Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

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

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative framework for the implementation of the measures announced in budget 2017. It also contains a number of largely technical measures which aim to resolve minor deficiencies identified within the welfare code. Overall, the Bill represents a prudent approach, with modest increases across the board alongside more targeted measures; an inclusive approach, which ensures that the recovery benefits everyone, with no one left behind; a progressive approach to making work pay, through positive reforms to the social insurance system and access to benefits extended to the self-employed; and a targeted approach with measures to assist lone parents, low income farm families and school children.

The Bill provides that the maximum rate of all weekly benefits will increase by €5 so that people of working age, as well as retired people aged 66 or older, will all see an improvement in their weekly income. Increases for recipients aged 66 years and over will come into effect during the week ending 10 March 2017. This includes, for instance, all those in receipt of the contributory State pension and the non-contributory State pension. Pensions next year will be €8 per week higher than in 2009, which means nearly all pensioners are back to where they were in terms of payments from the Department, even if we factor in the abolition of the telephone allowance and reductions in the fuel allowance. I intend to build on this in future budgets by continuing to increase the State pension at a rate greater than the rate of inflation.

The increases for other recipients will come into effect during the week following 10 March, so that all of those who rely on social welfare for their income will have the increased rate paid by St. Patrick's Day. Approximately 840,000 working age people will gain from this increase. It covers people in receipt of 30 different payments, including invalidity pension, disability allowance, blind pension, illness and partial capacity benefit, occupational injury benefit, widow's, widowers and surviving civil partner's pensions, one-parent family payment, back to education allowance, maternity, paternity and adoptive benefit, farm assist, carer's benefit and allowance, pre-retirement allowance, supplementary welfare allowance, back to work enterprise allowance, jobseeker’s benefit, jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker’s transition payment and employment support payments to participants on community employment, Tús, Gateway and the rural social scheme.

It was very important to me and to all of my colleagues in government that nobody was left behind as we sought to extend the benefits of the economic recovery to all sectors of society. Recipients of working age payments, widows, carers, the sick and the disabled have seen no increase in their income since the cuts of 2010 and 2011. Even after the €5 increase they will still be €11.50 per week worse off than 2011 when the Government came into office, so I plan to continue to increase these rates above the rate of inflation in future budgets if resources permit.

Overall, almost 1.5 million people will benefit from these increases and local communities and businesses will also benefit in turn from increased spending. A social impact assessment, using the ESRI SWITCH model on a non-indexed basis, of the social welfare budget package found that people in lowest income quintile, the 20% of people least well off in society, gain the most from budget 2017 measures. The ESRI also recognises explicitly that this was as a result of the inclusion of the weekly rate increase for working age rates of payment.

Alongside the increases in weekly rates, the Bill also provides for very progressive changes affecting the self-employed, a sector which is critical to sustaining the Irish economy. Sections 4 and 9 establish the legislative basis for a new deal for up to 380,000 self-employed people who pay PRSI at the S class. The self-employed sector is hugely diverse and includes people such as farmers, professionals, taxi drivers, small business owners and tradesmen and tradeswomen. Until now, the PRSI contributions they pay have enabled them to qualify for a contributory State pension on reaching pension age. This contributory pension is of course, in itself, a substantial benefit, but I have been concerned for a long time that the social insurance system does not respond adequately to the risks which the self-employed face in the course of their working lives. I am pleased therefore that budget 2017 marks a major step in resolving this deficiency. Section 9 provides that from March 2017, the self-employed will be allowed access the optical, dental and hearing benefits currently available to employees under the treatment benefit scheme. This section also provides that when the range of optical and dental treatments is expanded from October of next year, both employees and the self-employed will benefit equally.

Section 4 provides that the self-employed will be entitled to apply for invalidity pension for the first time with effect from December 2017. This will mean that where a self-employed person is no longer able to continue to work because of long-term ill-health, he or she will have access to the safety net of State income support without a means test. The person's savings, assets or partner's income will not count against him or her. This is all part of the Government's policy of making work pay and encouraging self-employment and entrepreneurship. I intend to extend the benefits available to the self-employed through the social protection system and will look at further options in the coming year.

Budget 2017 included a package of measures supporting lone parents, encouraging them into the workplace and into education, and helping to reduce their child care costs. All lone parents on one-parent family payment and jobseeker's transition and jobseeker's allowance will receive the €5 increase in the weekly rates of payment. Those who enter education will receive a €500 annual cost of education allowance, which will be made available to back to education allowance participants with children from the next academic year in September. This will apply to cohabiting and married couples. It will be for anyone in receipt of the back to education allowance who has children. This will help parents, including lone parents, to return to education.

The income disregards for the one-parent family payment and jobseeker's transition payment will rise by €20 from €90 to €110 per week reversing, in part, previous reductions to encourage one-parent families to stay in work, return to work and work more hours. For those earning €110 per week or more, it will increase the combined take-home income by up to €15 per week and my intention is to allow for this from 1 January, subject to the passage of the Bill.

The single affordable child care scheme being provided by the Government will also significantly reduce the cost of child care for lone parents and low-income families. It is a step change in State support for child care in Ireland. I have also provided increased funding for school breakfasts, which will help lone parents and low-income households more generally. Some 63% of one-parent family payment recipients do not receive any income from paid work. The changes in budget 2017 and the Bill will assist lone parents into education and to keep more of what they earn where they are back in employment. They will help them to escape the trap of long-term welfare dependency.

As part of the Government's commitment to rural Ireland, I plan to completely reverse cuts to farm assist, a programme which helps more than 8,000 low-income farm families and fisherfolk. At a time of falling farm incomes, it is essential that we strengthen the safety net for farmers who are on the margins. Even farmers who do not qualify for farm assist should have the reassurance of a strong safety net should they need it. Many farmers who benefit from farm assist live in remote parts of the country with very limited prospects of an off-farm income. Therefore, in recognition of the crucial work undertaken in rural communities under the rural social scheme, an additional 500 places will be made available next year.

Young jobseekers under the age of 26 years generally receive age-related reduced rates of jobseeker's payments of €100 or €144 per week. These will increase proportionally with the general rate increases. However, the focus of the Government is on helping and encouraging young jobseekers into employment and education. We do this by actively engaging with and helping them to receuve additional training and educational qualifications that will assist them to find a job. I strongly believe welfare should be a second chance or a safety net, not a way of life. Therefore, from next September, when a young jobseeker participates in my Department's back to education schemes, he or she will be entitled to receive the full maximum rate of jobseeker's payment which will then be €193 per week, as opposed to the €160 which they currently receive. This 21% increase represents an extra €33 a week and demonstrates the State's support for young jobseekers who seek to enhance their lives. It is the biggest single increase in the social welfare package. Of course, more remains to be done and I am determined that we will help more young people in the most effective way possible by helping them into the workforce or education.

I will now give a brief outline of the various sections of the Bill. Section 1 provides for the definition of certain common terms used in the Bill.

Section 2 provides for one of the technical amendments to the social welfare code which are being carried in the Bill. In this instance, the definition of a qualified adult in the Act is being amended so as to formally provide that a person in respect of whom an increase for a qualified adult is being paid is not disqualified from receipt of a half-rate carer's allowance in his or her own right. To be absolutely clear, the scheme has been operating since its inception in line with the policy intention that a person can qualify for a half-rate carer's allowance in his or her own right when she or he is a qualified adult on another person's claim. No one has lost out in the interim and this amendment merely serves to tidy up the governing legislation in this area, lest there be a challenge.

