Tony McLoughlin (Sligo-Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To continue from where I left off last night, I firmly believe that this would not have been the right thing to do and that an election would only have delayed a wide range of vital legislation, such as the Bill before us tonight. Either way, as a back bench Deputy who has recently successfully introduced an Act of the Oireachtas, the most obvious provision in this Bill which should be highlighted is the extension of entitlement to maternity benefit and maternity leave for mothers of children born prematurely beyond the 26 weeks already provided for. For me, this is yet another example of how the concept of new politics can work to deliver real change in Dáil Éireann for the people on the ground in our constituencies on issues which need to be addressed.

With regard to this provision in particular, we all thought and agreed that this proposal, which originally came from the Green Party, made sense, was workable and affordable, had the support of families on the ground and was sensible to introduce. For that reason, I am delighted to see it included in the Bill. I firmly believe that good political ideas and good policies should be supported in parliament, regardless of who they come from. The concept of new politics has ended the prospect of fracking for shale gas and oil being permitted to occur in this country and it has now introduced this additional maternity cover for mothers who give birth prematurely. I believe that new politics will continue to deliver these changes, for however long it is permitted to continue.

This Bill also provides for yet another positive measure aimed at supporting the transition from unemployment into employment by enabling the continuation of the back-to-work family dividend. The existing legislation had the effect of closing the scheme to new claimants from the end of March 2018 and the closure of the scheme in its entirety from 2021. This Bill will stop that closure and is part of the common sense approach to keeping people in the workplace and making work pay being taken by the Minister. I applaud her for this approach as many people in my constituency of Sligo-Leitrim would have been affected by the original rule.

This Bill continues the positive trend of increasing the levels of weekly social welfare payments, which will be a benefit to many pensioners, carers, jobseekers and people living with disabilities.

Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on the Social Welfare Bill 2017. In 2016, at the first opportunity I had, I raised the issue of the change in pension allowances introduced by Deputy Joan Burton in 2012. I know this was hotly debated last night and I think everybody that spoke in the Dáil raised this issue. There is an anomaly there. I know the Minister is genuine because I have heard her speak on this issue on numerous occasions. This is something which needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. I know there is a certain cost involved. These people had to give up work. In some cases they were forced to give up work. They had to rear children and whatever else and then had to go back into the workforce only to find that cruel changes to their pension entitlements had been introduced in 2012. It was especially cruel for a female Minister to introduce a rule which affected so many women. I know it is said that approximately 63% of those affected are women but I believe the percentage could be much higher than that. It is said that 38% of those affected are men but I do not know if that is correct either. Women definitely represent the higher percentage of those affected. I know the Minister is genuine in what she proposes to do, and the quicker it is done, the better.

I would also like to raise the issue of the fair deal scheme. I know that it is not the Minister's brief but I would like to tell her of an experience I had on Monday morning. A constituent and her husband came into my office. She is close to 80 and her husband is in a nursing home. They are on non-contributory pensions. That is fine. They have no issue paying 80% of his pension for the scheme but there is an issue because this lady jointly owned a property with her two brothers, who were not married.

6 o’clock

One brother died and the surviving brother gave the farm to a nephew. The farm was valued at €120,000. Due to the fact that the lady was adjudged to own half of a farm worth €120,000, she is now paying 7.5% per year on top of the percentage of the pensions for her husband's care. That is an anomaly. I was shocked when she told me her story. The property she owns is of no benefit to her whatsoever and was passed on directly from her brother to their nephew. Because she is a joint owner of the property, she has to pay 7.5% of €62,000 out of her pension, which is very unfair. I acknowledge it is not under the Minister's brief but it needs to be looked at.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very unfair.

Eamon Scanlon (Sligo-Leitrim, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The carer's allowance is a welcome and very valuable payment. Those supplying care for others do a great job and there is no question about that. I was recently told of a girl who came back from England, where she was working, to look after her father who was very ill. She has no income here and applied for a carer's allowance and, unfortunately, was turned down. Her father is very ill and she is an only daughter and the only person available to care for him. She does not want to put her father into a nursing home although he would be entitled to be admitted to one. It is unfortunate that she has been refused that allowance and the refusal should be examined. I might come back to the Minister on that issue.

Widows and widowers apply for pensions on the deaths of their partners and there are usually small children involved in such situations. The widow's pension is the poorest of all social protection payments. That should be looked at and increased because such people need more support, as is evidenced by such people who attend at Deputies' constituency offices. This is not a recent development but, rather, has been going on for the past 20 or 30 years. The widow's and widower's pension should be considered separately to social welfare payments. The payment for widows and widowers who have young children should be increased to try to help alleviate the difficulties that come with a death in the family.

An issue raised last night is that of people who have to retire at the age of 65 when the current pension age is 66. As was said, the age of eligibility for the pension will rise to 67 or 68 for some people and there is very little interim support for those who have to retire at 65. Either the working age should be increased to allow people remain at work or a scheme should be brought in such that people are not put into poverty and there is something to help them during the years between retirement and becoming eligible for the pension.

Following the economic crash, quite a number of self-employed people found themselves out of work and there was very little support for them. Things are gradually improving in that regard. However, the self-employed create jobs and pay PAYE, PRSI and the various other taxes that go with employing people, often amounting to thousands of euros, but when they get into difficulty, there is no help available for them. That is wrong. I appreciate that slight changes were made in the budget to help self-employed people who find themselves in difficult circumstances because of the recession or for other reasons.

I come from a rural constituency and there were community welfare officers in the community until quite recently. Community welfare officers attended my home town of Ballymote and nearby places such as Glebe at least once a week and people went to those locations to meet them. Those officers have been taken out of rural areas and are now based in town centres and a person who wants to meet them has to do so at a certain time on a certain day. It can be difficult, in particular for single parents or families with young children, to make what could be a 40-mile round trip to meet them. Deputy McLoughlin will be aware of the issues involved in travelling from isolated places such as Glebe. Some people may have no private transport and there may be no public transport available and they would therefore have to hire a taxi to bring them to the meeting, which is very expensive. These services were removed during the recession but that should be reconsidered and community welfare officers put back into communities to help those in need and ensure it is easier for them to access the services required.

Maintenance recovery is another issue of concern, although it may not come under the Minister's brief. It is of particular concern for separated mothers of young children. While a court as part of a separation settlement may award a sum of perhaps €50, €60 or €70 a week to a parent, in many cases the money does not make its way to where it should. The process to address that is very cumbersome because one has to go back to court, which could take two or three months, by which stage there could be a sum of €2,000 or €3,000 owing to the parent looking after the children of the marriage. That should be examined and, although it is not part of the Minister's brief, she could, perhaps, keep it in mind in the future.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A theme that runs through various debates in the House is that of reform. It is constantly mentioned as being of necessity in order to deal with issues that have arisen or to improve things, no more so than during this afternoon's debate about the disclosures tribunal. As regards that issue, truth should be examined and guide us. The suppression of truth has us where we are in that regard.

