Seanad debates

Thursday, 23 June 2011

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2011: Second Stage

 

1:00 pm

Photo of Marie MoloneyMarie Moloney (Labour)

That is why I welcome the provision of a number of measures to facilitate the introduction of the new national internship scheme. The latter is a fundamental part of the Government's job creation initiative and is due to commence in July. I would appreciate it if the Minister might elaborate on the current position with regard to the scheme. For example, how should a person go about locating an internship? Should he or she apply to the Department of Social Protection or will it contact him or her? Are the sponsors already in place or will people be obliged to find their own sponsors?

This new initiative will be hugely successful in providing jobseekers on the live register with valuable and meaningful work experience. It is both my hope and my belief that this initiative will go a long way towards breaking the cycle of jobseekers being unable to gain employment by virtue of the fact that they do not possess adequate experience. It will allow them to obtain work experience with potential prospective employers. Parents will welcome this measure because it is a matter of major concern to them to see their sons and daughters leaving college without the prospect of obtaining employment and being obliged to claim social welfare immediately. What parents must endure in respect of their children in these circumstances is heartbreaking.

I disagree with Senator Healy Eames in respect of sections 6 and 7. Most Members will be gravely concerned that the pension age is due to increase from 66 to 67 from 2021 and to 68 from 2028. I fully understand that this is in line with the Government's national pensions framework, as set out in the EU-IMF programme. However, I hope the IMF will have long left the country by 2021. I also hope that what is being done in this Bill will not be cast in stone and that, once the economy has been restored, we can revisit the matter prior to that date with a view to restoring the age to 66.

I am also disappointed with regard to the complete abolition of the transition pension. I do not understand why this did not just move in line with the increase in the pension age. Ireland has one of the highest qualification ages for state pensions in Europe. However, I understand that we also have one of the most generous credit systems. What will happen to the many people who signed work contracts which stipulate a retirement age of 66? What will happen in respect of the social welfare payments that are increased when recipients reach that age? Will the position in that regard change as well?

There has been a great deal of publicity in recent days in respect of social welfare fraud. I welcome the Minister's initiatives to stamp out such fraud through the introduction of legislative provisions to extend the powers of social welfare inspectors. Furthermore, I welcome the fact that the provisions relating to the use of public service cards will be strengthened. I suggest that in the future all such cards should include photo IDs. This would certainly deter people from using them in a fraudulent manner.

Given that responsibility for disbursing supplementary welfare has been transferred to the Department of Social Protection, will the Minister outline the remit under which community welfare officers, CWOs, will be operating within the Department and will she indicate what will be their brief? This is a matter of some concern to the officers in question.

Section 20 could have been broadened further. A great deal of money could be saved within the public sector by streamlining different agencies through the establishment of a one-centre-of-assessment board. Responsibility for means testing for social welfare, supplementary welfare allowance, social housing and medical cards could be dealt with by such an entity and information would be more easily and readily available. This would speed up applications and reduce the need for separate assessments for individual applications. I welcome the fact that the domiciliary care allowance is not assessable as means in respect of the supplementary allowance scheme.

I do not know whether to welcome the fact that the Minister did not refer to carers. Perhaps her failure to do so means that she is not making any amendments to the carer's allowance scheme. In addition, I do not know whether to be disappointed by the fact that she did not refer to a strategy in respect of carers. The latter are the only recipients of social welfare who actually work for their payment. These people work on a 24-7 basis. They cannot retire for the evening and be guaranteed a full night's sleep. Taking into account the hours they work, what they receive - when all of their benefits have been taken into account - equates to a payment of approximately €1.50 per hour. I urge the Minister to bring forward a carers strategy as quickly as possible.

I also urge the Minister to address the issue of the self-employed. Perhaps she might consider giving them the option to pay a full PRSI contribution if they so wish. This might assist in alleviating the huge problems they face. When those who are self-employed find themselves without a week's work, there is nowhere for them to turn. It appears there are no benefits available for these people. They are caught up in a sea of red tape and massive financial and personal strain is placed upon them. In the context of future budgets, perhaps the Government might give consideration to the self-employed.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.