Sections 3 and 4 provide for the addition of paternity benefit and invalidity pension to the list of schemes for which class S contributions, payable by self-employed persons, are reckonable. Paternity benefit has been open to the self-employed since the scheme was introduced in September, while invalidity pension will be open to the self-employed from December next year.

Section 5 provides for a technical amendment to the legislation governing entitlement to illness benefit which secures the existing practice and policy intention whereby the rate of payment to a claimant is held constant for a period of 312 benefit days or one year. In practical terms, this ensures a claimant is not negatively affected where his or her claim for illness benefit straddles two years and the governing contribution year changes as a result. This section also confirms the existing practice whereby a claimant on a reduced rate illness benefit payment can gain as a result of a change in the governing contribution year when my Department will ensure the higher rate is paid.

Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, provide for the increase of €5 in the weekly rates of maternity benefit, adoptive benefit and paternity benefit which will come into effect in March 2017. The main changes in the rates are dealt with in sections 18 and 22 to which I will come shortly.

Section 9(a) is similar to sections 3 and 4 and provides for the extension of treatment benefit to the self-employed. This section will come into effect in March 2017. The purpose of section 9(b) is to widen the application of the treatment benefit scheme beyond what is currently provided for, which is limited to dental and optical examinations. Once the necessary discussions with the bodies representing dentists and opticians are finalised, I will introduce regulations to make an expanded treatment benefit scheme available to both the employed and self-employed with effect from October 2017. I am a strong supporter of the contributory principle, the idea that people who pay into the system should benefit from it. We should not divide society into one group that pays for everything but receives little in return and another that contributes very little but believes itself to be entitled to everything for free. Social insurance is the contributory principle at its best and I envisage more benefits being linked with it in the future.

Section 10 is another provision which brings policy and practice into line with the legislation. Put simply, it allows lone parents in receipt of both the one-parent family payment and blind pension to retain both until their youngest child turns 16 years. This has been done on an administrative basis to date, pending the tidying up of this aspect of the social welfare legislation.

Section 11 provides for an amendment to the definition of qualified child for the purposes of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to provide that the qualified child must be ordinarily resident in the State. This will formally bring the definition of a qualified child for the purposes of the scheme into line with that used in the wide range of other schemes operated by the Department.

Section 12 is an amendment to require employers, where they are requested to do so, to provide information for the Department on child benefit claims. This mirrors the existing requirements in a number of other schemes operated by the Department such as family income supplement and the back to work family dividend. These powers are particularly relevant in the case of child benefit payments made on the basis of employment in the State under EU regulations. In order to determine entitlement at the initial claim stage and ensure the right to ongoing entitlement can be validated, the Department must be able to secure confirmation of details from employers.

Section 13 deals with situations where a person has an entitlement to maternity, paternity, health and safety or adoptive benefit, as well as the back to work family dividend. Since January 2015, the back to work family dividend offers financial support to families moving from social welfare into employment where the claimant, having taken up employment or self-employment, stops claiming a jobseeker's payment or a one-parent family payment. It has been brought to our attention that, under the legislation, someone in receipt of the family dividend cannot concurrently receive payment for maternity, paternity, health and safety or adoptive benefit. Where that happens, payment of the family dividend is suspended until entitlement to, for example, maternity benefit is exhausted, at which point payment of the family dividend is resumed. This practice is disruptive for affected individuals, as well as being very cumbersome from an administrative perspective. Section 13 provides that maternity, paternity, health and safety or adoptive benefit may be paid concurrently with the back to work family dividend.

Section 14 provides powers to allow regulations to be introduced to prescribe a specified time for making a paternity benefit claim. Again, this measure is a standard provision which applies to the full range of welfare schemes.

The purpose of section 15 is to ensure there are adequate legislative powers to enable the Minister for Social Protection to set out in regulations the conditions which apply where a person nominates another to act as his or her temporary agent to receive or collect a social welfare payment on his or her behalf.

Section 16 is another technical amendment. It simply provides that the current references in the social welfare consolidation Act to members of An Garda Síochána being seconded to the Department by the Minister to exercise the powers and duties of a social welfare inspector will now, more accurately, provide that the gardaí in question are seconded to the Minister.

Section 17 deals with the position of Romanian and Bulgarian nationals and their families who were working in Ireland during the transitional period from 2007 to 2011. The section provides that contracts of service in the State in which they engaged during that transitional period fall within the categories of employment where a person is regarded as an employed contributor. As a result, PRSI contributions paid by Romanian or Bulgarian employed contributors during the transitional period will be recognised as valid.

Section 18, along with Schedule 1, provides for new rates for social insurance benefits. The increase of €5 in the maximum weekly rate of the State pension, contributory, will be paid from 10 March next year, as will the increase in the widow’s, widower’s and surviving civil partner’s contributory pension where the claimant is aged 66 or over. The increases in all the other insurance-based payments will come into effect in the week ending 17 March in line with the payments calendar. Proportionate increases for those in receipt of reduced rate payments and for qualified adult dependants are also provided.

Section 19 provides for the inclusion of a reference to the green low-carbon agri-environmental scheme, GLAS, operated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the relevant Schedule to the Act in order to formally provide that income from this scheme should be partially disregarded in assessing means for social assistance payments. Section 20 provides for the reintroduction of the income disregards and tapering arrangements which applied to the farm assist scheme prior to budget 2012.

Section 21 provides for an increase in the earnings disregard for the one-parent family payment, from €90 to €110 per week, reversing previous reductions and offering a greater encouragement to one-parent families to stay in work, return to work or work longer hours. As I mentioned earlier, taken together with the increase in the weekly rate of one-parent family payment this will, in many cases, increase take-home pay by €15 per week. Subject to the passage of this Bill by this House and the Seanad prior to the Christmas recess, this measure will come into effect from 5 January 2017.

Section 22, along with Schedule 2, provides for new rates of social assistance payments. All maximum weekly allowances are being increased by €5, with proportionate increases for those in receipt of reduced rate payments. Proportionate increases for qualified adult dependants are also provided. As with the insurance-based schemes covered by section 18, the increases for those aged 66 and over will be paid in the week ending 10 March 2017, with all other increases coming into effect over the course of the following week. Section 23 sets out the standard provisions in relation to the Short Title, construction and commencement of the Bill, once enacted.

The measures contained in this Bill will be supplemented by other budget measures which do not require amendments to the primary legislation. For example, the payment of the Christmas bonus early next month, which will benefit more than 1.2 million people at a cost of some €221 million, is one such measure. The Bill reflects the prudent approach of the Government to ensuring that the economic recovery, which is under way and which is reflected in increasing numbers of people securing employment, is not put at risk. There are meaningful, if modest, increases in social welfare payments which will benefit individuals, families and their communities. There are also specific targeted measures which will provide additional supports to vulnerable sectors of our society, including one-parent families and low-income farm families and fishermen.

The Bill is also reforming in recognising the unique contribution which the self- employed make to our economy and society. It strengthens the connection between PRSI contributions and benefits through, for example, the enhanced treatment benefits in respect of dental, optical and hearing care for the employed and self-employed and access to invalidity pension for the self-employed. I should mention at this point that I intend to bring forward a Committee Stage amendment which will change the social insurance status of city and county councillors as public officeholders so that, in general, their income as councillors will in future be liable for class S PRSI. In return for their PRSI contribution of 4% they will be able to access the same benefits as a self-employed person paying the same amount. This will end the injustice of councillors paying PRSI but receiving nothing in return for these contributions, unlike the employed and self-employed, who pay the same percentage.