The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is an example to other Departments in terms of the reform they need. If one tables a question or asks a question of officials in the Department one gets helpful answers. In addition, people are never transferred to different payments by the Department if those they are on give them the greatest amount of benefit. That has always been the case and long may it continue.

In terms of the general output of the Department, one of the greatest difficulties is the length of time people have to wait while their applications are being processed. That is particularly so in regard to carer's allowance, whereby one puts in an application and it seems to be dealt with in an unusually lengthy process. It would be helpful if there were some way to shorten the process while also examining all aspects of the application.

Domiciliary care allowance is another issue that needs to be dealt with. For many years there was a group based in Carlow that represented a number of people nationwide who had applied for domiciliary care allowance. It was known as the DCA Warriors and did battle with the Department to try to promote a better way of understanding domiciliary care allowance and dealing with applications. I will always remember looking at the application form for domiciliary care allowance in the United Kingdom. It is far simpler than that used here and an applicant knows exactly what is required and what circumstances need to be explained.

I regularly meet constituents who are very upset that they have been refused despite all the professional opinion they have included with their applications. They are missing the point about setting out what has to be done over and above what one would do in respect, for example, of another child of the same age as the one being cared for. This could be overcome by a simple reform to the way in which the application form is structured and the type of information requested from the applicant.

Debt collection is a regular topic at the Committee of Public Accounts. It led the Taoiseach into a bit of bother when he tried to explain it. We must get back to basics. It is the amount of debt incurred by someone who has, through error or fraud, taken money from the Department. If the Department stuck to that figure, it would be easily understandable. No one would get into trouble and everyone would know exactly how much was taken from the State. The Department should not introduce some other complex measurement of what might have been forgone to the State should something have happened. It is actual money about which we should be talking. If the position were tightened up in the context of the real fraud undertaken against the Department, the latter would have a significant amount of money. Fraud, by its very nature, is not easy to tie down. However, there are examples of fraud being detected and the same kind of method used to defraud the Department being in operation in other parts of the country. Resolving this would perhaps ensure more money for those in receipt of social welfare, particularly the elderly, and I ask the Minister to examine this.

I have come across many cases recently of the elderly seemingly being targeted, which concerns me. I am talking about a generation of people who have lived a very frugal existence. As a result of the fact that they saved up their pension payments over the years, they did not declare having done so. This is part of what they saved and now, because they have these savings, which may be significant because many of them lived frugally, they are putting themselves outside of the means test at various points. The Department is now reclaiming that money, needless to say, in respect of the periods for which they were not qualified under a means test. We must be a little more sympathetic in such cases. This generation made efforts to save money and at times did not live very well. They wanted to save for their children, and now that money is being taken back from them. It is not that they deliberately misled the Department; they were planning for the next generation, and we should be sympathetic to those people.

Some PPS numbers were issued in error. There are other cases in which the wife of someone who has been working requires a PPS number and it has taken a considerable length of time to issue. I have had to seek a PPS number in the past few weeks for my wife, who worked. The PPS number was apparently incorrect and now it will take five or six weeks to get the correct one. A number of such cases are in the system, and efforts should be made to clear the backlog if indeed there is one.

I was self-employed for most of my life. We must bring about some imaginative scheme that will bring the self-employed into some form of cover. It was particularly evident during the crash that people who were self-employed as plasterers, carpenters and so on ended up with nothing and then had no social welfare supports. There is a need to introduce a scheme which, even if voluntary, would provide the range of supports that are necessary when someone hits such a wall. I came across a case recently of the breadwinner in a house - the father - becoming quite ill. The hoops that must be jumped through to get one's paperwork correct in order to get some form of payment is a little too much in certain circumstances. The circumstances of the individual should be determined in a far more efficient way when those circumstances concern medical issues, even though this will take some effort on the side of the social welfare official to determine the case. Taken nationally, I am sure there are many such cases, but these are just minor adjustments. They do not cost the State a fortune, and through savings within the Department over the years, something can be done for them.

Finally, I wish to highlight the issue of rural crime and people, elderly individuals in particular, living alone. I know that alarm systems are in place but we need to expand the system we have into an organised one with a service provider to take in the greater number of people affected and ensure that those who live alone are covered and feel secure in their own homes. This could be direct contact with a neighbour or a police station. There is a need to support those who organise such alarms much more extensively. The principle and the basic supports are there but, because we now live in a very changing country, particularly in rural Ireland, there is a need to examine these schemes and have them dealt with in a way that is satisfactory for those who are in difficulty.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No one else is offering to contribute, so the next slot is again Fianna Fáil's. There are 20 minutes in the slot. The Deputies may decide who will speak first.

Margaret Murphy O'Mahony (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are very organised.

I outlined in the House the day after the budget that while the €5 increase in payments across the board is welcome, it does not take into account the expenses incurred by those with disabilities. Disability makes many things more expensive for the person with the disability than for someone who does not have a disability. Survey on Income and Living Conditions, SILC, data show that the at-risk-of-poverty rates, poverty rates and deprivation rates of those with disabilities are all increasing. The obvious result of this is extreme poverty and social exclusion. Clearly, the additional costs associated with disability were not factored into the budget, and this creates huge hardships for the most vulnerable in our society.

Again, I find myself standing before the Minister reiterating the fact that we are yet to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This is despite our signing it in 2007. I brought this up with the Taoiseach under questions on promised legislation about a month ago, and he said the Government is just taking a different approach. It certainly is a different approach because while Ireland has not ratified the convention, every other EU country has ratified it. I was told this time last year by the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, that Ireland would ratify it by the end of 2016, then he said it would be the end of 2017. Here we are nearly at the end of 2017 and it has still not been ratified. I would like the Minister to keep this in mind and speak to her colleagues about it. That we are now the only country in the EU not to have ratified the convention is not a statistic of which to be proud. Will the Government assure me, once and for all, that this will be attended to without further delay?

People with disabilities are tired of being sidelined and denied a fair chance to participate in society on an equal footing.

The inequity in the pensions system must be addressed, the first step being to reverse the changes introduced in 2012 and it must be done sooner rather than later. My constituency office is inundated with people presenting with their pension contributions history record, utterly perplexed to discover they will be penalised for giving up work to raise children or because they left Ireland to seek employment abroad when work was not available at home. The gap in their contributions history brought about by these necessary life choices is only brought to their attention when they request a contributions history from the Department. Many of them are approaching pension age when they make that inquiry, at which point it is almost impossible to remedy the shortfall. It is very harsh that, contrary to their expectations, they are discovering they are not entitled to a contributory pension. Although there are plans to move to a total contributions approach by 2020, that will do nothing to facilitate those who already find themselves in this predicament. We need clarity on their situation and action to remedy it.

