Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Is breá an rud í a fheiceáil arís. Is dócha nach gcuirfidh sé iontas uirthi go bhfuilimid i gcoinne an reachtaíocht seo. Aithnímid go bhfuil céimeanna dearfacha sa Bhille agus fáiltiímid rompu. Nílimid tógtha le píosaí áirithe den reachtaíocht seo agus, dá bhrí sin, táimid ag cur ina gcoinne.

As the Minister is aware, there are measures within the legislation which we welcome and which are positive in nature. However, we consider that there are other measures which could have been taken in the context of reversing and mitigating cuts that were made prior to the introduction of the Bill. Most crucially, the legislation contains provisions which we consider punitive and to which we are opposed. It is for this reason that we will be voting against the legislation.

I will comment, in the first instance, on the changes which are to be welcomed. We welcome the fact that the Minister has, to some extent, qualified the cut to the one-parent family payment. The Bill introduces measures to allow for the transition of lone parents to the jobseeker's allowance scheme when they no longer qualify for the one-parent family payment due to their youngest child reaching specified age thresholds. I understand, on foot of a memorandum produced by the Minister's Department, that former recipients of the one-parent family payment will be exempt from a number of the conditions relating to jobseeker's allowance for a transitional period up until their youngest child reaches 14 years of age. Such lone parents will, therefore, be placed on the targeted version of jobseeker's allowance to be known as jobseeker's transition. Sinn Féin opposes, in the strongest terms, the change of the qualifying age for the child from 14 years to seven. We also oppose the removal of the transitional payment which had previously been in place in this regard and which had facilitated single parents being able to return to the labour force. This is important and we should ensure that there are no disincentives for single parents in the context of their returning to the workforce. When the previous legislation in this area - matters relating to which the Bill before the House is meant to tidy up - was introduced, Sinn Féin flagged this as a considerable mistake which it viewed as regressive and as placing single parents at a disadvantage. The Minister has partially reversed the change, which is welcome. However, it is a piecemeal solution. The decision to change the age of entitlement relating to the payment has not been reversed.

The Minister had indicated that there was a need for a proper system of child care, funded either partially or wholly by the State, and that this would compensate in the change in the age of entitlement relating to the single-parent payment from 14 years to seven. It is Sinn Féin's view that she is putting the cart before the horse. Why not simply repeal the section which changed the age qualification for one-parent families from 14 to seven years. This matter might, perhaps, be reconsidered when a Scandinavian model of child care is available in the State. However, we do not have such a model at present and we are not likely to have one in the near future because the necessary investment is not available. It is all very well to talk about the Scandinavian model but the reality is that we are million miles away from having it. The correct thing to do would be to reverse the change relating to the age of entitlement.

There are also positives in that the Bill provides that retained firefighters will be exempt from certain conditions which apply in respect of the jobseeker's benefit and allowance schemes. I note Senator Mooney's comments. Perhaps he is thinking ahead. If the Seanad is abolished, he may wish to dust off his Equity card. The Senator raised a very pertinent matter. As someone who was involved in the media industry and who worked with actors in a professional capacity, I am aware that there is an issue with regard to actors who do not have full-time permanent employment and who depend on jobseeker's allowance to tide them over between jobs. It would be worthwhile considering what Senator Mooney said about facilitating such individuals, possibly in a similar fashion to firefighters. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter. The changes relating to the firefighters take account of the very specific nature of their conditions of employment, which limit their flexibility considerably. Again, these individuals were placed at a disadvantage by the changes introduced in the previous legislation. We raised the matter relating to them on a number of occasions. The firefighters implemented a considerable lobby on this matter and it is positive that they have reaped their reward.

Other welcome changes include the provision for appeals under section 8 of the previous legislation, which relates to those on partial capacity benefit being able to appeal. We are of the view that this provision should have been in place from the outset and we welcome the fact that the matter is now being dealt with. Section 14 allows for the use of PPS numbers by more organisations. State organisations requiring access to PPS numbers should now be facilitated more speedily, albeit subject to the provisions of data protection law. I also welcome the provisions which deal with the anomalies in the civil partnership legislation.

Sinn Féin is disappointed with regard to some of the areas in which changes have not been introduced. Changes in the structure of the social welfare system have led to many people either struggling to cope or living in dire poverty.

We believe there are retrograde decisions which need to be reversed as soon as possible.

The Minister has claimed there have not been cuts to social welfare rates but Sinn Féin has shown repeatedly that there have been such cuts. One of the latest cuts was to jobseeker's benefit. It is a cut if one changes the eligibility period for jobseeker's benefit from 12 to nine months. That amounts to a cut of three months in a person's jobseeker's benefit. There are many other examples.

There are sections of this legislation to which we are totally opposed and it is on the basis of those sections added on Committee Stage that we will be voting against the legislation.

Section 12 deals with sanctions for those who have not been able to find employment and whom the Minister believes have not done enough to seek employment. The reality is that we all know countless people who have lost a job. They are very keen to find employment. They do not want to be at home. The hope of finding employment is foremost in their minds. It is a time which all of those who have to go through it find difficult mentally and emotionally.

We believe there is a responsibility on jobseekers to engage with activation measures. However, there can be valid reasons for a failure to engage such as when activation programmes are not available and there is no access to training and education at a given time. It is the case that in many areas the opportunities do not exist to take up education and training schemes, and community employment schemes cannot cope with the demand for places.

The Bill gives greater responsibility to the inspectors to decide what is a good cause for missing such a meeting or engagement, and there is no definition in the Bill. We believe that could lead to inconsistency.

I note also that there is an issue with workers who have reached the age of 65. They have reached the age of retirement as it was when they started employment. They are now expected to comply to the same standards as other workers even though it is likely they will not be able to find employment. There should be some recognition through a transitional arrangement for those who are aged 65 years and over.

We will be opposing the legislation and will seek to table amendments on Committee Stage.