I also wish to advise the House that I will bringing forward another amendment on Committee Stage to update the provisions in the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act which relate to habitual residence. My colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality expects to be in a position to formally commence certain provisions of the International Protection Act 2015 before the end of this year. The Act deals with the entry into and presence in the State of people in need of international protection and as a consequence the relevant sections of the Social Welfare Act will need to be updated and aligned with this legislation.

This is the first Social Welfare Bill to be introduced under this Government. I hope it is one of many that will improve living standards, assist people to move from welfare into work, support self-employment, promote self-reliance and develop a strong social insurance system based on the contributory principle.

I commend the Bill to the House.

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

This Bill seeks to implement the social welfare changes announced in the budget. Contrary to speculation, Fianna Fáil did not draw up budget 2017 but it did influence it. As a result of the influence we exercised in the budget we are beginning to see an element of fairness being restored to the social welfare system after five years of harsh, punitive and regressive budgets. This budget, for the first time in many years, is not weighted in favour of those least in need. Fianna Fáil can take a certain amount of credit for that.

I was never a fully paid up member of the school of economics such that when one has money one should spend it. However, that is precisely what we did in the past in terms of social welfare and I make no apologies for our having done so. In 1997 and 2007 under Fianna Fáil and Fianna Fáil-led Governments, basic social welfare rates increased by 123%, which is three times the 41% increase in the Consumer Price Index and double the 61% increase in gross average industrial earnings. It is true to say that in the teeth of the financial crisis, in 2010, we were forced to cut social welfare. That was a very painful decision, politically, and one which cost Fianna Fáil dearly. However, we did not cut pensions or ancillary benefits and so the cut was the minimum possible that we could impose in the particular circumstances.

Despite the increases that we provided when times were better it is true that we did not make anybody in receipt of social welfare rich. Nobody who is reliant on social welfare to survive from week to week can be described as being well-off. What we did was lift a lot of people out of poverty, although only barely. That is the reality. Bad or inadequate as social welfare provisions here may be, they compare very favourably with those in our neighbouring jurisdiction across the Border. For example, in this country jobseeker's allowance for people under 25 years of age is €100 per week, soon to increase to €102.70 compared with €65 in Northern Ireland. For people here aged over 25 years it is €188, soon to increase to €193, whereas in Northern Ireland it is the princely sum of €82.23. Similarly with job seeker's benefit. Disability allowance here is €188 per week compared with €93 per week in Northern Ireland. Carer's allowance here is €204 per week for people under 66 years of age and for people over 66 years of age and caring for one person it is €242, compared with €69 in Northern Ireland. I wonder who is in charge there?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is Westminster controlled.

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

The maximum rate of contributory old age pension in this country is €238 per week compared with €175 in Northern Ireland. We heard a lot of guff this morning at the Joint Committee on Social Protection about lone parents and how certain parties were not looking after them and other parties are going to look after them. The rate of lone-parent allowance in this country is €188 per week, soon to rise to €193 as a result of this budget. The rate of lone-parent payment for a person over 18 years of age in Northern Ireland is €81 per week. The rate of payment for a person under 18 years of age is the princely sum of €65 per week.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe Fianna Fáil would work with us to end Westminster control of that system.

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

The Deputy's party is sitting in the Executive and it is happily presiding over that system, which it handed over to Westminster because it was not willing to accept responsibility for it. That is the reality.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps Fianna Fáil would work with us to have control over it handed back to the Assembly instead of-----

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

That is the reality. Sinn Féin accuses Fianna Fáil of having abdicated its responsibility. The people who abdicated responsibility are the people who ran away at the first sign of responsibility. Instead of availing of the opportunity to approach a very weakened Fine Gael Party and offer it their support on condition that its policies were implemented Sinn Féin disappeared and waited until a Government was formed and then crawled out from under its rock to criticise it.

In so far as this Bill is concerned, there are measures in it which I do not particularly like.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy has just justified it.

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

More important, there are measures which are not in the Bill which should be in it. The poverty figures demonstrate that we still have a long way to go.

Fianna Fáil is not opposing the Bill on Second Stage, but I have a few things to point out to the Minister about various aspects of the legislation which we will be discussing further on Committee Stage.

I welcome the increase in the rate of pension, although I regret the fact that it will not apply until 10 March 2017. It was usual in good times and bad for budgetary increases to kick in from 1 January the following year. I would like to see that system restored. However, I make no apologies for campaigning for an increase for pensioners. If one looks at what has happened for them in the past five years, one can see the withdrawal of the free telephone rental allowance, the decimation of the household benefits package, restrictions in qualification for a medical card and the introduction of water charges and the property tax. All of these are matters which bear down heavily on those with fixed incomes. It was time pensioners got a break.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil started it.

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

I am very glad that we helped to persuade the Government to give them that break.

I also welcome the increases for those of working age. However, nothing has yet been done about the averaging system for pensions. This was a particular measure introduced by the previous Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, and it has given rise to a situation where a person who enters the social welfare system just before his or her 56th birthday and pays stamp for ten years will be entitled to a full pension. If somebody pays stamp equal to 20 years contributions over a longer period, in many cases, he or she will be entitled to less. A system which provides that one receives a higher pension in making fewer contributions is patently unfair. I know that this is a particularly difficult problem to unscramble. However, we have all had people in our constituency offices who paid stamp back in the 1950s or 1960s before leaving the workforce, generally because they got married. They later re-entered the workforce. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of the entire intelligentsia in the Department of Social Protection to find some way to mitigate the impact. The homemaker's scheme which Fianna Fáil introduced in 1994 was an attempt to do this to some extent, but there are many hard cases. Many people come to me to point to their situation which is impossible to justify.

Above and beyond this, we must tackle the question of pensions generally. The demographics show that after 1980 the birthrate dropped substantially and it only began to recover in the early 2000s. However, it never recovered to its 1980 peak. That is one side of the equation. The other is the fact that we are all living longer, which is something to be applauded. We should not look at pensioners and the elderly as bed-blockers and a demographic time bomb. They are the ones who worked hard to build the country. Unfortunately, however, the numbers are such that the social welfare system will become unsustainable in a relatively short space of time. The statistic is that there are five workers for every pensioner, but that is due to change gradually in the next 30 years to a ratio of 2:1. That is a relatively short space of time and more and more pressure will be placed on the system in the interim. That has been evident for some time and it is incumbent on us as a society to look for solutions. There has been a great deal of talk about solutions, but little or no action has resulted from it.

Traditionally, one of the things successive Governments did to encourage people to provide for themselves was to give them tax relief. Studies conducted by the ERSI and others have identified a significant dead-weight loss associated with tax incentives for those in the upper income levels. In other words, they had the resources to save and would probably have provided for themselves anyway. As such, the tax relief was a bonus. That is why the last Government and its predecessor began the process of reducing this pension-related tax incentive. I cannot judge where we are in relation to it, but it is probable that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. The Minister may be aware of the very important document produced by Social Justice Ireland which recommends a universal pension scheme. What is proposed is that the revenue gained in abolishing all tax relief on pensions would be sufficient to provide for a universal pension. I have read the document and it is impressive, well put together and well argued. Whether the figures stand up, I am not qualified to say. However, I would like to hear the Minister's views on the matter.

