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

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 9, line 17, after "where," to insert "4 weeks".

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

When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Now.

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

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This Bill is not fit for purpose. However, I do not propose to vote against it. This Bill follows on from the Social Welfare Act 2012 Act, which proposed amendments to the one-parent family payment. During debate on that legislation, the Minister gave a commitment that these cuts would not be proceeded with in 2015 if decent, affordable and accessible child care had not been put in place. When this issue was raised by the National Women's Council of Ireland at a conference in 2012, female members of the Labour Party called on the Council not to oppose the cuts on the basis that the Minister would keep her word and they would not be implemented in 2015 if affordable child care provision had not been put in place by then.

It is outrageous that the Minister is proceeding with this.

We know that 63% of lone parents live in deprivation, we know we have the highest child care costs in Europe, and we are still proceeding with this. The Labour Party in particular should hold its head in shame. The Government has suggested it is to facilitate lone parents getting back into the workplace. Almost 53% of lone parents are in the workplace and these are the people affected by these cuts.

I said this already and it should go on the record again. The Minister absolutely agreed with the figures provided by SPARC, the lone parents group, that there would be a 20% loss in earnings with this, even with the one-parent family payment. The Government is taking money out of their pockets while at the same time giving about €30 back to them, and that will be gone in about two years' time.

The Government should hold its head in shame. This is an absolutely disgraceful continuation of cuts on the most vulnerable people in society.

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

I thank the Minister of State for his courtesy and how he has dealt with the Bill. Like Deputy Joan Collins, I was tempted to vote against the Bill, but because of the improvements contained therein, I do not propose to vote against it. However, I deeply regret the Government's decision to proceed with the change in the one-parent family payment, despite promises to the contrary by the Minister. The reason for the change advanced by the Government is to incentivise lone parents to go out to work. This must be the first time in the history of the universe when people were supposed to be incentivised by being made worse off.

A lone parent who is not working and does not want to, or perhaps cannot, engage with the workplace, for whatever reason, is not affected by this legislation. It is only working parents who will be adversely affected and they will be pretty dramatically affected. The figures produced by SPARC that incorporate the improvements brought about by the family dividend clearly show that those people, who are already in very low-income occupations and who are scraping from one end of the week to the other to survive, will lose a substantial chunk of their income.

For example, yesterday's edition of The Irish Timescontained a feature about a woman. She allowed her photograph to be taken, and her name and address to be used. She is a lone parent working part time and getting €94 per week. Because she has a child who will be over seven on the relevant date in May, with that €94 over five days, she will not be entitled to jobseeker's allowance and therefore she will have to give up her job. Obviously she cannot live on €94 per week, albeit she is getting €50 a week in maintenance from her husband. She will have to give up her job. The net result will be that whereas her full income at present is €361 a week, that will drop to €267 per week next month because of the changes the Government has introduced. That is a quarter of her income. There are people in this House who might feel it if they lost a quarter of their income, but for someone on €361 a week to lose a quarter of her income is pretty devastating.

I spoke to two single parents who came to see me over the weekend. I know both their families. They are both working part-time and they will both lose 20% to 25% of their income in May directly as a result the changes. While it is all very well for the Department of Social Protection to suggest they get more hours and qualify for family income supplement, in the real world sometimes these people cannot get more hours. A person cannot demand more hours from an employer. In many cases they would not be able to do more hours because of their child-minding responsibilities.

What is happening to lone working parents is a travesty and is a denial of justice. The Tánaiste gave a very firm commitment on the floor of this House that that change would not be triggered until we had a Scandinavian-type system of child care. As we clearly do not have that, the Tánaiste is going back on a promise she made in good faith and which we certainly accepted in good faith here in the Dáil. That is very regrettable. Even at this late stage I appeal to the Minister of State, who is a very sympathetic individual, understands these things and is dealing with these sorts of people as much as I am, to prevail on the Tánaiste to postpone that change. It is not too late.

