Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State is most welcome. It was good to hear the good news that the Government had to give, particularly on the unemployment figures. The rate of unemployment has come down from 15.1% in early 2012 to 10.7%, which is particularly good when compared to the recent unemployment figure in Spain of 24.4%.
Senator Paschal Mooney raised the issue of the rate of child benefit that should be applied to families whose children do not live here. It has been very well worded. The Minister of State said: "Child benefit helps to prevent poverty, along with other child income supports paid to welfare recipients and low paid working families." I do not agree with the decision reached by the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection in ruling out a means test for child benefit, even though this has been called for in several reports. It is a waste of money to give the benefit to high earners and the Minister of State is right to refer to low paid working families. It is a clear example of something that would not happen in the private sector when something could be done about an issue. Last year it was reported that Ireland had eight billionaires and 20,000 millionaires. I am not sure how true these figures are, but only three families handed back their children's allowance payments. According to a report in the Sunday Independent, "If a parent does not wish to claim their child benefit payment, they can notify the Department of Social Protection in writing to that effect and their claim will be stopped in accordance with their wishes". That seems to be a very old-fashioned system which obviously is not working. Will the Minister create a website to enable people to give back their payments more easily? Surely in the era of computerisation and PPS numbers, this could be done easily. Such a system could save the State money if the Government was not willing to means test the payment. Will the Minister of State comment on this idea, as it would be a very sensible move?
I recognise that the Government has reduced child benefit rates for successive children, but I wonder if the number of children in a family for whom child benefit is received should be capped? In Switzerland the payment of child benefit depends on the region in which one lives, but it is usually around €150 per child per month. However, in most regions the payment of child benefit is stopped after the second child. I understand there is a similar system in place in the United States. I know that this will not sound popular in a country that traditionally has had large families. We have 16 grandchildren, but I do not think my wife and I have more than five children. I understand that with the increase in child benefit under the Bill, a person with eight children will now receive €1,080 per month as opposed to the previous payment of €1,040. In Switzerland a parent with eight children would still receive a total of €300. I feel guilty in saying this, but I wonder if the payment should be capped and only made in respect of a certain number of children? I do not know and I am sure this would not have been acceptable in the past.
I also wonder if the total amount paid to a single parent household should be capped to ensure those who rely on welfare payments do not earn more than the average working family. That is something the Government in the United Kingdom has considered. Does the Minister of State agree with this sentiment or does the Government believe there should be no cap?
I know that the Bill introduces the back-to-work family dividend to provide an additional incentive for families to move from welfare to work. That is a very worthy initiative which will mean that persons will be able to retain some of their child benefit payment in order to make it more attractive for them to take a job. The new support will also be available to single parents and many unemployed parents who were previously self-employed or working in the construction sector. That is also a very good initiative.
I take the opportunity to ask the Minister of State about the incentives to encourage people to start their own business. This has a very big part to play in getting people off social welfare payments. The short-term enterprise allowance and the back-to-work enterprise allowance give support to unemployed persons who want to start their own business. Will the Minister of State outline how many have availed of this and similar schemes? Also, will he state the number of new businesses that have been set up and how many have lasted for more than one year? It would be interesting to get feedback on these novel ideas.
One of the massive barriers in getting back to work, particularly for women, is the cost of child care, which is among the highest in Europe. We have heard this issue referred to so often. I suggest the benefit be linked with subsidising the cost of child care instead of being a cash payment. There are other examples which are worth noting. In Denmark families pay up to 25% of the cost of day care services, with those on low incomes or single parents paying nothing or up to 25% of the cost.There are also discounts for siblings and the government makes up the difference.

I think that at the very least, we could consider a tax credit for child care. This would encourage people, particularly women, back to work, may even get highly experienced older women back into work as childminders and could have the effect of reducing the amount of people on the dole.

Would the Minister consider the example of the UK where parents can claim up to £100 per week to cover child care? I think the fees are very good points to start from as I believe the cost of child care is forcing many parents to stay at home. Why would one work if one had to pay for travel, child care, etc., when one could earn a similar amount and stay at home with one's child? The latter is a much more rational choice and by subsidising child care, we would make a job a much more attractive proposition.

I also welcome the additional money allocated to JobPath which the Minister of State mentioned. This programme is targeted towards the long-term unemployed, that is, people who have been out of work for over 12 months. Could we also look at people who have been unemployed for over ten years? Do we have figures on them? This is a group to which the Government needs to give targeted assistance. It is also worth noting that the UK has introduced a scheme specifically for people who have been out of work for over two years. It is called the Help to Work scheme. The rules in the UK state that jobseekers who have been out of work for over two years will only receive their benefits if they either show up at a job centre every day or commit to six months of voluntary work. It means that jobseekers who lack experience or skills will be expected to tackle part in community projects such as tending parks or face losing their handouts under the new Help to Work scheme. Those who fail to comply with the rules, which also offer signing up to a training scheme as a third option, will have their jobseeker's allowance docked for four weeks for a first offence and 13 weeks for the second. The idea behind unpaid community work is that it will help the long-term unemployed to learn the discipline of observing office hours and becoming part of a team. While these measures seem harsh, the UK government says that the rules are needed to help the long-term unemployed. I think the lesson from this example is that we should treat those long-term unemployed very differently from those who are out of work for several years and that perhaps more incentives are needed for the latter group of people. In particular, the Government should probably identify those people who are out of work for more ten years as they need more specific assistance to get them off social welfare and back into the workplace. I have been involved for a little while with the Springboard scheme. This scheme takes graduates with a high level of skills which are not being used at the moment and helps them to acquire different skills. I think a similar kind of thinking could take place in this case. I welcome the Minister and I welcome the Bill as, in general, it is going in the right direction. Let us make sure we keep our eye on it and enthuse those decision makers to make sure that this continues.