Defined benefit pension schemes are disappearing rapidly. We have proposed in the past few years a few simple amendments which would at least help to arrest that trend or mitigate the position for workers when a pension scheme collapses. However, we did so without success. In her wisdom, the previous Minister advised the Dáil to vote down the amendments. I see no reason a healthy pension scheme should not be required to be at least 90% funded before it can be closed down. There are various other factors in liability calculation. The liability calculation is absolutely artificial. It is an accounting fiction. While a certain amount has been done in that regard in that trustees are now entitled to a greater extent to invest in Irish Government bonds, surely that process should be accelerated. I think it was Einstein who said the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. There is a touch of that about the pension system. We have heard plenty of talk and discussion, seen plenty of papers and documents and had plenty of seminars but very little action. The previous Minister used to regale us with tales from far-flung places such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand where a marvellous system of auto-enrolment had been introduced. That system was introduced recently in the United Kingdom. A recent study conducted by Mercer shows that it has worked very well there where 90% of young people have not opted out. In fact, 80% of people under the age of 35 years have managed to keep paying at the highest possible rate. It is time to have a very serious look at the pension system here. It is a problem which is coming down the line and I trust the Minister will turn his attention to it once the Social Welfare Bill is out of the way.

We have all made representations on behalf of single parents. In fact, the matter was discussed again at the Joint Committee on Social Protection this morning. The Minister will be aware that Dr. Michelle Millar and Dr. Rosemary Crosse were commissioned by his Department to carry out an independent analysis of how the changes to the lone parent allowance made by the previous Government had played out. The result is a searing indictment of the new system. The authors state:

One of the greatest concerns of those interviewed about the policy changes is the reduction in the combined income of those one-parent family payment recipients who were in part-time employment prior to the change. With the exception of those countries that introduced a time limit on welfare payments, there is no evidence of activation resulting in lone parents in receipt of welfare being financially worse off as a result of policy change. Policy often has unintended consequences but if the premise of activation policy is to reduce poverty levels by increasing the number of lone parents in paid employment, then a policy which results in lone parents in paid employment being financially worse off has evidently created an unintended consequence and needs revision. This neither encourages welfare recipients to enter into employment nor will it result in an increase in the income of the household; rather, it has the perverse effect of encouraging welfare dependency and reducing household income.

By any standards, that is a pretty damning indictment from somebody who was commissioned by the Government to conduct an independent report on how the system is working. Various charts have been produced by people who represent lone parents showing how lone parents who go to work fare. We are supposed to be encouraging lone parents to go to work, but they will lose money as a result of these changes.

Right on cue, a number of organisations representing lone parents have released literature advising lone parents, whose working family dividend will run out, that if they are in receipt of child maintenance, they should switch from FIS back to jobseeker's transitional payments. In other words, they are advising them to switch from work-related to welfare-related payments, which is the precise opposite of the policy intention behind those changes. They were meant to move people from welfare to work, but they are moving them from work back to welfare. A number of organisations which have communicated with us, including the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and SPARK, have pointed out that there are many anomalies in the current system. For example, a lone parent returning to education may be eligible for the SUSI grant depending on whether he or she is in receipt of rent allowance. The system is riddled with anomalies like that. I welcome the change announced by the Minister. Any improvement is obviously welcome, but I noted in the public expenditure statement accompanying the budget that the change would cost €9 million per annum. I received a reply from the Minister on 17 August. I had asked what the cost of changing the age limit to 12 years would be and I was told it would be €9.9 million. Quite frankly, that would be a much better approach and would not cost the State anything. I commend the presentation from Dr. Michelle Millar to an Oireachtas committee to the Minister. She suggested a number of alternative ways of dealing with the matter. It is a running sore and will not go away.

I welcome the proposal to increase job seeker's allowance from €160 per week to the top rate, which is something I recommended, for people who re-enter the education system. In this and in other jurisdictions there is a differential between the rate of social welfare paid to people aged under 25 and over 25 years. We can argue the case in different ways. I am not persuaded that the differential needs to be extended further, but it will be as a result of the Bill. Somebody on the full rate of jobseeker's allowance will receive an increase of €5 per week, but somebody on the lower rate, which is applicable to people aged between 18 and 24 years, of €100 per week will only receive an increase of €2.70 per week. Therefore, the gap continues to widen.

Somebody in the public domain asked the Minister about this recently, and he said he did not want to send out the wrong signal. I understand that, but what are we saying? Are we saying that if we give somebody who is 23 years of age and unemployed €102.70 per week he or she will strive mightily to re-enter the education system or grab a job, whereas if the same person was given €105 per week he or she would sit at home? I do not think there is any logic to that view.

I refer to the activation system. We all know that society is changing, and we are in an era where traditional skills are disappearing and people have to upgrade their education on a regular basis. It is only right that there should be a system of reskilling and retraining. Generally speaking, we call that activation. However, unfortunately in this country, activation is tied to compulsion. We have a system of retraining and reskilling which is compulsory. Changes made in the past couple of years have introduced compulsion to a much greater degree than had previously been the case.

We now have a situation where if somebody is offered a training or an education course, regardless of how irrelevant or inappropriate it may be, he or she must sign up or lose some or all of his or her welfare payments. Equally, if somebody is offered a job, regardless of how low paid, insecure or inappropriate, he or she must sign up or face social welfare penalties. We are ramming square pegs into round holes from one end of the country to the other. I know people who were offered jobs, through JobPath, which they had no interest in or qualifications for and which were located up to 50 km from Limerick city. The cost of going to work would mean they were at a loss over and above what they received in social welfare payments.

The social welfare system has become more authoritarian and unsympathetic. It is forcing many people into low-paying and unskilled jobs which, of course, only benefits employers. We have to examine the system quite seriously.

The Minister will recall that the Government instituted a study on JobBridge. I will not take up the time of the House or embarrass certain people by reading out some of the testimonials I have received from people who had very bad experiences with JobPath and Turas Nua. A very detailed study into the operations of Turas Nua and the sort of results it has or has not produced, as the case may be, is now overdue.

I welcome the extension of the social insurance system to invalidity pensioners. However, I note the committee which considered this, namely, the advisory group on tax and social welfare which reported in 2013, came to the conclusion, for reasons which are quite a mystery to me, that any extension of the social insurance scheme to the self-employed should only be for long-term benefits and should not cover things like occupational injury benefit, illness benefit, etc. A certain reasoning was given for that conclusion, but to my mind, to put it at its most polite, it is less than persuasive. In comparison to other European countries, we are way behind on this matter. The countries which have social insurance schemes for the self-employed cover long-term and short-term illnesses.

There are a number of ways in which we could introduce such a scheme. There could be a compulsory increase in employers' PRSI. We could allow people to voluntarily sign up to the scheme. Alternatively, we could have recourse to the taxpayer. The Minister has opted for the latter. I note he is following the advice of the advisory committee that reported in 2013, which rejected a voluntary system. Again, in so far as I could understand the language used surrounding the reasons for the refusal, it seemed to be the case that the committee said we had never done this before so we cannot do it now.

To say the least, that is a peculiar view given that other European countries, including advanced countries and recent entrants to the EU, have voluntary schemes for illness benefit for the self-employed. These countries include Denmark, Finland, Germany, to some extent, Spain, France, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland and even Lithuania. We have been told that we cannot have such a scheme because we never had one before.

The Minister has allocated €5 million to the introduction of the invalidity pension for the self-employed from December of next year, which is 14 months away. There was a social welfare briefing during the week, which I unfortunately could not attend. A member of my office asked what would be the cost of it in a full year. The figure given was €25 million or something of that nature. My understanding from replies I received from the Department previously was that the cost would be €74 million per year. Perhaps €74 million covers short-term illness benefit as well and that the figure of €25 million just refers to invalidity pension. Will the Minister comment on that?

