Katherine Zappone (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. As she knows, I was appointed only recently to the Seanad. When the Minister was in the Chamber a couple of weeks ago I was not actually here, but I saw her on the television, so I hurried to the Chamber to hear what she had to say. On that day, although I had not yet found my voice for this room, I left feeling heartened by the ways in which the Minister was working to implement her vision, her commitments and her values within the huge and complex brief that is the Department of Social Protection. I congratulate her on the ways in which she is exercising her leadership within this fairly new ministry.

When I did find my voice, one of the points I made was that I wanted to bring a social justice lens to the current financial and welfare challenges facing our country. I was heartened to hear Senator Healy Eames using a similar lens in her comments. I am fervently committed to doing this for at least two reasons. The first is that I do not believe we will find recovery and sustainability if our sole focus is on the economy, with a view that once that is fixed, we can turn our attention to social and welfare issues. Rather, we should plot for economic and social recovery simultaneously. It is this that will lead to ongoing sustainability. The second reason I bring a social justice lens to our work today is that it is the only way I can be true to the people I have worked with for so many years in Tallaght west, in view of the ways they have inspired me with their resilience and their desire to build an entrepreneurial and civically active culture, and also with their commitment to carve out an adequate and full standard of living, not only for themselves but especially for their children - and they are gorgeous children.

I trust that these values resonate with the Minister's own in light of her work on the Bill to date and also her opening remarks to us. However, I will offer a couple of comments because, like the Minister, I am committed to reforming the welfare system in the many ways she has outlined. In particular, I welcome the national internship scheme for all the reasons we have discussed. I also welcome the establishment of the national employment and entitlement service, particularly with its stated objective of integration. Given the potential this holds, it is critical to get it right.

In light of my work, I also welcome the restoration of the national minimum wage.

I have, however, several concerns which I will put to the Minister to ensure the Bill offers fairness and is effective in its objectives. Regarding the halving of the employer PRSI rate, I have already welcomed the jobs initiative which was debated in the House last week with the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes. I favour the lowering of the cost of PRSI and, thereby, the cost of employing people, which is good for business. It will be critical to review if this measure leads to the hiring of more people and, thereby, reducing the unemployment rate.

When lowering unit labour costs, however, we must remember Ireland has one of the lowest employer PRSI rates in Europe. It is also an important contribution to the social insurance fund. The fund ran dry and had to be supplemented this year from other sources. With this change in the Bill, will the Minister ensure this does not happen again?

Another concern about the halving of the rate, one already expressed by several Deputies in the Dáil debate and by the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU, is that some employers will reduce employees' hours per week so their reckonable earnings will drop under the €356 threshold. Some employers could potentially benefit without the intended impact of empowering them to hire more people. How will the Minister ensure this is not the unintended consequence? I agree with Senator Healy Eames about monitoring the provision's impact.

Sections 6 and 7 relate to the raising of the State pension age. Increasing the pensionable age from 65 years to 67 years in 2021 and to 68 years in 2028 and eliminating the State pension transition payment have been well flagged in the Dáil and the media. I share the concerns already expressed in the Dáil. According to briefings from Age Action and the Older and Bolder advocacy groups, the Bill, in its current form, may lead to many older workers being forced out of full-time employment at 65 who will then have to sign on the dole for 12 months.

I am particularly concerned about manual workers, usually in lower paid employment, who often are at a higher risk of disability or physical fatigue and, thereby, need to retire before reaching 65. How will this change impact them? As demonstrated in research documents from TASC, the think-tank organisation for progressive economics, those in the top 20% income bracket are already much healthier than those born into the bottom 20%. Accordingly, the raising of the retirement age will disproportionately affect those born into poor areas or who have not found their way towards social mobility in light of their social and economic conditions. It will also affect those forced to retire in light of physical difficulties or poor health before they reach the State pension retirement age. Will this have a disproportionate impact on people at risk of poverty? Is this fair?

What will be the effect of the increased pension age on the poverty of our people? I am aware of critical comments made in the Dáil that the Government is rushing through this legislation, so much so that the Library and Research Service was unable to produce a digest because of the short timespan between publication and debate. I must point out, however, that the Library and Research Service has worked with me on the possible link between increasing pension age and poverty, for which I am very grateful.

The current bicameral structure leads to an increased scrutiny of law that is supported by an innovative approach to researching the issue I have raised.