Fiona O'Loughlin (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad the work of the House was not interrupted this week, which would have curtailed our debate on this important Bill. Fianna Fáil is happy to support the proposals contained in it as a step in the right direction towards our aim of creating a fairer Ireland for all, something to which my party has always aspired and always will aspire. We are proud of the role we played in securing the €5 increase in the State pension, in particular, as well as the increases in other weekly payments and the qualified child payment. We welcome, too, the extension of maternity benefit and leave in cases of premature birth. I hope it will give some comfort to parents who find themselves in that very difficult situation.

The major deficiency in the Bill, as referred to by my colleague, is that it does not address the issue of pension inequality, which is having a devastating effect on older people, especially older women. While we are having this discussion, some of the women concerned are gathered outside these buildings to protest against a system that absolutely disadvantages those among them who took time out of the workforce to engage in childminding duties or care for elderly parents. I look forward to joining them as soon as I have finished my contribution. Financial hardship in retirement has become a real problem for women because of the way the current system is structured. A 2012 study by the European Institute for Gender Equality found that the pension pay gap between men and women amounted to almost €700 a month. In fact, only 16% of women in this country receive the full State pension. I have repeatedly raised this matter in the House, having heard from so many women in Kildare South who are distraught to learn on reaching retirement age that they are not entitled to a full pension. It is very difficult for people who have been looking forward to a secure retirement to discover that they will, in fact, be facing into financial hardship.

The changes introduced in 2012 must be reversed immediately. The 36,000 people affected by the new system cannot wait until 2020 for the matter to be resolved, but we are still waiting for the report on this issue promised by the Minister. The inequity of the gendered pension system must be addressed without delay. Patrick Kavanagh, whose 50th anniversary we marked recently, got it right when a character in one of his novels observed: "Women ... never have got full credit for their bravery. They sacrifice everything to life." We need to move towards a universal pension system which will give men and women equal access to a comprehensive pension guarantee that will provide a decent standard of living for all.

Other than the €5 increase in all welfare payments, there is little good news in the Bill for those with a disability. There was an excellent presentation today in the Leinster House audio-visual room on what the census data told us about of the lives of people with disabilities. Their numbers are growing, as are the levels of supports needed. The large number of people with disabilities who cannot access education or employment and are totally reliant on the State is a clear indication that we need to do more to assist them. The Government, however, has failed to introduce a cost of disability top-up payment to address the additional costs faced by those with a disability, leaving the disability community feeling they have, once again, been ignored and sidelined. The at-risk poverty rate for people not at work owing to illness or disability was 34.8% in 2015, compared to 25.2% in 2014. That is a very worrying statistic. In October the Taoiseach acknowledged the many shortcomings and problems in the funding of disability services and indicated that spending priorities for disability services would have to form part of the budget and Estimates process. He expressed confidence that additional funding for disability services would be found next year. The 643,000 people with disabilities and their families need and deserve clarity on what the additional funding will be and how it will be found. It is time for action instead of rhetoric.

The Government has yet to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability, despite having signed up to it in 2007. This is now the only country in Europe in which ratification of the convention remains outstanding. That should be a source of shame in this Chamber.

I am happy to support the Bill before us, while recognising that it represents only minor progress on the path to justice and equality for all groups on the island. If real opportunity is to be offered to all citizens, investment must be targeted at those who have been left behind and marginalised in the past. We cannot let that inequity continue.

Frank O'Rourke (Kildare North, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I will begin by acknowledging the positive changes, some of which are included as a consequence of the confidence and supply agreement between my party and Fine Gael in government. I will refer later to provisions that might be considered for inclusion in future budgets or perhaps even next year if it transpires that there is additional capacity within the Department.

The €5 per week increase for pensioners is most welcome and important. Older people have worked all their lives and it is vital that they be protected in retirement. This increase, together with the increase provided for in this year's budget, sends an important signal about our priorities. The increase of €5 in all social welfare payments is also welcome. It will make a particular difference to lone-parent families, many of whom are struggling. The extension of maternity benefit to families with premature babies is another positive change. As the father of a child who was premature, it is especially welcome to me, as reflected in my contribution to the debate on the Private Members' Bill that passed through the House.

The Christmas bonus will be restored at a rate of 85% this year. We must seek to move, as soon as possible, towards a situation where it will be restored at the rate of 100%, particularly for all pensioners who have contributed greatly to the State all of their lives.

Hopefully, those people will have many years in which to enjoy the bonus.

The restoration of the telephone allowance was a measure I called for and it is very welcome. The negative aspect of this is that it is going to be late and will not be implemented until next year. However, it is better late than never. It is very important for pensioners, whether they are living alone or with their partners. For most of them, it means two things, namely, it gives them contact with people outside their homes and removes the isolation and, more importantly, allows for them to feel secure through having access to panic buttons, panic alarms, etc. Many pensioners and older people have had to do without this allowance so I welcome the fact that it is being restored. I had called for this to happen in recent months. We want to extend the allowance to all pensioners, irrespective of their circumstances, as quickly as possible. It is important for all pensioners that they have access to the allowance. How the fuel allowance is paid is also positive because it will help people who are struggling.

I wanted to acknowledge these positives in the Bill as a backdrop for consideration of other matters in the period ahead. As the economy and the position of the Exchequer improve, it will be important to have reviews in order that additional funding, when it becomes available, can be channelled in the right direction in order to help those who are most vulnerable and struggling. To that end, I wish to address the issue of child benefit. During my 20 short months in the Dáil, I have met the Minister's predecessor - the current Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar - on two or three occasions to discuss this matter. I have also raised it as on Topical Issues. Child benefit should be extended to students who are in full-time second-level education. With the advent of transition year, which comes two years before the leaving certificate, most students can be in full-time second-level education until the age of 18 or 18 and a half. It is the final year in second-level education that can affect families greatly because it is leaving certificate year and can be very expensive. Extending child benefit to those over 18 and still in second-level education was costed by the Department, at my request. Such a measure would cost €55 million. The dynamics may have changed in the interim but it would be worth considering my proposal again. At the time, the then Minister acknowledged that such a measure would be positive. He acknowledged on national radio that we should consider doing this. It has not been done and it was not factored in to the budget. We should consider it because it would help struggling families a lot, because it is really important and because it would make a difference. A child in his or her final year at school needs support. As a result of the fact that he or she started school at an earlier age, a person could be in receipt of child benefit while his or her fellow students may not. That is something of an inequity. I would ask the Minister to consider this issue.

I also ask the Minister to consider the matter of the bereavement grant, particularly as it affects people who may be in receipt of social welfare payments or pensions. I am aware that they can get some supports from community welfare officers through the provision of supplementary welfare payments. Obviously, however, those payments do not go anywhere close to what may be required. I ask the Minister to also give consideration to this issue.

