be dealt with in a holistic manner and across Departments. The Minister needs to know what is going on in other Departments in regard to this.

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

The Deputy should return to the Bill, please.

Photo of Robert TroyRobert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A previous speaker commented on the issue of reviews of previous claims. Currently, there appears to be a concentrated effort on reviews of previous claims and on questioning people's entitlement to avail of various schemes, such as invalidity or disability schemes. These people are being put through rigorous scrutiny to see whether they are still entitled to their benefit. I believe an effort is being made to try to deprive people of their entitlement and to recoup scarce resources. No one can condone a person claiming a benefit illegitimately, but genuine claimants are being put under undue pressure and anxiety in the context of claiming a disability benefit to which they are entitled.

One case I am aware of relates to a carer's allowance. This person was in receipt of benefit for caring for her mother for two years. Carer's benefit is payable for a maximum of two years, but when the benefit expired the mother's condition had not changed - if anything, it had got worse - and the daughter caring for her applied for carer's allowance. She was refused the allowance, but has appealed that decision. Last week, the Government voted down legislation introduced by my colleague, Deputy Willie O'Dea, concerning delays in dealing with appeals. This is a serious concern. We must address the issue of these long delays in appeals on welfare entitlement.

I refer to the Tús scheme. This is an excellent and worthwhile scheme, but it could be improved in terms of how candidates are selected for it. On the community employment scheme, formerly the FÁS scheme, people could apply for a job. They could go for interview to the supervisor or sponsoring body and be deemed eligible if they met the criteria. Under the Tús scheme however, people are randomly selected for the scheme, while somebody, perhaps long-term unemployed, with a particular interest in the scheme cannot join it. That is wrong. The same criteria as used for somebody applying for community employment should be applied to the Tús scheme. If people wish to avail of the scheme, they should be allowed to.

I also believe we should extend the length of time people may be on the scheme, which is currently restricted to 12 months. The Minister has ruled out extending that, but I urge her to reconsider that decision. Many people have found the scheme extremely beneficial, particularly people who worked in the construction industry. Some of these people are at a stage in life, in their late 50s or early 60s, where they may not want or are not in a position to retrain as their chance of returning to full-time employment is not high. However, they would welcome an opportunity to work meaningfully in their communities for a number of years, but are precluded from doing that because of the 12 month restriction. The Minister should consider addressing this and we would welcome that.

Youth unemployment remains a critical issue. I suggest the Minister may not have sufficient personnel working on labour activation and in the various offices around the country to support these young people. Will the Minister inform me, either in her response to this debate or in writing, how the moneys are being spent in regard to the youth guarantee scheme? What are we doing to support people who want to get back into employment? The process in place currently in terms of an unemployed person getting a back to education allowance seems to be rigid. If people miss a day or two, they are excluded from the scheme. They are being told they should remain on unemployment benefit for a further 12 months and they can avail of the scheme in 12 months time.

There must be some element of leniency and commonsense. When social welfare inspectors are inspecting applications at local level, every support possible should be given to people who wish to return to education or training in order to improve their chances of availing of any job opportunities that arise in the future. The Government and the Oireachtas must support this as a priority.

Photo of Lucinda CreightonLucinda Creighton (Dublin South East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is unfortunate that this Social Welfare Bill is yet again a missed opportunity. I want to address two key issues in my contribution. First, the social welfare system is failing to achieve its purpose, which is, supposedly, to give people a hand up and to help them get out of poverty and unemployment. Second, the system discriminates between the employed and self-employed and this cannot be allowed continue.

Our social welfare system is failing. My constituency, which I share with the Minister of State, Deputy Humphreys, has both extremes in it. It has some extremely wealthy people, but it also has a huge cohort of extremely poor people. These people are struggling and are becoming representative of intergenerational poverty and deprivation. Nothing in our welfare system encourages mobility or creates opportunities for these our poorest people. Homes and families are mired in long-term unemployment. As per the CSO figures of March 2014, in excess of 180,000 people are in long-term unemployment. This is a cancer on our society. All the studies show that being unemployed causes long-term damage to a person's earning potential, health, mental health and to their children's educational and employment opportunities. Unemployment particularly lends itself to alcohol and drug dependency and ultimately causes homelessness.