We have to tackle poverty traps. There are elements to the social welfare system that disincentivise people from going to work. For example, the three-day rule provides that a person working 15 hours per week over three days can sign on for social welfare for the remainder of the working week. If that person is working 15 hours per week over four days, it is not possible. That is blatantly unfair and does not recognise the realities of the modern workplace. It should be an hours-based system. There will be some complexity in moving to such a system, but we will inevitably have to move in that direction.

There are also disincentives built into the present operation of the family income supplement, FIS, scheme, which needs refinement. Does the Minister intend to abolish the scheme? He has spoken about introducing a family dividend. Will that be a substitute for the FIS scheme or will it be introduced alongside it? This is a relevant issue.

Many other possible reforms would not cost the State a penny. For example, the time has come to abolish mandatory retirement. We should set up a special unit within Intreo or IDA Ireland that is specifically aimed at those aged more than 50 years. It is time to give more flexible access to private pension funds. That has worked well in the UK also. It will be necessary to have a proper advice scheme to advise people on what to do with their money and how to approach the matter though.

There will come a time when we will have to have a special cost of living for those with disabilities. Only 30% of those with disabilities are part of the workforce. Disability spending has reduced by approximately 10% in the past five years, which was a time of increasing demand. Everyone knows that it is more expensive for those with disabilities to live from week to week than it is for the average, fully healthy person.

The back to school clothing and footwear allowance was substantially reduced over the past number of years. Looking at the figures, it would not cost a great deal to restore it to some extent. It should be restored at the earliest possible opportunity because it was designed to assist, and only assisted, the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable of the population.

We can say the same about fuel allowance. At a time of rampant fuel poverty, there has been a partial restoration of the fuel allowance, which had been reduced, but the partial restoration is not sufficient.

This morning the lone parents' organisations pointed out to us that non-custodial parents are now receiving correspondence from the Department of Social Protection to the effect that they need no longer contribute to their child's upkeep, which is scandalous. This legislative lacuna occurred when the concept of jobseekers' transition was created and it is time it was dealt with.

We need to seriously consider overhauling the social welfare appeals system. It would not be a matter of reinventing the wheel. Detailed studies have been undertaken on this issue by the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC. This organisation has pointed out the deficiencies in the system and put forward far-reaching proposals for reform. I can find no argument against any of those proposals.

I hope this is the beginning of the end of regressive budgets. I am looking forward to the debate on Committee Stage. There are a number of aspects to the Bill that I would like to see changed and there are a number of matters that I would have liked to see included in it, but we will return to that debate on Committee Stage.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Deputy John Brady sharing time?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I will take the full 30 minutes.

Let me just say that I will not take lectures from a Deputy who is a member of the party that brought this country to its knees. Contrary to the spin-----

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

Spin?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, spin. He comes in here and states that his party lifted all of social welfare recipients out of the poverty trap, even if it was, to use his words, marginally. I will read the list of cuts for the record of the House. Fianna Fáil, the partitionist party, states that the Six Counties is not part of this country, so not only is he a hypocrite, he is also a member of a partitionist party.

This is the party that targeted the blind, the deaf and the disabled. It halved the jobseeker's payment to those under 20 years of age to €100.

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

Why does Sinn Féin not do something for the poor in the North where it is in charge? Sinn Féin is in charge in the North.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It cut the minimum wage. It cut maternity benefit and the student support grant.

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

Sinn Féin members are the most two-faced hypocrites I have ever met in my entire life.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It introduced prescription charges. It cut carer's allowance and carer's benefit.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady, without interruption, please.

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

He interrupted me.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It removed the Christmas bonus, reduced rent supplement, closed the back to work allowance for new recipients-----

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

We increased it first, before we reduced it.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and cut child benefit.

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

We never had the dole as low as it is in the North.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Contrary to lifting social welfare recipients out of the poverty trap-----

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

We never had dole payments of €80 a week.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will stop the Deputies. Deputy O'Dea must allow Deputy Brady to speak without interruption.

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

I hate hypocrisy. I hate hypocrisy and lies.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Contrary to the spin that Fianna Fáil lifted social welfare recipients out of the poverty trap, it compounded the poverty further and deeper. Deputy O'Dea is correct that there was a presentation on lone parents' matters. He knows that 22.1% of lone parents, which is one of the groups over which he cries crocodile tears in this House, live in a constant state of poverty, but that is thanks to his party, Fianna Fáil.

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

Sinn Féin had its chance to join the Government.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I set that out to set the record straight.

After the budget, during a Prime Time debate, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, listed all of the similarities between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. He stated that they both shared common policy objectives, that they both come from much the same background and that they are both supported by much the same people across the country.

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

He does not get everything right.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was a bit like an awkward conversation between a married couple, where one partner justifies to the other all the reasons they are meant to be together.

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

Is that the best you can do? Is that your best shot?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister for Finance did leave out a number of points on what makes Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil two peas in a pod. There are many more similarities to add to the Minister's list, which are clearly evident from budget 2017. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have utter contempt for young people. Across the board, every social welfare recipient will see a €5 increase in their payment, except for those aged under 26 years. Those aged 18 to 24 years in receipt of a jobseeker's payment will receive-----

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

It is a long way from-----

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy O'Dea-----

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

This guy is okay with what is paid across the Border-----

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope the Acting Chairman has stopped the clock. The heckling obviously demonstrates that the truth has touched a raw nerve.

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

You would like to think so.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every time I come into this House and remind Fianna Fáil of what it implemented and imposed on people across the board-----

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

What is it a week-----

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----its members react as Deputy O'Dea reacts now. I ask the Acting Chairman to stop Deputy O'Dea and to allow me to speak uninterrupted.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have on numerous occasions asked Deputy O'Dea to stop. I ask Deputy Brady to address the Chair. There is a reason for a Chair being here. I will chair this debate.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please do chair it.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy knows that I am one of the fairest people in the Chair.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have asked Deputy O'Dea not to interrupt him. I ask him to please address his remarks through the Chair and to continue with his contribution.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those aged 18 to 24 years in receipt of a jobseeker's payment will receive an increase of €2.70. Those aged 25 years will receive an increase of €3.80.

Instead of struggling to live on €100 per week, those aged between 18 and 24 years will now struggle on €102.70 simply because of their age. These increases were hardly surprising coming from the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, given that he struggles to comprehend how any young person could be on a jobseeker's payment in the first place. He made his feelings towards young people crystal clear; the full rate of jobseeker's benefit is far too generous for them. The Minister has also expressed confusion about young people with poor English and qualifications coming to Ireland from foreign shores and taking up employment in a matter of weeks, while young Irish people seem unable to do likewise. Apparently, to use his words, "there are lots of jobs."

Not content with running thousands of young people out of the country when it purposely cut jobseeker's payments in the first place, the Fianna Fáil Party has played its part in ensuring the discrimination against young people it started in 2009 will continue. While it engages in the pretence of being outraged by the level of the increase and has vowed to reverse it, the crocodile tears Fianna Fáil has shed about a tiny increase in payments for young jobseekers come a little late in the day. It was part of negotiating the budget and, ultimately, can take responsibility for the measures for young jobseekers. In contrast to the numerous U-turns it has made since the general election, its message for young people has remained consistent - they should live on €100 a week and be grateful or leave the country. I assume this is one of the common policy objectives it shares with Fine Gael.

Sinn Féin welcomes the increase in the back to education allowance for jobseekers aged under 26 years to a new full rate of €193. However, given that recipients of the allowance do not qualify for the maintenance component of the student grant, the current rate will not sustain a young person through a three or four-year course. For many young people, returning to college also means having to move to access a college course and incurring additional costs which the back to education allowance will simply not cover.

