Feargal Quinn (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House once again. We seem to be seeing her a little more often than we have previously.

Senator McDonald made an interesting point regarding the new title of the Department and of the Minister. She doubted whether the new title of the Minister - Social Protection - meant anything rather than merely being a play on words. I believe it is fairly clear that it is a good title and the change of title is good because the new title means so much. The effort to ensure we protect the worst-off in our society is worthy and is something about which we should be happy.

We must ensure anything we do in this area does not act as a disincentive to work. An interesting article was written by Andy Pollak from the Centre for Cross Border Studies regarding a seminar that was held on 20 May in the North and in which article Mr. Pollak gave some interesting figures. One speaker at the seminar spoke about the disincentive facing unemployed people in the South who might want to work across the Border. He gave a few examples. He said an unemployed single man in Donegal will automatically get €196 a week versus the minimum wage in the North for a full week which is £231. The gap is such that there is very little incentive for a person to cross the Border to work there. That speaker said that a one-parent family allowance south of the Border is €196 per week plus €29.80 per child while the equivalent allowance in Northern Ireland is almost a third of that. There are measures of which we can be very proud in terms of looking after those who are not well off. That speaker also made the point that a person on a low income in the Republic is better off in the South because he or she has a medical card, free general practitioner visits, free public hospital services and free medication. Mr. Pollak gave a nice quote in his article:

So the next time you hear somebody like me (until this month!) warning that one reason a united Ireland is off the cards is because the South couldn't afford to pay the cost of covering the gap in welfare payments, remember these telling financial facts. It's no coincidence that one of the main issues officials in the two government departments dealing with social welfare talk about when they meet on an annual basis to discuss matters of common concern is corss-border 'welfare tourism' [a term I had not heard previously] the bulk of it now consisting of Northerners making fraudulent claims [south of the Border].

That interesting point was one that came to mind last week when we read that the number of social welfare claimants reduced dramatically during the recent volcanic ash crisis. It is assumed they were from eastern Europe and that it appears they were not able to return to make their claims for jobseeker's allowance or whatever social protection allowance they were seeking.

Given our financial situation, we cannot afford to pay any more than we have to and this has to be reconsidered. The country has to be run like a business if we are to have any hope of a recovery and a return to prosperity. There are some very legitimate concerns with this Bill related to how payments are structured in terms of parents' relationships. For instance, those single parents who are bereaved are offered better support for their children than those who have suffered from relationship breakdown or those who have been forced from their homes owing to domestic violence. It is certainly a difficult question but we need to take action in the area of one-parent family payments. Under this legislation, if an individual refuses to take a job or a training course that is deemed appropriate, his or her unemployment assistance will be reduced. This has been criticised as unfair but it is worth noting that evidence, particularly from America, has shown that while many people begin work in minimum wage jobs, they do not stay in them for very long. Once in employment, people move up the earnings ladder rapidly and the spaces below them are filled by newer recruits. Taking up work is still the best route out of poverty.

During the week there was a row when Bill Cullen of It's a Long Way from Penny Apples fame said it was better for somebody to work for no pay than not to work because he or she could prove himself or herself and move up the ladder, something with which I agree entirely, even though he was criticised for saying it. I am aware of a young woman in Limerick who qualified as a solicitor. When she could not get a job, she offered her services free to a solicitor there. She worked two days a week for him and within two months he could not do without her. If it is possible to create confidence, I encourage people to start at the very bottom, even if it means working for no pay because if people believe in themselves, they can prove they can be of value to an employer. This thought process is worthy of consideration.

It is thought by some that the natural process of moving out of poverty through employment is hindered by Government policies designed to protect the poor such as tax credits which some say have the effect of subsidising low wages and make people less inclined to move up the earnings scale for fear of losing their entitlement to credits. We have to strike the right balance. Given that the European countries which are achieving the best outcomes in tackling child poverty are the one which are moving away from the provision of passive income support and supporting schemes aiming at facilitating access to employment and services such as child care through the provision of income support, it is appropriate for us to consider moving in that direction.

Let me make a comparison between Switzerland and Ireland with regard to child benefit. The rate of child benefit payable in Switzerland is dependent on the region in which one lives but is usually €150 per child per month, roughly the same as the rate payable in Ireland. However, in most regions in Switzerland after two children the payment of child benefit is stopped for the third and subsequent children. I understand there is a similar system in the United States. It may be the case that during the years it has developed a policy of not encouraging people to have more children. In Ireland a parent with eight children could take home €1,422 per month in child benefit, while in Switzerland a parent with the same number of children receives approximately €300. This is the policy which was recommended, accepted and adopted. It might be one which we could consider adopting. Let us be aware of the figures involved.

In Switzerland there is an entitlement to receive child benefit if at least one parent is in gainful employment or drawing benefits from the unemployment insurance fund. The benefits are paid by the employer or, in the case of unemployed persons, the unemployment insurance fund. If one works part-time, one may only receive partial benefits or possibly none, depending on the region in which one lives. It is not as if Switzerland cannot afford to pay child benefit, but it seems it has made a conscious decision not to incentivise people to have more children. I am not suggesting we adopt such an approach, rather I am drawing attention to the fact that there are alternatives and that there are different views around the world. We have independence to consider this issue and determine what is the right thing for us to do. The steps we are taking are necessary to make sure the economy is able to provide in the correct manner the social protection needed by those who are worst off. Let us make sure we continue to examine the issue. To keep the economy healthy the Bill is a step in the right direction. Therefore, I support it.