Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. It is great to have the opportunity to debate the Bill, which incorporates many changes in light of the Minister's commitment to reform, something I always like to acknowledge. I welcome her efforts, particularly those to allow for the transition of lone parents to the jobseeker's allowance scheme. Senator Healy Eames identified many of the aspects. I love the language the Minister uses, noting the importance of "easing" their transition. She really has listened to the advocates in that regard and I commend her on that.

I have a couple of concerns about the effects of the transition status, which I will mention. In addition, I have grave reservations about some significant amendments to the Bill that were included after its publication. I question whether this provides us with adequate time for proper scrutiny. I refer to sections 12 to 14, which comprise 12 pages, and section 15, which comprises pages of the Bill, as passed by Dáil Éireann. I particularly note section 15. In her speech the Minister noted the section is about debt recovery. The language of the speech states it is important to be more "efficient". We would all say "yes" to that, but is that efficiency as benign as it sounds in the way the Minister has laid it out?

I have two questions that relate to the effect of the transition from the one-parent family payment to jobseeker's allowance.

The first relates to the 156-day rule. One cannot receive a payment for a child dependant aged between 18 and 22 years and in full-time education unless one is in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or other specified relevant payments for 156 days or more. Those in receipt of such payments can claim €29.80 per week. That 156-day rule did not apply to those in receipt of the one-parent family payment. The question for those coming off the one-parent family payment is whether the time they spent on the payment count towards the 156 days when they apply for jobseeker's allowance. It appears that on making a claim for jobseeker's allowance, which means the claim would not be 156 days old, the payment cannot be made. I have been advised that periods spent on the jobseeker's allowance can be combined with time spent on relevant payments for the purpose of the 156-day rule. A cursory examination of what constitutes a relevant payment, as contained in section 2(4) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, appears to include the one-parent family payment but that interpretation is not consistent with the information provided on the Department's website. I ask the Minister to clarify to the House the legal position for one-parent families who make new claims for jobseeker's allowance. Will they lose income supports for their children over the age of 18 and in full-time education or will they retain these supports?

The second issue pertains to the fuel allowance. The national fuel scheme is a very valuable administrative scheme open to people on long-term social welfare payments, including those in receipt of one-parent family payments. Currently the allowance is worth €20 per week for the fuel season. Those who are in receipt of the one-parent family payment receive the allowance but I understand one must be in receipt of jobseeker's allowance for 390 days before being considered eligible for the fuel allowance. There is no administrative position to allow those moving from the one-parent family payment to the jobseeker's allowance to retain the fuel allowance. I ask the Minister to clarify whether those who have been on one-parent family payments will continue to receive the fuel allowance when they make that transition.

Sections 12 to 14 appear to give officials increased powers in regard to activation measures. They can decide to withdraw social welfare payments where an individual does not, without good cause, do what a official deems appropriate in terms of taking up work, training, etc. I am in favour of increasing efficiency and providing active and progressive activation measures but it is important that we know the circumstances in which it is proposed to stop a person's basic payment. It seems that claimants will have little control or power in this regard. A person is unlikely to protest a recommendation by an official at the risk of losing a payment, even if the recommendation is inappropriate.

Section 15, which was added only recently, presents a change that should not be driven through in haste. The Minister indicated to the Dáil that she delayed in presenting the section because she was awaiting clearance from the Attorney General on the complex amendments it contains. I agree these are serious legal matters and they require proper scrutiny and debate. I wonder, however, whether the section is necessarily based on information from the Department that the money is rightly and properly owed. Are we to accept that the information is correct and, once owed, that the Department as creditor should receive favourable treatment? We are to decide on this with little opportunity to examine the legal ramifications of this extensive amendment. What is at stake? As the Minister indicated to the Dáil, she already introduced measures in the Social Welfare Act 2012 to recover social welfare overpayments through weekly deductions from persons' ongoing social welfare entitlements. That Act provided for deductions of up to 15% of the weekly personal rate to those on social welfare payments. I did not get an opportunity to object to that provision because the Bill was guillotined in the House. My primary objection is that a minimum income to meet basic needs did not apply to those in welfare debt, whereas the mortgage debt and personal insolvency legislation set out guidelines for a minimum standard of living. The section is based on the presumption that the money is rightly and properly owed, that is, it is a legitimate debt to the Department. Can the Minister guarantee to the House that each and every person who receives a decision from her officials to the effect that he or she owes money will be able to access competent independent advice when the decision is being made? Will they be able to appeal those decisions? Will notices of attachment only be used where there is evidence of ability to repay and how will that evidence be determined?