Rather than revising a raft of issues already covered by previous speakers, I shall just focus on a few. An issue regarding the jobseeker's payment has come up a lot at my clinics in the recent weeks. If a person is in and out of casual work and then applies for the jobseeker's allowance, he or she is not paid for the first three days of the claim. That has been the case for years but it is now a disincentive and a negative aspect. If a person is offered work for a couple of weeks and then goes back to claim jobseeker's allowance for a week or two or vice versa, he or she will not be paid for the first three days of the claim. This is a lot in a five or ten-day window. People who are in temporary or casual contracts can be laid off and when they go back into the environment of the jobseeker's system while waiting for more work to come along, losing three days from a six-day payment has a great impact. Could consideration be given to this matter? I know that it is not relevant to the Bill but I thought I might take the opportunity to highlight people's concerns in order that we might discover what could be done by the Minister's officials.

Reference was made to the pensions anomaly.From working with my colleague, Deputy O'Dea, I am aware that the Minister is very open-minded on this and is working positively to address the anomaly that was introduced in 2012 and that she is trying to correct. If I understand the position correctly, there is a commitment to the effect that if there is any available flexibility within the budget for next year, the Minister will consider what might be done and that something will definitely be considered in the context of the budget for 2019. This is important because it has become an issue for Deputies at their clinics in the past six to eight months. Women who are reaching retirement age and are only realising the significance of the 2012 change now. Most people will not be aware of it until they submit their applications. This important issue must be dealt with comprehensively and in a positive manner. We need to support families that took the decision for a parent to stay at home, which was a good decision for the right reasons. They should not be penalised.

In the time remaining, I wish to refer to Tús schemes. I have spoken to the Minister about this on numerous occasions and she responded very positively. I am aware that there is a bigger picture regarding Tús and community employment schemes, both of which are massively important. The Minister and her officials, who I have met in the Department, acknowledge that flexibility will be introduced to those schemes. The Minister is considering doing this in early 2018.We know what the level of unemployment is right now, and the levels of employment equivalent, and when a Tús scheme placement is vacated after one year there is no one else coming through. We have acknowledged this and followed the path through the Department to show that the lists of people to interview to fill those vacancies are not coming through to the Tús supervisors. There are a number of losers in this situation. The real loser is the individual who may be at a particular stage in his or her life whereby he or she may not get full-time work again. I am not being discriminatory when I say that. The club will also lose out. It suffers because nobody is coming in to fill the space. The third loser is the community because there is a seriously negative impact. When we consider the host, the participant and the community collectively, we can see that there is a major deficit. This needs to be addressed by allowing some flexibility. If a Tús participant finishes his or her year, he or she should not have to vacate and the year should be rolled on. Obviously, this requires a change to the Department policy or the legislation to actually make that happen. For some people, the scheme provides a social element to their lives when they go out to work for 20 hours per week. Apart from the benefits and the worthwhile service they give to the community and the group, it may be the only interaction they have because they may live alone. There are a number of avenues and angles upon which I would like to see the Minister's commitment followed through as per the discussions we have had. The Minister said that she would bring in that flexibility in 2018 and I would like to see this happen in order to help in these areas, which are of great benefit.

Pat Gallagher (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the next speakers, I understand there is an arrangement with Deputy Fitzmaurice.

Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is correct. The Deputy will use five minutes of my time.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairlefor the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill 2017 and to address a number of issues. There are many people involved in the area of social welfare. Much has been made in the Bill about the benefits for self-employed people. This is particularly relevant after the 2008 crash, when many self-employed people applied for social welfare benefits but discovered that they were outside the system. They could not get social welfare and had to go through a means test. The S stamp was not of any real benefit to them. People right across the spectrum have raised concerns on this issue for a long time.

The invalidity pension that is proposed within the scope of this Bill for self-employed people has a clause which states clearly that they will be eligible only if they cease trading. If one considers the working conditions of those involved in agriculture and for small traders, there are many issues, such as workplace accidents and so on, that arise. If, for example, a farmer is injured or has a serious illness and the farm is means of obtaining a livelihood for the family, then the wife or spouse will continue to work the farm - perhaps with some outside help. The farm is down in income because the farmer has been injured and is incapacitated. How will we allow this farmer to get his or her invalidity pension if the clause states that he or she must cease trading? Perhaps the Minister could look at the clause in question before the next occasion on which the Bill comes before the House.

It will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for some businesses and self-employed persons, whether in the production of fruit and vegetables, farming or a small business in which a spouse is also working. If other family members are working in the business and the PRSI number of the person who is injured or incapacitated is used as the main number for the business, he or she will not receive an invalidity pension where he or she would otherwise qualify for the simple reason that there is this clause, unless he or she ceases to trade. I ask the Minister to have a real look at it. She should look at the terms because it will definitely undo a lot of the good that has been promised in the introduction of invalidity pension for self-employed persons.

Another issue with which I want to deal relates to community employment scheme supervisors. I understand there was a meeting last Thursday with the Department, the Labour Court and other interested parties in that regard. Community employment scheme supervisors have been employed, but the issues involved are technical. It is said they were employed by the sponsors of a scheme and they now face a situation where there is no pension for them. It was understood there would be a pension because they were paying into a scheme but there was none through FÁS as it was or SOLAS as it is now. The Minister might tell the House about the meeting that was held last Thursday and set out the thinking involved. Certainly, there have been various commitments in the past six or seven years, including in the programme for Government, that an accommodation would be reached for these supervisors.

While I am talking about community employment, one of the biggest difficulties involves people who are 62 to 64 years of age who have finished their time on schemes. This is a long-running issue and every case should be made on these schemes. There is a lot of therapeutic work which benefits both society and the participants and consideration should be given to extending participation in schemes right up to pension age. This should be considered across the board, given the enormous benefit everyone has received.

There has been a debate back and forth in the Chamber on PRSI and pension records. I thank the Minister for the reply she gave to a parliamentary question last Thursday. There was a huge difficulty, as I know from many negotiations with senior officials in the Department. Now public representatives can look for records. When people are approaching their 60s and want to look at their records to see if they will be entitled to a pension, they do not know how to interface with the Department. They do not want to set up online accounts and provide all of those details. I am glad that the Department has seen sense and that we will be able to get the records. The people concerned will also be able to obtain the records themselves; they will not just have to use the offices of public representatives. They will be able to contact the Department directly. This was about finding a way to obtain private information held by the Department for which people should look. It is very worthwhile and I appreciate it. We put a great deal of effort into trying to have the position changed.

Issues also arise in relation to branch offices. Negotiations are ongoing. No more than any other infrastructure in rural or urban Ireland, we need to maintain the branch offices, just as we need to maintain post offices. A report was issued yesterday which stated responsibility for television licence fee collection should be handed over to Revenue, which would be a detrimental step. We need to channel as much business as humanly possible to post offices. Since I entered the House, people have been talking about getting all of the business of the State into post offices. In that regard, this is a retrograde recommendation, but I digress. To return to social welfare issues, an agreement on branch offices must be put in place rapidly. I ask the Minister to outline to the House how matters in that regard are being progressed.