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

Like the other Deputies, I believe the Bill is in the main positive, but it represents a missed opportunity to address a problem that is now quantified regarding working single parents. Some years ago when the announcement was made that changes were to come into effect as of July 2015, we did not have exact figures for how many people would be affected and to what degree. Those who opposed it understood at the time the effects on working lone parents and those who were in education. In particular we were not persuaded at the time by the Minister, who is still Minister but is now also Tánaiste, when she promised that changes to the one-parent family payment would not proceed unless we had a Scandinavian model of child care.

That was pie in the sky and is still pie in the sky because Ireland is recognised as having one of the highest, if not the highest, child care costs of any country in the world, which makes it difficult for anyone in work. To date, with their one-parent family payment they have been able to subsidise going back to work and now in many instances they will be penalised.

Those on this side of the House and certain Government backbenchers have raised with the Minister of State and the Tánaiste the question of the effects on those in receipt of SUSI grants. The answer we have been given to date is that there are ongoing negotiations and discussions between the two Departments. Those discussions only seem to have been triggered since Christmas when the figures started to emerge. However, they should have been triggered two years ago when this legislation was put forward first. We still do not have a positive outcome on that.

The only social welfare legislation on the schedule for this year is the next social welfare Bill which will come into being in October or November, which means there is a potential that a number of lone parents who are in education and in receipt of SUSI grants will be substantially affected. It is not contained in this Bill; that is the problem.

We have highlighted concerns over the Bill and the Minister of State has answered them. In the main this is a positive Bill and is to be welcomed. It is often very difficult to vote against a social welfare Bill which is not cutting people's payments. All it is doing is tinkering around with a system and in some cases giving money. In this case there is a dividend and that is welcome. It is an approach that is to be welcomed in some ways because it is making work pay, but in other ways it should be addressing funding.

I have another problem with social welfare legislation, which is not the fault of the Minister of State or his officials. I can take all the time in the world to prepare amendments, whether they are positive or negative from a Government point of view, but I cannot put them forward and we cannot debate them on Report Stage or even on Committee Stage unless the Chair on Committee Stage allows us leniency and we have managed that. It is difficult for us. When the Minister of State reports back to the Tánaiste, I ask him to reflect that the Convention on the Constitution made a proposal to address that aspect in the Constitution which prevents me and others in the House from putting together amendments that are likely to be a charge on the Exchequer or on the people.

Ultimately, I cannot force the Government to accept my amendments. I can table all the amendments I want, be they good, bad or indifferent, but it is up to the Government to argue against them or, if they are off the wall, ridicule them. However, if I table positive amendments, as I have done in the past, they should be taken on board or, at least, amended. What is happening makes the Opposition's job of recommending changes difficult. It probably makes the job of the Minister of State difficult because he does not get to answer the key concerns we raise unless the Chairman allows a loose debate on them on Committee Stage.

I will not oppose this legislation but I believe it is a missed opportunity. I ask that the Minister for Social Protection come to the House at the earliest opportunity before July to explain what has been done to address the substantial shortfall for working parents who will be affected by the change to the one-parent family payment that comes into effect this year. I refer in particular to those who are stuck working for five days per week but not working 19 hours, which would qualify them for family income supplement, for instance, and also to those in education who are affected by how the legislation is now framed. It means they will have substantially less money. The amount of money is substantial when one has very little.

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

I have certainly had to think long and hard about my attitude to the final vote on this Bill, and I had to consult colleagues. This is because a trick is being played with this Bill. The trick is to smuggle in a very regressive measure under the cover of one that is marginally progressive. I find that sort of politics quite dishonest. It is a way of trying to blackmail the Opposition into endorsing legislation that is regressive.

Much of the debate on this Bill has focused, for important and entirely legitimate reasons, on the issue of lone parents and the impact of changes already made, but not dealt with in this legislation. I am referring to the phasing out of the one-parent family payment for families when their children reach the age of seven. That was a the regressive move. As has been said, we were promised this would not be implemented until we had Scandinavian-style child care but we have not got that. The Government has broken the promise. Instead of giving what it promised, it has offered the sop of the back-to-work family dividend, essentially under pressure owing to agitation by lone parents, advocate groups such as SPARK and its supporters in this House. In so far as the Government has been forced to introduce the dividend, lone parents who are not working will be able to move on to the transitional payment and, therefore, not lose out. However, as has been pointed out at length, those who are working will lose out, even with the back-to-work family dividend. That loss will become increasingly worse over a number of years. On the other hand, it is better than nothing for those who will benefit from the concession the Government made under pressure. While much of the debate has focused on that, what was smuggled in under the radar was not really spotted by me and most other Deputies until we read the detail of the legislation on Committee Stage. We saw in various sections of the legislation that the Government is giving a little with one hand but taking away with the other. The taking away is in the form of the tightening of the eligibility criteria for carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite care grant.