The Minister has had ample opportunity over the past number of years to be creative and to find new solutions to the issues through the welfare system. Instead, we have seen a missed opportunity and a tinkering around the edges. People stand to lose too much by leaving the welfare system and there is too little mobility. People lose medical cards, rent allowance and various other benefits if they leave the system. The lack of any support for low earners and people leaving welfare to take up employment is unconscionable.

It is immoral and consigning certain families, with certain postal codes, to intergenerational unemployment and poverty. These are the people with little or no hope and no prospects and they are being consigned to a vicious cycle of poverty. If the Minister does not take my word for it, she should talk to Mr. John Lonergan, the former Governor of Mountjoy Prison, who has said he can predict the likelihood of a child, juvenile or young person ending up in detention, prison or a life of crime simply on the basis of where they come from and who their family are.

Unfortunately, no serious material change has occurred under the Government. There has been no real reform of the welfare system, with generations of people stuck in a downward spiral. The ESRI provided us with some very valuable information in its excellent report on joblessness in 2012, of which I know the Minister is aware. The report showed that jobless families were at enormous risk of poverty. Interestingly, it showed the need for a broad range of policies, including on child care, to tackle this issue. Deputy Robert Troy has just spoken about the need to provide child care support for working women and families. Why is child care such an important policy tool? Quite simply, it is because women are being forced out of the workplace. They have suffered most in the recession in that they have lost 14% of their disposable income, as opposed to 9% for men. In 2008 some 60.5% of women in Ireland were in employment; in 2014 the figure has dropped to 55.9%.

This should not come as a surprise to us. It has not happened by chance but because of the policy choices that have been made. Policies have driven down the level of participation by women in the workplace. The reduction in children's allowance has been a contributory factor, as has the reduction in maternity benefit introduced in last year's budget. No attempt has been made to tackle the spiralling cost of child care. Child care costs in Dublin now average almost €1,200 per month. In order to afford this, a woman or family has to earn almost €24,000 a year simply to pay for child care, for which there should be tax relief. I asked a question of the Minister for Finance just last week about how much he or his officials would estimate the cost of relief at 20% for working families, which would be modest enough. The cost was estimated at €680 million. While that is a substantial sum, if we are serious about labour activation, lifting families out of poverty and the potential of women to contribute to their homes, society and the workplace, we have to be serious about investing and giving opportunities to women to work.

The increase of €5 in children's allowance is not just tokenistic; frankly, I find it quite insulting. It will do very little to change the plight of families and very little, if anything, to change the plight of women in the home or the workplace. It is not in any sense a radical or dramatic solution to the major challenge we face in society, the major challenge to women who want to contribute, develop their careers and give their family and children a better chance in life. It really is an insult to them that no thought has been put into this issue and that no measures have been introduced to support and assist them in the workplace. This has to change.

The second point I want to address is the fact that the Bill, once again, misses the opportunity to end discrimination against self-employed persons. The self-employed are becoming quite used to being discriminated against, but that does not make it right. We know that the welfare system and the tax code both discriminate against them. We know that self-employed persons pay a higher rate of income tax than PAYE workers and the higher rate of universal social charge, 10%, which was introduced a number of years ago was increased again in the budget to 11%.

All of this contributes to two things, of which the first is a sense of total disillusionment among people who are trying to set up businesses, be creative and create employment. The second, a matter which is for the Minister for Finance to deal with, is that it sends a message that the Government does not trust the self-employed to pay their taxes, assumes that they are fiddling the tax system and, therefore, that they have to be charged a higher rate of income tax. That is the message being sent again and again and it is wrong on every level. We talk about an enterprise economy and claim that we want to support the indigenous economy and people in start-up companies and encourage them to grow and expand their businesses in order to employ and create opportunities for others, yet we punish them time and again through the tax code.