While it was not anticipated that the Government would make life more difficult for lone parents, the common policy objectives it shares with Fianna Fáil have made this possible. The single biggest issue for lone parents, the reduction to seven years in the cut-off age for the one-parent family payment, is not addressed in the Bill. While it is argued that the Government reforms were implemented as an incentive to encourage lone parents into employment, family income supplement, the in-work support for lone parents, has not been increased. As a result, many parents on family income supplement would be better off if they transferred to the jobseeker's schemes.

It has been well documented that the lone parent reforms have had the perverse effect of encouraging welfare dependency and reducing household income. A recent report undertaken by the UNESCO child and family research centre at NUI Galway echoes this view. It concludes that the policy has left lone parents in paid employment financially worse off.

The Government seems to ignore the blatant fact that the capacity of a lone parent to work and care is not equal to that of a two-parent family. Lone parents are unable to participate in full-time employment when they are a child's sole carer because they are locked out of accessing child care owing to a lack of availability and the substantial costs involved. The Government's promise to introduce a Scandinavian child care model on the back of the lone parent reforms is nothing but a distant memory. Difficulties with the cost and availability of child care have been repeatedly acknowledged as an issue of concern for those parenting alone who wish to return to paid employment. Analysis by the OECD indicates that full-time day care for two preschool children accounts for 40% of the family income of an Irish lone parent on an average income compared with an OECD average of 13%. A report by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission recommended that the State reverse the reforms to the one-parent family payment until such time as an adequate and affordable child care system was in place. Perhaps ignoring this recommendation is also part of the shared policy objectives of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

According to the Government, lone parents also have the option of returning to education or engaging in training, neither of which can be accessed without proper child care. The Government needs to get its head around the fact that, in the absence of affordable child care, returning lone parents to work is not a realistic prospect.

An end to the farce known as JobBridge has been announced on numerous occasions, including as far back as 1 May 2016. I welcome the reduction in funding for the scheme in budget 2017 as a clear signal that it will be abolished. However, I am concerned that the Minister for Social Protection has been unable to provide details of a new scheme now that JobBridge has been closed to new applicants. The issues that gave rise to the serious concerns highlighted in the Department's audit of JobBridge cannot be allowed to continue in the replacement scheme. In that respect, JobBridge 2.0 will not cut it and a root and branch reform will be required. As I have outlined previously, Sinn Féin has proposed a credible alternative to JobBridge. I urge the Minister to examine our alternative proposals as a means of getting young people into the workforce.

The annual €500 cost of education allowance introduced for parents and lone parents in receipt of the back to education allowance is not new as an earlier payment was abolished in 2013. Without access to affordable child care and the maintenance element of the student grant, lone parents will find that returning to education is not a sustainable option.

Child maintenance is another major issue that is impacting on lone parents. The Department places an onus on lone parents to seek maintenance from former partners. On the one hand, it issues letters to the parent who is liable to pay maintenance in which it states maintenance payments are no longer obligatory once a child reaches the age of seven years, while, on the other, it tells lone parents they will face financial sanctions if they do not seek maintenance. This approach places lone parents in an impossible and sometimes dangerous position and must end. Lone parents do not feature in the considerations of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. That the Minister has not even bothered to respond to the UNESCO child and family centre's report reinforces this view.

Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael make commitments before elections, only to dump them when elected. In their election manifestos they pledged to increase the living alone allowance, yet no such increase was provided for in budget 2017.

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

How much is it in the North?

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No interruptions, please.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Older people living alone are among the most vulnerable in society. Many of them rely solely on the State pension for income and face the same increase in the cost of living as all other households. Additional charges placed on older people, for example, the family home tax, water charges and the increased prescription charges, have placed a major burden on older people living alone. Fine Gael has maintained the prescription charges for medical card holders introduced by Fianna Fáil in 2010. In targeting the sick and weak both parties have shown that they have no shame.

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

The Deputy is the last person to talk about shame.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow Deputy John Brady to proceed, without interruption.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have touched another raw nerve.

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

The Deputy is shameless.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the Deputy's reaction every time I touch a nerve.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Deputy Willie O'Dea not to interrupt.

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

I am being provoked.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Neither party is concerned people are choosing what medication they can do without week to week. This is something else both parties have in common. While Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil both acknowledge fuel poverty - Deputy Willie O'Dea referred to it himself - they failed to turn about any of the cuts imposed on fuel allowance. The rate remains the same. Currently, 28% of households across the State experience fuel poverty. That means we have older people who are cold in their own homes. We know Ireland has the highest levels of excess winter mortality in Europe with an estimated 2,800 excess deaths every winter, yet Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have failed to address this in budget 2017. The reality is older people travel on public transport during the day to keep warm. They ration fuel at home because they cannot afford it and are having to go to bed early just to stay warm.

During the general election campaign, I met a lady who told me how she goes to her local library to keep warm. She meets many other elderly people from the community there. This is happening the length and breadth of the State. Our elderly have to go into public buildings to keep warm because of the gross inadequacy of the fuel allowance and the fuel poverty 28% of our population experiences. This is utterly unacceptable. Budget 2017 has done nothing in that regard. Due to the inaction of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, this will continue.

There was a song and dance about the €5 increase in the State pension. When we looked at the fine print, however, we realised older people will not see the increase until five months after the budget, a date unknown until the Social Welfare Bill 2016 was published last week. While it is acknowledged older people need this increase, the message from Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil is they will have to wait for it. The Bill fails to address all of the significant inconsistencies which exist in our pension system. We have the most bizarre ongoing situation where 65 year olds are being forced into jobseeker's payment on retirement as a consequence of abolishing the transitional State pension. The only income available to those who are obliged to retire at 65 is a jobseeker's payment. The Department is not interested in whether these people are actively seeking employment, the main criteria for receipt of such a payment. It just wants 65 year olds to take the jobseeker's payment quietly for the year. Many cases involve a person retiring at 65 who has worked for maybe 40 or 50 years who has diligently paid pension contributions but is now told they cannot access their pension for a year. As of April of this year, there were more 65 year olds in receipt of jobseeker's payments than any other age category. That is 5,075 65 year old men and women across the State.

In recent weeks, a lady made contact with my office on this matter. Her late husband was forced onto the jobseeker benefit on retirement. He had worked his entire life and, for him, signing on caused him frustration and distress. The lady told me how the Department instructed her late husband not to leave the country for any lengthy periods or he would lose his payment. The couple had hoped to visit their children and grandchildren in Australia, a country difficult to visit for a short two-week stay. The Department, however, dictated what this man could and could not do. This situation caused huge distress to this man on his retirement. He did not want to be made feel he was to receive payment for no work on jobseeker's benefit. On retirement, he was made feel he was supposed to be seeking work while, at the same time, he was restricted when it came to visiting his family abroad.

That is only one case of many. Forcing 65 year olds into a jobseeker's payment will not sustain the State pension system. It does not work and it leaves older people at a financial disadvantage receiving €64 less than they would on the State pension. Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil saw no need to address this in the Social Welfare Bill.

Women are also bearing the brunt of the changes made to the State's contributory pension scheme by Fine Gael. When it comes to retirement, the gender pension gap between men and women is 35%. The number of PRSI contributions needed to receive the State pension remains at 520. This was significantly increased from 260 in 2012. The primary reason for the inequality in the pension cuts is that women often have to take time out of work to rear children or were forced out of jobs due to the marriage bar. Despite inequality for women, however, neither Fine Gael nor Fianna Fáil saw the need to address women's pensions in budget 2017 and, consequentially, in this Bill.

