Lisa McDonald (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Áine Brady, to the House and am glad of the opportunity to speak on this Bill, reforming legislation that emphasises the importance of learning, upskilling and retraining in our social welfare code.

When I heard of the formation of the Department of Social Protection, I admit I was a little sceptical, believing it merely gave another name to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. As I see it being rolled out, however, and the action, energy and thought the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, brings to his new Department, I believe this is an excellent and far-seeing move on the part of the Taoiseach. It brings a more holistic and joined-up approach to the areas of social welfare payments and benefits, job activation, employment schemes and the national employment action plan. Included under this Bill are measures to transfer the rural social scheme, community service programme and necessary statutory powers in regard to FÁS to the Minister's new Department. The Department now has a clear, two-pronged approach to protect the vulnerable and needy, pensioners and those who cannot work because of disability, disablement or other personal circumstances, and to support unemployed people who, unfortunately, have lost their job, prepare and incentivise to get back to work those who can and would work if they had a job but who have become used to passive income support. We must acknowledge this is being done in challenging times and, therefore, the resources are not as readily available as they might be in some years' time when the plan is fully rolled out and working very well.

As the Minister outlined, the Bill provides for a number of measures, including specific disqualification for receipt of job seekers' allowance when a person refuses an offer of suitable employment. There is a reduced rate of jobseeker's or supplementary welfare allowance for those who refuse to participate in an appropriate course of training or in a programme under the national employment action plan. Some people have questioned who will decide what is an appropriate course of training and concerns exist in that regard, as Senator McFadden highlighted. This is especially the case when many very qualified people are on jobseeker's allowance. Perhaps we should consider some tie-in with universities to give such people a greater challenge in further study. That step is being considered by the Minister for Education and Skills and some work is being done in that regard. It may be an additional prong for the Department of Social Protection and would assist to challenge people. I spoke to a highly qualified person recently who seeks work in the area of media and public relations. He was very happy to say he had been offered a relevant course in new media training to include Facebook, etc. Older people would not have the same level of expertise and confidence in that area as the emerging generation and those qualities were very important for that type of job. He was delighted to take up the course.

Another worrying point raised concerns the high level of appeals, with 48.2% of appeals being granted in 2009. This means that almost half of first decisions are overturned at appeal. Such instances do not all relate to appropriate training but the Minister is examining this issue and actively dealing with it. We must provide more diverse training courses, especially in rural Ireland where such choice does not exist. I am reminded that when I was in secondary school, all the girls in my class were told to become teachers or nurses. One cap does not fit all and we need to individualise the way in which we deal with the new unemployed who are highly qualified individuals and who have had a great deal of work and life experience in different strands. They probably never thought they would face unemployment and actively pursue a jobs policy to try to ensure they escape that net as soon as possible. We must individualise the way in which we deal with people. More training may need to be given to social welfare officers to deal appropriately with such people. I acknowledge that officers are under enormous pressure but very many of them have formed certain views of claimants and need further training. I welcome that the Minister is bringing in retired appeals officers who have experience. This is a temporary measure and will help clear the log jam that has developed. One hopes it will reduce the backlog of appeals in future.

For too long, the problem of long-term and passive income support has remained unchecked by the Legislature. As we move now to incentivise job activation with supports, we must recognise it is not healthy for any person to become social welfare dependent at a young age without having any incentive to upskill or retrain. We must strive to prevent long-term dependence on welfare and facilitate financial independence. The only way to do that is through work and the best way to obtain employment is to be suitably trained. The penalties for refusing training, up to the ultimate penalty of disqualification for refusing a job, sends out the message that in this country we will take care of our needy but not those who decide there is no incentive to work because they are too well off on the dole, those who thank us but say they would prefer not to take the job on offer. The Government is the custodian of taxpayers' money and we can no longer stand idly by and condone this passive culture where claimants have no intention of working and have made a career out of claiming for every entitlement. They know more about available entitlements than even the Minister does. These are the very people who, if they have families, will march their child down to the social welfare office the minute they turn 18 years of age. This behaviour cannot be encouraged and it must stop.

The other major change in this Bill is the phased changes to the one-parent family allowances. As the Minister stated, it is not in the best interests of the parent, the children or society to allow one-parent families to become so dependent on social welfare. In the Bill the Minister is to limit the lone parent allowance in favour of participation in job seeking or retraining when the youngest child reaches 14 years of age. In the UK the age of disqualification is to be seven years. In Ireland, however, we recognise the right of a mother to care for her young children and to have that choice. For that reason, the Minister has set the age to 14 years, higher than the international norm. This regulation is to be phased in so the existing lone-parent allowance will not cease until 2016, and for new claimants in 2025. I ask opponents of this measure why we should not empower women away from the lone-parent allowance books and back into independence. As a working mother, I believe the measure helps children to see their mothers working.

The child care predicament Senator McFadden outlined will only kick in when a child is 14 years of age. The Minister has said that homework clubs and holiday care will be provided as the need arises. It is to be hoped a child of 14 years of age would be involved in various other activities and the one thing he or she does not need is a mother mollycoddling him or her from the age of 14 to the age of 18.

The reality is that although we have invested substantial resources in this area, one-parent families are four times more likely to be caught in a poverty trap. Enabling services are the key to success and the key to lifting one-parent families out of the poverty trap. The homework clubs and community child care subvention scheme, which will be implemented in September, all have a role to play. However, this needs to be phased in and a balance struck between the right length of time for such support versus unfair disadvantage against families struggling on low incomes. I note the proposal for supporting lone parents by introducing a parental allowance, which would support all low income parents. That is a measure we need to examine and move towards introducing in the future as we move away from the concept of lone parents and one-parent families.

Every child has two parents. We will probably discuss this area tomorrow when we deal with the Civil Partnership Bill. We need to be realistic and aware of the prevalence of young girls in certain areas who get pregnant and perceive it to be a path towards having their own house and moving out of the family home.