The rural social scheme has benefited many families in the 15 years since its introduction and the introduction of the farm assist scheme. Many farmers' spouses joined the scheme and improved their skills enormously. They learned computer skills, worked with local development companies and went on to find employment through the scheme. People in my area have benefited enormously from it. Therefore, the scheme is very worthwhile. However, there is some confusion about it and who is entitled to benefit from it. If a farmer has a low income and participating in the farm assist scheme, he and his family are entitled to benefit from the rural social scheme. If a farmer has a dependent wife or child who is in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment, the wife or child can take part in the rural social scheme. There seems to be some confusion about how the scheme is being implemented. I hope there is no attempt being made from on high to remove the scheme, given its enormous benefits. People who have been trying to join Tús or community employment schemes participate in rural social scheme programmes which give them a sense of worth and on which they work very well. I ask for a full breakdown of what happens when a herd number and a single farm or basic payment application is made within a family and someone is in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment. As I understand it, a person can join the scheme in these circumstances. I know that it is difficult to fill Tús scheme places because of the employment figures but there should be more encouragement in that regard.

I have a real issue with JobPath. According to the Department's own statistics, a lot of people who have been participating in JobPath have ended up in receipt of disability allowance or disability benefit. I do not know whether there is a trend, but the JobPath programme has certainly come to the end of its usefulness. People are not progressing in the way intended when the programme was designed. While there is a major issue with JobPath, I encourage greater participation in community employment and rural social schemes.

Many colleagues have spoken about the change in women's pension entitlements on foot of the 2012 Act. It is one of the biggest issues. In the newsletters I have sent during the years I have always encouraged people to check their records to ensure they are up to date on all parts of their work history. Women are having €35 to €50 cut from their pension payments each week because they took time out to provide a valuable service for the State by rearing families. It is predominantly an issue which affects women, but it is also a problem for some men, particularly farmers. They would have worked away from the farm in their earlier years and then became self-employed farmers in the 1970s and 1980s, right up to 1988 when PRSI contributions became compulsory for the self-employed. They are now looking at the non-availability of the contributory pension. The ten-year rule was in place heretofore. I know some people who worked in the sugar factory in Mallow in their earlier years and who then worked on their farms. By the time the calculation is made, they are out of money or debarred completely. If they had never worked in their earlier years, the averages would have been a lot better. There is an issue which must be looked at. Information was provided that it was being tackled and that an agreement was being made between the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Department of Finance.

That does not seem to be the situation now. There needs to be a coherent, concerted attempt to resolve this issue, which predominantly affects women and a certain category of men. It is discrimination, pure and simple.

Social welfare has saved many families. Whether through the supplementary welfare scheme or whatever, it fills the breach in difficult cases. Social welfare workers use great discretion and have been more than good in trying to help families. However, there are situations where, for example, the top-up on the SUSI grant cannot be paid because the family receives family income supplement. I know a man who had been working and receiving family income supplement but who, when he was injured and off work and receiving illness benefit, could not get the supplement. He is now outside the limit needed to qualify for the SUSI top-up grant. There are serious anomalies that need to be resolved.

I would like a comprehensive reply on the Department's thinking about the rural social scheme. I urge the Minister to reconsider the invalidity pension for the self-employed because, while I understand that there is a strong intention in the Department to help those who are self-employed, there is a clause in the Bill which will debar the majority of those who would need it.

Michael Fitzmaurice (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We welcome the increases for pensioners and those on social welfare payments. While we welcome the announcement about the invalidity pension for the self-employed - who were always the poor relations, especially when the country hit a wall and they did not get anything - there are problems with it that I hope the Department will resolve. A farmer does not need to have cattle to get a single farm payment but he or she could get someone in to cut the grass and sell the bales and thereby be entitled to an invalidity pension.

For years, the Department encouraged people to go to banks more so than to post offices to conduct their business. The post office might be the only place where someone would see elderly people on a Friday. I encourage the Department, wherever it can do so, to promote and help post offices.

The extra numbers for the rural social scheme are welcome. The work done on those schemes throughout the country is invaluable. The Tidy Towns committees, Tús and CE schemes do massive work because county councils do not have workers to keep small towns tidy. The schemes ensure that people on small farms remained viable and gave them an existence. Unfortunately, people of 62 or younger who have been on the schemes for several years are being told they must head for the hills. This work was good for their mental health. Will the Minister and the officials do something for these people? In many places, the schemes advertise for people and do not get anyone to fill the vacancies. On the one hand, that is good because more people are at work but, on the other, next year the Tidy Towns competitions, the schools and graveyards, where great work was done by those on the rural social scheme did incredible work for the fabric of life in rural Ireland, may lose out. There may be problems in some areas where the council and those who operate the rural social scheme are arguing about insurance. They should tease that matter out because we want the work to be done. In the past year, this has caught up with us. I do not admire some of the schemes for getting people back to work but Tús and CE are doing massive work. We know the councils do not have the staff. My Christmas wish is that the Minister try to sort that out for the new year because it would give a new lease of life to many communities that do Trojan work to make their towns look better.

Thomas Byrne (Meath East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Social Welfare Bill 2017 and the measures the Minister is introducing. I have a few small issues which, like everything to do with social welfare, have a big impact on people's lives. I echo what Deputy Moynihan said about the invalidity pension. I welcome it as very good news. I thank the Minister for bringing it in. Everybody wanted to do it and I congratulate this Minister on being the one to do it.

Deputy has mentioned some people who will miss out. There are others who became sick in recent years, who are still out of work and who have full stamps and would have qualified for this pension last year or the year before but who will not qualify this year. There may be a small cohort of people in that boat and I urge the Minister to consider them. One is a constituent of mine and the Minister's. She has contacted the Minister's office and has spoken on national radio about this issue. I thank the woman in question, Martina Kelly, for her work in highlighting this two years ago when she became very ill. I urge the Minister to consider the people to whom I refer. I am sure there are very few of them. They are at home sick and would qualify for the invalidity pension if this provision had been introduced last year or the year before.

7 o’clock

It would be reasonable to grandfather the provision, as one might say, medical records could be obtained to prove people are ill and cases would not be made up. I welcome this. It is a positive step forward, but I urge the Minister to examine the position again in order to discover what might be the implications of extending the provision to those to whom I refer.

We look forward to the forthcoming increases in social welfare payments. I would prefer if they were greater but, obviously, there are huge competing pressures in the context of the budget. It is important that we say to everybody that they have a place in society and this is a country that looks after people, from those on the lowest incomes to the people on the highest. The Bill gives legislative effect to the range of increases in social welfare benefits.