Those with disabilities will see a €5 increase in their payments but the promise of a new motorised transport grant remains just that - a promise with no action. Three and a half years after a commitment from the Taoiseach in this Chamber, there remains no replacement grant in place. Transport costs are cited again and again as expensive and difficult to manage. Those with disabilities cannot be left to wait another three years for this replacement.

It is not enough to give those with disabilities an extra fiver and leave it at that. Those with disabilities need to be encouraged and given the same opportunities as others to avail of full paid employment. This has been done fantastically through the likes of the WALK Peer programme and the work it has done in supporting young people with disabilities into the workforce. I welcome the provision of €2 million in 2017 for projects which provide pre-activation supports for people with disabilities. However, we need to know where this money is going and the details of it. We have asked repeatedly as to whether the WALK Peer programme will get funding next year. Those involved in it do not know if they will. The Minister and Minister of State with responsibility for disabilities have abdicated their responsibility in this regard, failing to give groups like WALK Peer an answer and certainty about their funding.

I welcome the increase in the school meals programme, especially given the significant issue of child poverty experienced by families every day. It is not news that parents are struggling to feed their children or to provide a warm home and sufficient clothing for them. It is a stark reality for people out there.

One measure which did not appear in this Bill is any increase to the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. This is a missed opportunity. Time and again, as September approaches, voluntary organisations are left to pick up the tab due to the Government's inaction on tackling back to school costs. The struggle for parents to cover these costs year on year will continue unless there is an increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. I am sorry to see that my and others' calls to the Government to increase this payment were ignored.

Sinn Féin welcomes the provision of paternity leave and benefit.

We welcomed and supported this Bill when it was brought forward ahead of the summer recess. It is legislation that Sinn Féin had called for consistently and it is a welcome start in developing Ireland's parental leave practices.

To be welcomed in this Bill is the extension of access to certain social welfare benefits for the self-employed, including farmers. This, again, is a welcome first step in providing security for those who are self-employed when and if they need it. The unchanged rate of PRSI for the self-employed is also to be welcomed. We know that the self-employed have seen little or no support from the Government throughout the recession. In many cases, unfortunately, a number of businesses did not survive. We must support those who take a risk in setting up their own business and taking on employees. I hope to see a further rolling out of social protection measures for the self-employed.

Year on year, Sinn Féin provides a fully comprehensive alternative to the budget that is fully costed by the Department of Finance. In this year's one, we addressed head on the real issues that the most vulnerable in society face annually. A social welfare Bill brought forward by Sinn Féin would look very different from the one we are debating this evening. Sinn Féin would not stand over discrimination against young people in our social welfare system. In our alternative budget, we included a €40 increase in the jobseeker's payment for the under-26s as part of its restoration over two budgets. We also included the increase in the back-to-education allowance for under-26s to the full rate, and we welcome the fact that the Government has done this.

For lone parents, we included an increase of 10% in the FIS and an increase in the cut-off age for the one-parent family payment to 12 years as a starting point. Eventually, we would hope to restore it to its former level. These measures would have directly targeted lone parents and in some way address the issues they face on a daily basis.

When it comes to older people, Sinn Féin brought forward an older persons package worth over €410 million, including a three-week extension to the fuel allowance, a €9.50 increase in the living-alone allowance, and reinstating the transitional pension for 65-year-olds, as well as further measures to address the inconsistencies within our pension system. For those with disabilities, we proposed an increase of €5.50 in the disability allowance and the blind person's pension. With that, we also allocated €1.1 million to secure and replicate the WALK PEER programme, which supports young people on disability allowance to move into paid positions of employment in the open labour market and further education or training in mainstream settings.

The coming together of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil has done one thing well in that it has allowed them to see that they are, in fact, both the same. Of course, this does not come as news to many of us. Approaching this Social Welfare Bill and following on from the budget, we have seen two things - Fine Gael carrying the can for the continuation of the measures imposed by Fianna Fáil before it, and Fianna Fáil throwing its own party policies out the window and chasing after Fine Gael in every single thing it does. The marriage of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil does work. It works for the developers and the bankers, it works well for the wealthy, it works for those who inherit rich estates and other inheritances, and it works well for the Ministers and the Government, who do not forget their own pay increases. Let us be very clear, however, that the marriage of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil does not work for the ordinary people. It does not work for young people, it does not work for lone parents, it does not work for our older citizens, and it certainly does not work for people with disabilities and children.

The Social Welfare Bill in its present form does not do everything it could have done. It is the result of a budget that further marginalises our young people, lone parents and those living alone. As the main Opposition party here, Sinn Féin has little room to bring forward amendments to this Bill given the fact that, as an Opposition party, we cannot table amendments that constitute a charge on the Exchequer or on the public. Having said that, it is my full intention to frame amendments in such a way as to bypass the restrictions so a proper debate can take place on the many issues that should have been dealt with in this Bill. I look forward to a debate on Committee Stage. We will certainly be tabling a number of amendments. As I said at the start of my contribution, it is important that the record be set straight on the hot air blown into this Chamber by Fianna Fáil. It compounded the poverty levels of the very people it is in here talking about and trying to lift out of the poverty trap.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on behalf of the Labour Party. The Social Welfare Bill is very important. It is fundamental in terms of giving legislative effect to the various measures relating to the social welfare system announced in the budget. I welcome the first attempt at a social welfare Bill by the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, although it was somewhat unprecedented for a budget to be announced with no date for the payments to start until several weeks later. It is encouraging that he has taken into account some of what we in the Labour Party proposed in our alternative budget. We clearly welcome those measures. The Minister has tried to spread the increases across nearly all categories but it is what he has left out that is most revealing.

I have been self-employed since 1980 so I must confess an interest. I have always been on this hobbyhorse of how the self-employed were treated. Many of the proposed increases and improvements to entitlements for the self-employed will not come into effect until much later in 2017. For a long time, I have championed the cause of the 380,000 individuals affected. This number is growing again. It was 180,000 not too long ago. I am glad to see the change is contributing to the drop in unemployment. Those concerned are risk takers and innovators. Not only that, they are also tax collectors for every Government. They take on all the risk and employ people. They have been badly treated and are not at the races in terms of benefits, apart from the contributory pension, to which they contribute until the age of 66. The invalidity pension will not be extended to the self-employed until December 2017.While this will result in a saving, it could not have been left much later next year. Given current developments, I wonder who will be Minister at that stage.

The improvements to the PRSI dental and optical benefits will not come into force until October. The Minister has been playing games with many of these announcements.

I had better declare another conflict of interest. I have a brother who is a councillor. I was glad to see the changes for the councillors but I am beginning to wonder whether the focus has been on an event outside here rather than on something in here. I was somewhat surprised that something that was debated ad nauseamfrom the time I was a councillor myself – I was a councillor for a number of years – did not find its way into the Social Welfare Bill ab initio, rather than coming in later as a Committee Stage amendment. The whole place knows that what was going on with councillors was robbery. They were paying 4% into a black hole and getting nothing in return. I agree the Minister believes some benefit should derive from a contribution but councillors were treated very badly. Now they have bigger administrative areas to cover. I refer to municipal districts and other lunatic proposals that we implemented and that should be dumped at the first opportunity. We have been asking councillors to travel vast distances. I do not know the position in Limerick but I know about the geographical areas in Westmeath. There are multiple meetings. When I started off as a councillor, there were 13 or 14 meetings per year, and I am sure it was the same for Deputy Willie O'Dea. Now there are that many every month. I am glad about the Minister's measure but I do not like the way things are done. The measures in the Bill should be up front; let them go, and let everybody in here nail his or her colours to the mast. An awful lot of people in here are into funny money and talking about all sorts of things.