These issues are every bit as serious and important as those concerning lone parents. This is a real sleight of hand by the Government. We have debated this extensively through the amendments we tabled on Committee Stage, in addition to those we tabled on Report Stage this morning. The Government has not given any justification for the changes included in this Bill in respect of the criteria, the definition of a "relevant person" who would be entitled to carer's benefit, or the criteria for eligibility in that regard. We just got bluster. The reason for this is to cover up the fact that the Minister of State, his officials and everybody knows that this is a tightening up.

The Minister of State said something to the effect that the previous legislation was ambiguous. If I am correct, that was the justification. The Minister of State said this Bill is doing away with ambiguity. I would prefer the ambiguous version because it offers more latitude and support to the applicant for the carer's allowance, or carer support, than the tightened-up version. The existing legislation states a relevant person shall be regarded as requiring full-time care where they meet the criteria. This Bill states a relevant person "shall not" be regarded as requiring full-time care and attention unless certain criteria are met. That is a clear shift in the presumption of entitlement. It absolutely clear that it is a shift. It makes it easier for deciding officers to say "No". That is essentially giving legislative support to deciding officers who were wrongly refusing applicants. When they refuse people, they are inflicting suffering on a very significant cohort who do not need further suffering on top of the disabilities, illnesses and infirmities that lead them to apply for carer supports in the first place. It is just not fair. Needless suffering is being experienced. We should be moving in the opposite direction, as alluded to in the amendments that Deputy Collins and I tabled. These amendments would simply require the acceptance of the word of a general practitioner.

I will make a point I did not have time to make earlier. When we discussed this on Committee Stage, I asked why we should not simply accept the word of the general practitioner or professionally qualified medical practitioner when testifying to medical eligibility for a carer's payment. The response we got from a committee member on the Government side was that it would put too much pressure on general practitioners. We also heard the excuse that it would make the general practitioner judge, jury and executioner in the determination of eligibility. I would much rather a general practitioner, who is medically qualified to decide whether somebody needs carer support, to be judge, jury and executioner than somebody who is not medically qualified and for whom a significant pressure is the budgetary constraint. I am not merely speculating that budgetary constraints are an influence on deciding officers; we know this because amendments to address this were ruled out of order on Committee Stage because they would represent a potential charge on the Exchequer. Why would they be a potential charge on the Exchequer? If somebody meets the medical eligibility criteria for a benefit, he is entitled to it. If the Government were honest in this legislation, it would actually say the relevant person shall not be entitled to a benefit unless he or she fits the medical criteria, "subject to budgetary constraints". Of course, it would not say "subject to budgetary constraints" because that would completely undermine the principle of the measure, which is supposed to be a support for people who need it.

The Department could not possibly admit that in legislation but it is absolutely clear that this is what was driving the thinking. The idea is that the Government cannot open the floodgates, as the Department would see it, because it would impact on budgets and would bring a charge on the Exchequer. The Government does not admit that this is what is driving the tightening up of the criteria in the legislation. It is dishonest legislation.

One of the implications was explicitly stated at the committee. Certainly, from talking to some of the Deputies afterwards - I am not referring to the Minister of State, but other Deputies - there was a belief that general practitioners are willy-nilly signing letters stating that someone needs supports or is permanently disabled or whatever, when that is not the case.

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

Thank you, Deputy. This is Fifth Stage.

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

I know.

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

It is about what is actually in the Bill, not Committee Stage.