I want to mention the people, predominantly women, who have lost their expectation of what their pensions would be because of changes introduced in 2012 and which we on this side of the House voted against at the time. What was done has given rise to a huge injustice. I note the Minister's commitment to rectifying the position and I look forward to action being taken to have the matter resolved. What we are speaking about are legitimate expectations. We had all sorts of debates about politicians' and judges' pensions and there were various constitutional blocks as to why somebody's pension could not be touched if it was a public sector occupational pension. If those constitutional blocks are there, I cannot see why they are not there in respect of people's social welfare's pensions. Women in particular, some of whom are outside the House this evening, do not have the same legitimate expectation they had when they paid their stamps - at whatever level was required at the time - regarding the size of the pensions they will receive.

I fully recognise that JobPath is crucial to activate people into the workforce and ensure that individuals who could be working but who are not receive the training and help they need to get into employment. I am fully on board with this. Deputy Moynihan recognised that there are certain people who should probably be on disability allowance because they are simply not fit to work. There are very few in this particular group, but I certainly know two gentlemen who are and who live in rural areas. One is in his late 50s and the other is in his early 60s. Neither has ever driven. They cycle around their rural parishes. The JobPath activation is proving a tremendous burden on them. Some people have to get taxis to the nearest town in order to avail of it, which is a huge imposition. While we do recognise that it is very important to ensure we get value for money in the context of social welfare, it is also important to recognise that category of people who, for whatever reason, have never worked a day in their lives, probably because they have not been able to do so and perhaps they never applied for disability allowance or were never guided towards it. I do not think many people would consider them to be availing of social welfare to which they are not entitled. These people live pretty basic lives in rural society.

I welcome that the Bill will pass before Christmas as a result of the fact that an election has not been called. The increases are due to come into effect shortly thereafter. We on this side of the House will be invoking the confidence and supply agreement to allow the Bill to be passed and the Government to get on with its work on this and other issues.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. Often on Second Stage, Deputies can, perhaps, meander from the essential provisions of legislation when they speak. However, I presume and hope that the purpose of this type of debate will not be stymied as we become more strict in interpretations of what the Dáil can and cannot do.

The Bill will give legislative effect to the changes announced in the budget. There are some inherent inequalities that we have to accept and address. As a society, we are beginning to abandon tranches of people. This is not the result of any malicious design on the part of Government or otherwise, but we are leaving cohorts of people behind. If we do not accept that, we will end up with a very unequal society. Instead of wealth filtering down, we have a situation where wealth is, by osmosis, going upwards. We have to accept this urgently and address it in a very rapid timeframe.

The reason I highlight this is that if we look at the issue of lone parents and child poverty, there is still a huge poverty trap in many of the schemes supporting lone parents to get them back into education and the workplace. People encounter difficulties in trying to move from various stages of schemes back into the workplace. In this regard, I refer, for example, to the cap on the hours they are allowed to work, traps in education and difficulties with child care costs and facilities being provided. All of these create huge poverty traps and cliff edges whereby, when they move off schemes, people fear losing their entitlements and secondary benefits. If we do not take imaginative approaches to this, there will be a huge cohort of people who will feel totally alienated from a functioning society and we will simply cast adrift another generation of young people in socioeconomically deprived areas. This, in itself, would be a betrayal of our citizens.

I am a bit tired of the State at times absolving itself from responsibilities and the onus it should have, which is to protect its citizens, not only in the context of security but also in aspects of educational attainment, housing and social welfare provision, and giving people a sense of hope and aspiration. We need to address this very quickly.

The Taoiseach has spoken about representing the people who get up early in the morning. They are as entitled to be represented as anybody else. Language is very important, however, and insinuating this creates division. The last thing we need in society is for us to start pitting one group or cohort against another. The Taoiseach may not be doing this intentionally. It may just be the basis of his political ideology that the person who gets up early in the morning and works should be prioritised. People who get up in the morning and work should be rewarded for their efforts. Ultimately, wealth comes from those who generate it, namely, businesses that employ and people who work. Not everybody can get up early in the morning, however, and there is a huge group of people who simply feel completely removed from any chance of entering the workplace because of all of the poverty traps and obstacles that are put in front of them. It may be intergenerational - in the sense that they have poor educational outcomes or are in poor housing as a result of living in poverty - and they just cannot escape the net that sometimes keeps people at the very bottom. It is not that the majority of people on social welfare do not want to get up and go to work. There are many challenges in terms of their educational standards and the opportunities that present to people with those difficulties. Rather than trying to be divisive, let us move to the centre where we try to get everybody feeling they are part and worthy of political representation, and that they ought to be cared for equally.

As already stated, child poverty is endemic in our society. We have a major problem. We either pretend it does not exist or there is an idea that increasing lone parents' allowance and social welfare payments by a few cents here and there is acknowledging it. We may be acknowledging the problem, but we are doing very little to address the inherent difficulties in society that end up with a huge number of people in child poverty. A total of 11.5% of children were in consistent poverty in 2015 compared to 12.7% in 2014. Approximately one in nine children lives in consistent poverty. This is not something we should be proud of in 2017, when we speak about the country's economic recovery. These children grow up, and if they are in consistent poverty as children, the chances are they will find it very difficult to break out of that trap, so they will be in consistent poverty not only as children but potentially into their teens and beyond. We have to start breaking these cycles at a very early age. Do I have solutions? I would like to think we can come up with imaginative ideas to address this, but one thing I know for sure is that if we do not break intergenerational poverty, we are failing.

Family income supplement has been changed the working family payment. When this was being done, we were hopeful that the scheme - not just the name - might change. It has not been an imaginative change. I hope that the working family payment is an initial step. We must deal with the poverty traps and the perverse disincentives - not the perverse incentives - that often exist. Those disincentives stop people from making the leap to the next phase in terms of the number of hours worked and losing secondary benefits when they move up in income, when there is a definite cliff fall. That area must be examined.

In 2012, there was a change in how we assess pensions with the introduction of the averaging system. That has had huge ramifications for women in particular. That has been acknowledged but the situation must be addressed. It is simply unfair and unjust to have a situation whereby women who have worked and then remained at home to rear children, as was society's expectation at the time and also an obligation under some statute law, are penalised for that on reaching retirement age. They are being penalised for doing what they were asked to do. If we do not accept that it is unjust and unfair, we are failing a cohort of people who have served this country with some distinction and are not being rewarded for it. There is an acknowledgement that it must be addressed, but this must be done in a way that accepts that what is being done to these women is wrong and unjust, that there will be redress and that the matter will be resolved. They did what was asked of them in the context of the expectations of society at the time and even under employment law in terms of women having to leave certain forms of employment when they married.