I was in government when the troika was coming in telling us to cut social welfare back to the rates that applied in Northern Ireland. The Minister, Deputy Varadkar, was in government at that time also.

We were borrowing money from the lender of last resort, the ECB. The troika was telling us what to do, but we held out. I will take no lessons from anyone who says that we did not. We fought hard. There were cuts but, by hell, people would really have seen cuts had the outside bodies implemented what they wanted to. Deputy O'Dea was right, in that everything in the North just a few miles up the road was half the rate that it was in the South. I recall the early morning meetings when we fought to try to protect rates. We were in the last chance saloon.

I come from a humble background. I do not mind admitting it. I would love to give more money to everyone, but it should only be enough to live while incentivising people to get out. That is important. We cannot create a poverty industry. I do not subscribe to that. I was the eldest of ten. We had a small, menial wage coming into the house to keep us going. There was no social welfare or crutch at that time in the 1950s and 1960s.

As the Minister knows, I have been calling for improvements for the self-employed for some time. During the worst of the economic recession, protection of the social welfare system was given the utmost priority by the previous Government, which had the Labour Party at its heart. Almost €20 billion was protected when cuts were happening everywhere. I do not want to go into the history of that again. We also commenced a policy of equalisation in the taxation treatment of the self-employed compared with employed people by increasing the earned income tax credit for the self-employed. That policy of equity, fairness and justice must be completed. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, has committed to this and money is scarce, but the sooner it is done, the better.

As Deputy O'Dea knows from being an accountant, the self-employed have a case. The PAYE allowance was implemented on a current year basis but self-employed people were treated on a previous year basis. They are being treated on a current year basis now, but they are still not getting the same treatment. If I were not a Deputy, I would bring a case on their behalf against the Departments of Finance and Social Protection, but that is another matter. The Government would be ahead of people in that regard. The self-employed were badly treated.

As the economy improves, the Minister must ensure a level playing field for the self-employed. I welcome the changes, but more needs to be done. They are entitled to a safety net in the social welfare system for when they fall into personal difficulty such as illness or lose jobs unexpectedly, which was a common event during the recession. I recall sitting in my clinics in Mullingar on cold Fridays trying to deal with self-employed people who had fallen ill but for whom nothing was available. They provided valuable employment for others, but the first thing that the Department of Social Protection always did - in fairness to Deputy Burton, she rectified this - was ask them to account for everything that they had earned in the previous year. That was like accounting for the snow that had fallen two years prior. I used to get extremely angry about that. I might as well be honest - we had many a heated parliamentary meeting about it until Deputy Burton made some amendments. Everyone had the view that the self-employed were well off, but I can never forget that they provided a considerable amount of valuable employment for others.

The self-employed are liable for PRSI payments under a class S rate of 4%, which entitles them to such benefits as the State contributory pension or the widow's, widower's or surviving civil partner's contributory pension. The extension in the range of benefits is important, but the self-employed do not qualify for jobseeker's benefit irrespective of how long they have been making contributions. They are compelled to seek recourse to the jobseeker's allowance, which is means tested. For many, this is their first encounter with the social welfare system. It can be an emotive and tortuous process, in so far as their assessments must reflect the incomes that they got from their businesses in the previous 12 months. I hope that the Minister will apply fairness to the social welfare system in trying to achieve a just and equitable solution for the self-employed. I believe that he is committed to doing so.

Given the context of specific PRSI schemes underpinning the equality objective, the system should recognise self-employed people's position as employers as well as employees. We must confront this issue in a positive and constructive way to address the plight of the self-employed.

There is still no entitlement to illness benefit or jobseeker's benefit despite the fact that, as Deputy O'Dea pointed out, it is available in other EU countries. The Minister is not afraid of change, but departmental bureaucrats are always afraid of it and of trying something that they have never tried before because there could be "ramifications" and so on. This must be addressed. Self-employed people are more likely to fall ill because many of them are out in the rain and snow working hard. They cannot come inside because, unlike years ago, they have no set times or hours. The Minister must let us know what his plans are in this regard. I hope that it is not just window dressing. I do not believe that it is.

The changes are welcome, but what about those payments that the Minister did not increase? I must address some of them. Deputy Brady referred to a number of them. The Social Welfare Bill is disappointing for me and the Labour Party because it does nothing to address children living in poverty. There was an argument during the summer about a €5 increase. Deputy O'Dea ensured that he got some plaudits. That is politics. When one has been around here for as long as he has, one makes sure to fight one's corner. There were wins for some people, but there was nothing for children. The Bill fails to provide any increase in those payments that make the most difference to those with children and who live in poverty. The Bill shows little vision about how to address child poverty. Social transfers are critical to solving the problem, but nothing has been done to address it.

From child benefit and family income supplement, FIS, to the qualified child increase, no increase in respect of children has been provided to the front line of helping parents on social welfare. Someone asked what the Government had against children, given that it did nothing in the budget for those most in need. The budget package outlines no ambition or vision for addressing child poverty. Choices were to be made in the budget. The Government made some that were right, which is only natural, but it was wrong in this regard. According to a recent UNICEF report, children are now the most neglected group in Irish society.

Many options for addressing child poverty could have been considered by the Government, but the budget made a clear statement on where the Government stood by making no increases in the payments that made the most difference to children. The Minister managed to find money - I appreciate that it is not easy, as I was there five or six years ago - to increase nearly every payment and extend multiple benefits. Thankfully, some of those were for the self-employed. However, he failed even to consider others. FIS, child benefit and domiciliary care allowance play a critical role in addressing child poverty and supporting low-income families. The increase for a qualified child is the most targeted payment in our social welfare system. It is given to those who are in receipt of social welfare payments and who are raising children. Means tested, it is worth €29.80 per week. I must ask a question. Does the Minister believe that this weekly amount is sufficient to raise a child? He could have made a real difference to those children who are at risk of poverty by increasing the rate. Even a small increase of €3 or €4 would have made a significant difference, as it would amount to approximately €200 per year, which could be critical where children are at risk of poverty.

The back to work family dividend, which is linked to the qualified child increase, has not been increased either. It was a novel and worthwhile introduction in its time. By adding a few euro, the Minister could have made a substantial and targeted difference. It would have given extra support to lone parents and those who were trying to return to work. As seen in the small weekly increase for those aged under 26 years, though, the Government does not care too much for young people or children who need family income support.

The Government increased the minimum wage by 10 cent per hour - this was recommended by the commission, but the increase was miserly - but did not provide any increase in the rate of FIS. This will create difficulties because families dependent on FIS will suffer a real decrease. During the crisis, FIS supported many low-paid families to remain in work and has been a critical part in making sure that work always pays. In Fine Gael's circles, the Minister and his colleagues may not be aware of the importance of FIS, but it plays a key role in supporting families in low-paid jobs. Despite increasing the minimum wage, FIS rates have been left unchanged and there has been limited comment on this important issue. In last year's budget, the limits for the first two children were increased by €5 each, taking the payment to €511 and €612. As the Minister should know, FIS provides 60% of the difference between one's salary and the cap. Given that there has been no increase in the cap, those on the minimum wage will see a reduction in the amount that they receive.

Eugene Murphy (Roscommon-Galway, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I regret that I must interrupt the Deputy, but we must adjourn the debate. The Deputy will be the first called tomorrow, when he will have 16 minutes. I thank him for his co-operation and Members for their contributions.