Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The fact we allowed such a situation to develop was far from sustainable. I welcome the further reduction and the moves to rationalise this area.

Senator Mullen pointed to the necessary changes in this Bill which were promised by the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Whatever about the concerns people have about the debate on the Social Welfare Bill 2010 yesterday - I said on the Order of Business today that we have a further opportunity to talk about those issues here - my recollection of that Act is that no legislation over the past three and a half years was the subject of as much debate in this House. There was extensive debate, in particular on Committee Stage. There was a whole week of debate and I regret the use of the record of the House to portray something which, in reality, was not true. No legislation was the subject of as much debate as that Act. In fact, it was the subject of more debate in this House than in the other one. When it came to decisions, we were well and truly informed of the various issues. These are necessary reforms and it is a fulfilment of a promise. I hope these provisions and those which will follow in the finance Bill, which I hope will become an Act, will allow people to register their partnership at the earliest possible opportunity.

There are a number of other technical measures in regard to sovereign annuities and associated bonds which will help pension funds to protect the liabilities of their members. The Minister has been very much responsible for moving towards and enhancing the skills development and internship programme. It is a good innovation and is one of the tools we need to help us to train people and provide employment opportunities. We would all like to see how those measures could be further developed to achieve their desired aims.

The Bill refers to PRSI arrangements for holders of public office which will affect income levels by between 4% and 5%. That is a necessary measure. At one stage there was a special tax provision for Members of the Oireachtas which was abolished in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Some 50% of tax liability was not paid because of the low level of wages. We must move to a situation, in terms of taxation and social insurance payments, where Members of the Oireachtas and those in the public sector are not treated differently from other employees in this State.

I understand this change will also affect many local government representatives. The principle of contribution will be extended in that area. That is an important contribution which also needs to be made because large payments are made in local government. When I was elected in 1991, the system of payment was that one was given £10 for every meeting one attended. The culture at the time was that one tried to invent as many meetings as possible to try to justify the money paid. I am glad that system has changed and that the payments made to local government representatives will come under this particular category.

The other major aspect of the Bill is the transfer of the community welfare service, which has been very contentious over the past number of years. The Minister has dealt with it well in that the main concern about the transfer of community welfare officers from the HSE to the Department of Social Protection was that their flexibility to operate would be affected but the discussions over the past two and a half years have alleviated many of the concerns. In the current situation where people can find themselves in changed economic circumstances very quickly, it is important that flexibility remains with community welfare officers.

Unlike the Social Welfare Bill 2010 reducing the rates of social welfare payments, which we had to introduce with great reluctance as a result of the circumstances in which the country finds itself, there is much to welcome in this Bill. It will bring about necessary changes and I look forward to its adoption.