With regard to the number of children who are in some form of emergency accommodation tonight and who will be in such accommodation over the Christmas period, we do not appear to accept that we are failing in certain areas. While we acknowledge that there is economic recovery, I believe we do not put enough emphasis on dealing with the real issues that will define our society and give the individual an opportunity to advance themselves and their family and to maximise their potential. Being housed in a hotel room is certainly not a great start for a child. The fact that there are thousands of children in emergency accommodation across the capital on any night is an abject failure of policymakers of all hues and none. We have simply failed. The idea is that we can wait for rapid builds, for the banks to start lending to developers and for the developers to start building houses. There must be dynamic, imaginative policy changes that obligate local authorities to use compulsory purchase orders, if necessary, and provide funding for immediate building. A child of four years of age cannot wait for five years in a hotel bedroom, by which time he or she will be nine years old. The damage will be done to the child if he or she is in such a position.

Not many of us are in emergency accommodation on any night, nor are many of the major policymakers in the Departments or many of the county or city managers. We have failed. It is an abject failure of catastrophic proportions that a country with a quite smart and dynamic people cannot build the number of units required to get the people who are in emergency accommodation into some form of permanent housing. We are talking about thousands of people, not tens of thousands. They are living in bedrooms, sharing a kettle in the same place where they sleep. It is simply wrong, but nobody appears to take a blind bit of notice. I urge a redoubling of the effort on building houses, as opposed to the amazing effort that goes into convincing us that houses are being built. There have been far more press releases than policy documents. Every day there is another press release about how dynamic the building programme is, how the Government is getting on with the job of building houses, how there will be more social housing and all that flows from that. When one drills down into the figures, however, one sees that very little is being done, to the point that in some local authorities one can count the number of houses they have built over the last three years on one hand. It is an abject failure.

We should recommit ourselves - both Government and Parliament - to facing into 2018 with vigour and determination in order that we might re-energise ourselves to ensure that the policy decisions that are made will result in houses being built and proper accommodation being provided for families who are currently in emergency accommodation. It will require some radical shifts and changes in thinking among policy makers and the Government, but it is essential. There is a belief that we have fulfilled our obligations and done enough as a society by putting people in hotel bedrooms. We have not. We have failed them. In a previous time, when the State had no capacity to fund itself and build, we were able to roll out massive building programmes across the country. Some of them resulted in social problems, but we can surely learn from the mistakes of that time in terms of house design, layout of estates and supports around them. Surely we have the capacity to do something similar in terms of a large scale house building programme funded by public funds and, if necessary, by private funds if the State cannot fund it directly because it is inhibited from doing so due to certain budget restrictions.

There is access to money. Money has never been so cheap. We are retarding the State's ability to build critical infrastructure in many sectors, primarily housing, at a time when access to money internationally has never been cheaper in recent history. Let us be imaginative and redouble our efforts. The Government should at least accept that if we are still here at the end of 2018 and there are still thousands of children - all a year older - living in hotel bedrooms and emergency accommodation, it is a sign that we are failing and certainly failing them.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not agree with my colleague on the Opposition benches regarding housing. In fact, a great deal has already been done and is being done every day. It was the neglect of the local authority housing sector over the past 15 years that has left us in this situation. When housing responsibility was handed to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection to fund it by way of rent support through the private sector, it suddenly all came unstuck. We now have a national emergency of proportions we never dreamed of in the past.

I will not level blame. When I hear this matter being moaned about regularly, however, it is time to take a stand. At least one former Minister with responsibility for social welfare made an attempt to offload the responsibility back to where it should have been with the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government but was unsuccessful. She had the right idea. The point is, however, at long last perhaps we are coming to grips with the fact that we have a social responsibility in respect of housing, that it affects the fabric of our society, that we must provide houses and that we cannot provide them overnight. If we wanted to provide them overnight we should have started this ten or 15 years ago. We should also acknowledge that there were huge numbers of people on the housing lists of local authorities during the boom. The fact is that because there was a boom, we did not need the houses. However, they are needed now.

Enough has been said about that matter which we will deal with, with other subjects, at a later stage.

I welcome the increase in social welfare payments. It is badly needed and much appreciated because many of the people who have found themselves having to rely entirely on the safety net of social welfare payments in the past few years are living in desperate conditions. Some were PAYE workers, while others were self-employed, but they have one thing in common - they are under the cosh. At last, some recompense is coming their way and I am delighted that that is the case. I must point out that if we did not have good management in the past five or six years, we would not have the money now. Therefore, these things do not happen of their own accord. Everybody says we should spend more on everything. Of course, we should, but we must also raise the money needed to do so. It is all very fine and easy to spend the cash, but it is not so easy to raise it and take the responsibility of asking people to make contributions by way of taxes or whatever the case may be. I listened with some cynicism to some of the suggestions I have heard made in the past couple of days in that regard.

The issue of pensions is moot and needs to be dealt with. I know that the Minister is dealing with it. Having had some experience in that area a number of years ago, it is possible to deal with it in a fair and equitable way, which is what must be done. A previous Government lurched in one direction to try to deal with it; for what purpose, I do not know as it escapes me, but it was not successful in that it created anomalies and a huge bill. I do not want to remind my good friend across the House, but there are times when I am stirred emotionally by his rapport and know that he means it sincerely in his heart. It is no harm, therefore, to throw the ball back in that direction once again.

Women who, for various reasons, left the workforce and then returned to it have a grievance, as do some men who find themselves in the same position, and they need to be dealt with. I know that the Minister is addressing the issue. We need to recognise the unfairness of it. The reason it is unfair is we are entering better times. Because of the sacrifices they made and made everywhere all over the country, it will be possible in the not too distant future to address their issues and concerns in a meaningful way.

A few points about administration have come to my attention. Means tests have been the bane of my life. With appeals, they really drive me up the wall, particularly when I have to attend the hearing of appeals. Generally, a person wins which raises the question as to why there had to be an appeal in the first place. The decisions on in inordinately high number of applications for carer's allowance are appealed. This should not be the case. I saw something a couple of weeks ago which involved a person who wished to care for their parents, one of whom was 89 years old, while the other was 94. I would have thought that it would have been simple to determine. I would not have spent too much time in evaluating the person's entitlement. If someone has managed to reach the age of 93 or 94 years, he or she is entitled to expect to receive some care from somebody who is willing to care for him or her and prevent him or her from having to rely on the hospital system. Obviously, it is good economics to examine their circumstances and put in place the necessary measures to ensure he or she will be catered for and it could involve a variety of things. It involves issues to do with security, health and companionship, plus quality of life. I know that the Minister is looking at this matter, but we need to encourage such an approach.

Another issue that has come to my attention and about which I worry is where Intreo decides to encourage people to go back to work on low pay. Such persons may be dependent on rent payment support. If they go back to work on low pay, they will receive little or no rent payment support because they will be back in full-time employment, in which case they will end up homeless. This issue needs to be dealt with quickly because those who find themselves in that group need to have their cases heard.