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

It is what is in the Bill. That is the point I am making. The implication is that doctors are lying and writing false testimonies on a large scale. I do not believe that for a minute. Even if there are a small number of abuses, the idea that the Government would frame the legislation on the presumption that large numbers of GPs are lying is rubbish. It is an absolutely unacceptable way to frame legislation, particularly when the alternative is to depend on deciding officers who are not medically qualified. I believe that, by and large, when GPs say someone needs support, they need it. That should be enough.

Having thought it over and in view of what is going on here, I believe we have no choice but to vote against the Bill. I have no wish to vote against the back-to-work family dividend, not because it is sufficient compensation for the axing of the one-parent family payment for children over the age of seven years - it is not - but because it is a marginal improvement on the decision made in 2012. It should not be lumped in with a regressive move which will tighten the eligibility criteria for carers and for a significant cohort of others on an ongoing basis for years to come, including people who are vulnerable, disabled and infirm. These people need support. They should not have extra unnecessary hoops put in front of them to claim their entitlements. These two things should not be lumped together.

I want to make it absolutely clear in saying I am voting against the Bill that I am against it on the basis of what the Government is doing around the eligibility criteria for carers. If the Government were cognisant of this, it could easily introduce amendments in the Seanad that would separate out the two issues. That would allow us not to oppose the parts of the Bill that will improve the situation for lone parents without forcing us simultaneously to endorse something that will disimprove the situation for vulnerable, ill, disabled and infirm people. The Government should not ask us to lump those two things together.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I too and the other Deputies of the Anti-Austerity Alliance will not be supporting this Bill because of several measures. As the previous speaker said, this is an attack on the requirement for getting full-time care by taking it out of the hands of a GP and giving it to the opinions of a deciding officer and medical staff. There is a system like this in Britain operated by Atos Healthcare which is routinely used to refuse people full-time care. To me, that is what is going on here and I believe the Bill should be opposed for that reason.

I do not believe people should be fooled by a back-to-work family dividend of €29 per week as some kind of gesture towards the furore and outrage we have seen over the Government's cuts to lone-parent supports. The back-to-work family dividend facilitates the Government in its philosophy, according to which being a lone parent is a lifestyle choice, such people are lazy and they need to be activated back to work. That is absolutely outrageous given that over 50% of lone parents are in the workforce in any case. What the Government is doing will make it more difficult for them.

The back-to-work family dividend in the Bill is one of the Labour Party's key measures in the legislation. It is supposed to make going back to work pay for families. However, in effect, it will not do that. The amount of money being given is €29.80 per week per child. Does the Minister of State know of any child who can be minded for €29.80 per week? It is absolutely ridiculous. In a report carried out recently, we learned that the average cost of child care nationally was €659 per month. We know that in Dublin and other cities it is much higher, depending on the age of the child. The dividend will cover €119.20. How is anyone meant to make up the shortfall?

It is called the back-to-work dividend but the question is: back to what work? The only jobs available are low-paid or seasonal, as we are finding out and as we will find out with the case of the Dunnes Stores workers tomorrow, many of whom are women workers and many of whom may be lone parents or parents trying to keep their families afloat. The work is contractual, seasonal and is almost moving to zero-hours contracts. These are the types of jobs the Government is promoting. Most of these jobs are low-paid and precarious. Why should the Government subsidise employers who are not paying people enough to enable them to afford child care? This is another subsidy by the taxpayer for these employers.

This is a sop that the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, is bringing in because she has been under relentless criticism from every agency that deals with children, including Barnardos and the One Parent Exchange and Network. All the various bodies have reacted with outrage. Let us be honest. This is an attack on women yet again because 90% of one-parent families are headed by women. It is a continuation of the attack on the most vulnerable, who are not in a position to organise in the same way as, for example, a trade union or public sector workers. They do not have the same collective organisations. Women especially have been hit by austerity and this is another social welfare attack on them, having already faced major cuts in child benefit.

I appeal to Opposition Members to oppose this Bill because it facilitates all the cuts the Government has brought in, especially to lone parents. We should not facilitate the Government in the argument that people need to be incentivised to go back to work. People need proper child care. Most lone parents work. This shows they would like to work and want to be part of the workforce, but it is being made especially difficult for women. We have already heard from speaker after speaker about the lies of the Tánaiste, Deputy Burton, who promised this would not be brought in until we had the Scandinavian model of child care. We have no such thing.