We are also punishing them through the welfare system. It is blatantly wrong that employees have automatic welfare entitlements if a company goes bust, whereas the company's owner, the person who took the chance to establish the company, who lies awake at night worrying about its future and that of his or her employees, gets nothing if it goes bust. Essentially, he or she is cast to the wolves. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, have encountered such persons in their constituencies, in the same way as I have. For example, there are people who worked in the construction sector, in particular, and started their own businesses, whether in plumbing or any other trade. When the crash occurred in 2008-09, they went out of business and found that they were entitled to nothing; they were not entitled to jobseeker's allowance or anything else. Even though they had paid their taxes and made their social contributions, they were had been with nothing. This is wrong and immoral. If Deputy Joan Burton is to leave one legacy as Minister for social Protection, it should be to provide social protection for those who take chances and risks, those who account for 70% of employment in the State, and put themselves and their families on the line in order to create enterprises and job opportunities. We must ensure they are acknowledged and protected and that they will no longer be treated as second-class citizens under the social welfare code. This is supposed to be an enterprise economy interested in incentivising business, yet we treat business owners who take all of the risks with utter contempt.

If people are employees and the business goes bust, they are entitled to immediate access to benefits; if they are self-employed, they have no immediate entitlement to benefits. If they are employees, they do not have to undergo a means test; if they are self-employed, there is a full means test. If they are employees, personal savings are not assessed; if they are self-employed, all savings are fully assessed. If they are employees, other income is not assessed; if they are self-employed, all income is fully assessed. If they are employees, cohabitee income is not assessed; if they are self-employed, cohabitee income is fully assessed. If they are employees, the value of all property is totally ignored; if they are self-employed, the value of property, other than the family home, is fully assessed. If they are employees, they are covered for invalidity; if they are self-employed, they are not. If they are employees, they are fully covered for a disability; if they are self-employed, they are not.

It is apparent that this discrimination in our social welfare system cannot continue and I appeal to the Minister to make this her focus for the remainder of the lifetime of this Government. I do not know how long that will be. I expect the Minister will have an opportunity to introduce a new social welfare Bill next year before the election if it takes place in 2016 so she has an opportunity to address this. She has an opportunity to level the playing pitch not out of any sympathy or a sense of obligation to the self-employed for the sake of it but out of a sense of equity, fairness and a belief that we treat and value all our citizens equally and that we particularly respect the work, effort and sacrifice of people who set up companies, who take out loans, who often re-mortgage their family homes and who put their siblings, spouses and children through stress and the ordeal that goes with establishing a business. She should give those people the sort of respect and the rights and entitlements to which they are due. On the basis that I do not expect her to do it this year, I appeal to her to look at that opportunity and plan and implement it next year before the next general election. If that is her legacy, it will be one for which we can all have huge admiration and respect because it would be the right thing to do.

11:30 am

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

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate on the Bill. This is a very short Social Welfare Bill by normal standards. Nonetheless, it marks a positive shift in our economic and social recovery.

I will revisit some of the points mentioned by Deputy Creighton because much of her information is wrong. The Department has undergone enormous reform from what was described by the IMF when it came in here as a passive social welfare system to an active social welfare system where the Department is operating a very successful drive to get people back to work. So far, there are 79,000 more people back at work, almost all of whom are in full-time employment.

For the Deputy's information, as she is obviously not aware of it, the Department now invests over €1 billion per year in employment supports. I am sure she has heard of some of the schemes. The first is family income supplement. If somebody with children takes up an entry-level, low-paid or part-time job, by the end of this year, we will spend well over €280 million on supports for families going back to work. That is really important because getting families, particularly those with children, back to work improves the life chances of everybody in the household and means a much better future for the children involved.

At any one time, the Department funds about 23,000 people through the back to education route. We emphasise the return to education more than almost any other country in Europe with our type of welfare system. It ranges from people who missed out on second-level education to people pursuing degrees. The State funds the cost of the education and people hold on to their social welfare entitlement. I constantly meet people who have used the back to education route enormously successfully and changed a life where they had become unemployed due to the crash from 2007 onwards, particularly if they were construction workers.

We have a variety of opportunities such as schemes like community employment, Tús and Gateway, all of which are heavily subscribed. Internship opportunities are also available through JobBridge where to date about 34,000 people have taken a six or nine-month internship on a voluntary basis to get back to work. In particular, we know from the independent studies that people who have worked with SMEs have had extremely positive outcomes in terms of employment.

