Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)

I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to us. She has a very important portfolio given that social welfare represents the bridge to work and also a bridge to education. At times of recession it is arguably the most important portfolio. The social welfare system is inherently essential in a democratic society. It is an essential tool in aiding those who are struggling most. The welfare is available to help the most struggling so that they do not fall into poverty. It acknowledges how tough times are for many people. However, the social welfare system must - I know the Minister is grappling with this - be a mechanism to incentivise work, to empower those receiving payments and encourage them to actively seek and gain work. I say work as opposed to employment. The difficulty is that we have educated for employment as opposed to educating to be employers. This will be a very big change in mindset. If we only educate to become an employee when there is a recession and jobs go everyone is stuck. We need to educate to become self-employed and to provide a backup system for them. It is wrong that when employers, who created the jobs, fall on hard times, they have no social welfare system at all. I ask the Minister to address that in her closing speech today. How is she advancing that issue because I know she was considering a social insurance fund for self-employed people?

Another significant problem Ireland shares with the rest of Europe is youth unemployment, which is causing considerable fear - Hitler's rise to power came in such conditions. We must tackle the issue head on and get our young people, who represent the future of the country, back to work - not just in employment - and towards a regular working life. Social welfare exists for many people to get support if needed but they should not depend on these payments for a lifetime. While we all agree with that, somehow the reality is that we do not accept that. We create a culture that can at times be a dependency culture.

I wish to discuss one-parent families, the Minister's work on fraud, the amendments to the Pensions Act, the entitlement to mortgage income supplement, the voluntary PRSI contributions and how the review is getting on. The literature indicates that a person who lives in a dependency culture for 15 years becomes embedded in that culture. At the moment a parent is entitled to claim the one-parent family allowance until the youngest child is 14, which I believe is too long. For a woman who becomes a mother today in the knowledge that she will have this one-parent family allowance for 14 years, there is no incentive to consider changing her circumstances and help herself. I commend the Minister on reducing that upper age limit - with conditionality. I take my hat off to lone parents who are doing a very difficult job. Sometimes I feel that my husband is a lone parent, when I am here in Dublin. When he is not there I wonder how we cope without each other's help.

The two-year lead-in time is critical. It is important to poverty-proof it and continually monitor it as the Minister has promised. The most important thing is that each lone parent is given a facilitator. I know a mother who after 17 years and with the help of a person from the Galway resource centre has given up all social welfare assistance including her house. How did she do it? She had depression etc. and only managed it because of the help of a facilitator. The fundamental question is whether the decision we make today in reducing the child age limit to seven years for one-parent families will increase poverty and social problems or empower the lone parent to think ahead, plan the future for himself or herself and his or her children. Fundamentally, will the over-dependency on it create a structural problem? I believe we need to monitor it carefully. I have done work on early school leaving and it is critical that child care support is in place, as the Minister stated, that the parent is supported with a facilitator and that at-risk families are watched. In her speech the Minister mentioned families at risk of dropping out of education. I know my fellow Senators are concerned about the fact this is not written into the Bill. We have between now and Monday to look at ways to do so.

With regard to the change affecting jobseeker's payments the Minister proposes to base it on a five day week as opposed to a six day week. May I ask why it was a six day week benefit.