I agree it is a sneaky attack on the Department qualification for full-time care. This is something that often happens in this type of legislation. Something that can seem rather nuanced can turn out to be very serious for many people. The Anti-Austerity Alliance will oppose the Bill. Moreover, we urge people to organise and put serious pressure on the Minister of State and the Labour Party in particular, because this represents another betrayal of women, low-paid workers and people on social welfare. We should apply pressure to get those in government to repeal all the attacks they have made.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Have I a time limit?

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

There are no time limits.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for his remarks and for saying the Bill is progressive. He said he has particular problems with it and I accept that. I accept the point in respect of the Constitutional Convention as well. I would have welcomed a debate on the recommendation of tabling amendments. That is interesting. The Deputy asked me to raise it with the Tánaiste and I will do that. Senator Norris has also raised the matter in the Seanad on many occasions. I believe the point has some merit.

Deputy Boyd Barrett has accused the Government of bluster but I keep the bluster to a minimum.

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

In fairness, the Minister of State does.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I try to keep it to a minimum. Let us keep this in the centre. The Government does not rule any of the amendments out of order. That is not our role. There is an independent entity in place. I would have preferred if some of the amendments ruled out of order had been in order so that we could have had a good discussion and debate on them. A good debate often informs future decisions.

It is not the Government that rules them out of order. I know the accusation is that the Government comes in and rules these things out of order. We did not do so: that is not our role.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It changed the procedures in the Dáil.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not our role to do this. As far as this being a sop is concerned, it is not a sop or a response to people being under pressure. The back-to-work family dividend is substantial and the people I have spoken to have quite welcomed it. They see it as an opportunity to get back into the workforce, having been distanced from that. This is an opportunity for people to get back into work for a period of time through a subvention that is paid over two years. While there is a tailing off, people know exactly what they are getting into and they quite welcome it. Of all the people I have spoken to, I believe there were only two who responded negatively, including one of the Deputies present, who objected on Committee Stage because people would be at a loss as it tailed off after two years. I accept there is a time element.

I refute any suggestion these changes are being made in order to make it more difficult for a person to qualify for the carer's scheme. I do not accept that is the intention, although I know Deputy Boyd Barrett wants to portray it like that. He said in the debate that we shaved carer's allowance to pay for the back-to-work family dividend. That is not the case. He should look at the budget figures, where it is clearly funded. He is using bluster in tying one thing to the other.

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

I did not tie anything.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He should look at the figures from 2010 to 2014 in regard to the number who now qualify for carer's allowance.

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

After appeals.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to GPs, if a GP makes a diagnosis, there is no question about the diagnosis but it is an overall assessment that decides the carer's allowance.

I have addressed the contents of the Bill on Committee Stage and also this morning, including the particular points made. A Deputy asked: "What work?" There are jobs out there. When we came into government, unemployment was at 15.1% and it is now at 10%. When the recovery started, many jobs were part-time or short-time but, for the past 18 months, there have been substantial announcements of high paid, solid jobs providing 39 hours a week, and the tax returns show this. The Minister of State, Deputy Nash, in his commission will address many of the issues the Deputy has raised. Right across the House, everybody has been worried about low-hour contracts.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And low pay.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That has to be addressed. However, I certainly do not believe this is in any shape or form an attack on carers.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh debated for a long time on Committee Stage and Report Stage in regard to the medical assessors to whom Deputy Coppinger is referring. I believe I have adequately explained what we are doing to those who were present in the House. By and large, I believe most Deputies accept how we are going to manage that. The medical assessors who will be recruited will operate in the same fashion as the current ones. We are not copying any English or British system.

Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, of course not.

Kevin Humphreys (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not taking our policies from English newspapers or from "Panorama". We can certainly learn from others and make sure we do not make mistakes. I take on board the points made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh on Committee Stage and on Report Stage this morning. I think I have reassured Deputy Ó Snodaigh that, when we are taking on medical assessors in this manner, to have such a system is not the intention of the Department or the Government.

I thank all the Deputies for participating in the debate and for the constructive manner in which they have been involved.