There are a number of errors in the Deputy's comments on the self-employed. I will ask Department officials to send her a note setting out what self-employed people are entitled to because it is important she is aware of what is available as she is talking to people. As the advisory group report showed, self-employed people probably get the best value out of social welfare. For a contribution of 4%, they get coverage for a series of very important life events such as being widowed. A self-employed businesswoman who has a baby gets maternity benefit. I am sure the Deputy is aware of this from her own friends. People really welcome the maternity benefit, which is one of the highest payments in our social welfare system. In addition, the self-employed have extremely important access to a retirement pension at a level and rate that one could not buy in the private sector for a 4% contribution.

However, the rate paid by people in employment is 14.75%. The advisory group has brought forward proposals to extend coverage to self-employed people but self-employed people will have to make a contribution. We do not have the resources at this point to extend further entitlements for self-employed people for a 4% contribution. We want to extend various kinds of invalidity pensions to self-employed people should they have an accident for a small additional contribution. Well-off, highly paid self-employed people can often afford income protection policies, which are very expensive. I know the Deputy was in the same party as Deputy Butler who has spoken in this House on many occasions. The organisations representing self-employed people have been very reluctant to advocate publicly in favour of extending the social insurance system to self-employed people. There would need to be contributions but those contributions would lead to very valuable benefits.

After I became Minister, I changed the system in respect of self-employed people looking for income support and I am sure the Deputy must be aware of this. We changed the basis of the assessment from the previous years in respect of a self-employed person who was doing very well at the height of the boom, as many were, but whose income dried up and collapsed, particularly those in construction. We allowed people to be assessed on the basis of their current situation rather than on the preceding year's information when times might have been very good for them. If Deputy Creighton cares to look at the advisory group's report, the consequence of that change in the assessment has been that the vast majority of self-employed people get an entitlement to an allowance.

The Deputy suggests that self-employed people are treated differently. The biggest difference is that an employee is entitled to nine months of jobseeker's benefit. Thereafter both employees and self-employed people can apply for a means-tested benefit.

In case anybody who is self-employed is listening - I will have my officials send the Deputy a note on this - the assessment is the same for both. If a spouse or partner is working, his or her income is taken into account. The Deputy's suggestion that somehow or another a former employee is treated more favourably than a self-employed person is wrong in the example that she cited. I am anxious that self-employed people feel free to use the services and supports of my Department rather than making a misstatement which might imply they did not have an opportunity to access those services. We can give self-employed people a tailored service if they contact the Department because, with the Intreo system, we have moved over to a one-on-one case management approach. We would welcome the opportunity to provide any services that may be relevant to self-employed people who have become unemployed, including support to get back to work alongside the supports from the local enterprise offices, which are now operating in most local authorities.

Community and voluntary groups have highlighted a range of concerns about budget 2015 and this Bill. As I met them over the year, they constantly presented their wish lists or priorities. Maintaining the rates was the No. 1 priority for all groups, and I am happy to say we have been able to do that again this year. We have sufficient surplus to be able to increase child benefit by €5 per month. That has been strongly welcomed by the various organisations dealing with children, and I thank them for their welcome. We have also increased the living alone allowance, which almost every organisation regarded as important. This is the first time it has been done in a lengthy period. In addition, the back-to-work family dividend will be introduced in legislation in April 2015, and backdated where appropriate, to assist parents with children who have gone back to work after 1 January.

Overall, I am happy this is a very positive Social Welfare Bill. It is the first expansionary Social Welfare Bill since the collapse in 2008. I noted Deputy Troy's criticisms but the biggest reductions in social welfare took place during his party's Administration, when the rates for a wide range of weekly social welfare payments, with the exception of pensioners, were reduced by a cumulative €16.30 per week over a very short period. The Deputy also referred to lone parents. The supports we have put in place for lone parents have resulted in a significant number of lone parents returning to work, particularly as their children get settled in primary school and the youngest children reach the age of seven years. I want lone parents to get opportunities and encouragement from the Department to return to education in particular because their education may have been disrupted or abandoned. Education, in turn, allows them to go back to work and achieve financial independence. Huge numbers of lone parents are achieving that objective. I greatly admire the people doing that. There are also positive impacts on their children and families. My Department's role in supporting lone parents has been critical but we must also give people who are parenting on their own opportunities to improve their qualifications and, ultimately, to get back to work.

Question put:

The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 31.


Tellers: Tá, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg; Níl, Deputies Dara Calleary and John McGuinness.

Níl

Question declared carried.