Another issue that does not amuse me is where a woman with children who cannot go out to work and receives a limited payment is advised to go to out to work. The logic escapes me. This issue has been in my mind for some time and I brought it to the attention of the Minister who is engaging on it. What I have highlighted should not be happening. We should apply a little logic to such circumstances. Obviously, the person concerned can care for somebody in the household, nearby or next door and always wants to do so. She always wants to make a contribution to society. That is what women do, but it does not always happen in that way. Because of this, we need to be conscious of their predicament and alert to the fact that they are vulnerable, particularly if they have small children, and dependent on the safety net society provides for them.

The House will be glad to know that I will not go on for as long as I would like. There are lots of things my colleague across the House stirred in my bosom when he spoke a few moments ago. They would tempt me to enter into a long dialogue, but I will restrain myself on this occasion.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thanks be to God.

Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not at all; the Deputy should not encourage me. We are lucky to have escaped from the terrible trauma we went through in the past six or seven years. It was just appalling. The people were under the cosh for all of that time - those living in urban and rural areas, young children, older people, everybody. They are now getting the first sample of recompense. I hope they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their endeavours and hard labour and that we will be able to treat them with some respect after all they have gone through.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions on Second Stage in the past couple of days. I will take up a point made by Deputy Bernard J. Durkan about the people who have gone through the greatest trauma in the past six or seven years. Some have still not recovered, which is why when I opened the debate last Thursday, I spoke about how I hoped the Bill reflected the values and principles that underpinned the budget in its entirety. We will continue to enhance the supports for those who rely on what comes from my Department. Equally, we will ensure anybody who goes out to work sees the value of that work and the difference in lifestyle they have by being in employment as opposed to being supported by the Department. We are going to do that in the context of the overarching commitment to enable the development of a recovering economy. In response to Deputy Billy Kelleher, I hope it will not be in the interests of some citizens only but in the interests of all citizens. While I appreciate that many of the Deputies who spoke in the past couple of days have recognised that there are some positive measures in the Bill, to use somebody's phrase, "there is a lot done but there is an awful lot more to do".

I will respond on a few issues raised by Deputies in the past couple of days. The first is the 2012 pensions issue which I think was raised by everybody who spoke in the past couple of days. I acknowledge the 200 pensioners who stood outside the gates of Leinster House this evening. Unfortunately, I did not get out to meet them because I was in the Chamber, but I acknowledge their presence.

I respect the reasons they were standing outside the door and pay tribute to Deputy Bríd Smith who probably organised them and the speakers who spoke on their behalf to come out. I thank her for that. I spoke last Thursday at the joint committee on this issue. As I have said on a number of occasions, we are examining in depth the various options to provide some relief to those who would have a higher contributory pension had the bands not been amended in 2012. If there are equitable changes that target such relief to those who were particularly affected by this anomaly under the yearly averaging system, I will bring those options to our Cabinet sub-committee in the next couple of weeks where we will discuss the best proposal to fix this before I bring it to Cabinet.

Deputies talk about the large number of women who are affected by this anomaly. Everybody seems to have a different reason there was a large number of women affected by it but it is not just women. I do not want us to discount the women who are affected but there are quite a considerable number of men affected by it too. This woman, and this particular Minister, has already made a commitment to fix it. I reiterate that commitment. I acknowledge, as hopefully everybody does, that it will require new money. I do not have the money in this Social Welfare Bill but we will fix it and we will find the money in the course of the next 12 months, if not sooner.

I will talk about child poverty because the consistent level of poverty among children has been raised by a number of Deputies in this debate. It is something I have mentioned on a number of occasions since I was lucky enough to get this job in June, because it is a priority. It is a priority for every side and every party and representative in the House. There are some positive, albeit small, signs and they are going in the right direction. The latest CSO figures show that 11.5% of our children are living in consistent poverty. While that is unacceptably high, it is a reduction of approximately 9%, or 13,000 children, since last year. The real reason I take solace in that is because it is the first decrease since 2008. It means that some of the changes we made in last year's budget are having an impact. Everybody acknowledges there are far more changes with regard to children in this budget than there were last year. We are seeing a drop in the figures so hopefully we will see a much larger drop between now and next year.

The monthly unemployment rate in October was 6%, which is down from a 2012 peak of 15%. Unemployment is strongly linked to poverty so further decreases in poverty will arise from the reduction in unemployment figures. It can also be expected that the measures introduced in the interim will have a positive impact. In 2018, the qualified child increase, which will be paid on a weekly basis, will rise from €29.80 to €31.80, which is an increase of 6.7%. While I acknowledge it is only small, it is something that has not been increased in nearly eight years. While we might be taking small steps, we are going in the right direction. I hope we will be able to increase it this time next year as well.

For a second year running, the budget is increasing the weekly rates of payments for all working age schemes. We have raised the income disregard for one-parent families and jobseeker's transitional payments. The Department will spend in excess of €3 billion in 2017 providing income supports for families through child benefit, qualified child increases and welfare payments. The working family payment and the back to school clothing allowance will all go towards trying to alleviate an unacceptable level of persistent child poverty. Social transfers play a huge part in alleviating this. They are quick and genuinely effective.

Deputy Curran raised the issue of families who are in receipt of mortgage interest supplement in view of the fact that the scheme will be closed at the end this year. The scheme was closed to new entrants from 1 January 2014. Over the following years, the number of people relying on this payment has reduced greatly. The 1,200 or so families that are still receiving it need the payment. They are still in exceptional circumstances as a result of the difficulties of the past ten years. It would not be right to take that payment from them so we will continue to look after those people. Hopefully as the numbers reduce the scheme will unwind itself. I confirm the payment of income supplement will continue to be made to those customers after the closing date of the scheme. I expect its value will arrive at about €2.4 million this year. Provision has been made in the Department's Vote, but not under the existing heading. Over the next couple of days we propose to write to all of the people who are currently on the scheme to reassure them it will be there for as long as they need it. As employment improves and the economy recovers, we expect a reduction in those numbers.

A number of Deputies have commented that the increase in the weekly rate of social welfare payment will not commence until the end of March. I would love, as most other people in the House would, if it was on 1 January. The aim will be for us to try to move it to as close to 1 January as we can. We had other items we wanted to introduce this year, which we would have not have been able to, and some directly relate to children's poverty. Examples are fuel allowance and telephone allowance for old age pensions who are living in isolation. If we had increased the payment on 1 January for all working age and pension payments, we would not have been able to make very valuable contributions in that area. I thank people for allowing us to do that.

There were a number of references made by Deputies to the living alone allowance, the bereavement grants, the potential for jobseeker's allowance to be extended to people who are self-employed and the invalidity payment. I will not go into all of them but perhaps we can talk further about them on Committee Stage. I thank everybody for their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.