David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. He has had a long day in the Seanad. I also welcome the Bill. The primary purpose of it is to make provision for the new back to work family support. This is a welcome measure as it allows those moving off social welfare payments to hang on to child-specific portions of social welfare payments for one year and half of it for a further year. After four years of harsh social welfare cuts, with indirect costs to many social welfare payments and cuts from the previous Government, it is some acknowledgement by this Government of the cost of engaging in work and the poor quality and low-paying nature of many jobs. Many in-work poverty traps are known about and must be dealt with. This is a small, but welcome, measure. From the establishment of the Low Pay Commission and all the reports published by EUROSTAT, the OECD, TASC and others, we know we have a problem with low pay. There is a difficulty with people on low pay moving from unemployment to employment. The lack of access to public services, whether it is health care, education or supports for children of workers and child care, creates problems for people on low pay. There are many such people.

Senator Ó Murchú correctly said that as we bear the fruits of any upturn, we must spend the money wisely and ensure the extra revenue available to the State is used in a way that makes sure we deal with poverty and inequality rather than going off on political tangents and engaging in auction politics with tax cut promises that seem attractive in an election. In reality, we must make sure we put money back into these supports and, critically, areas of public service provision where it is necessary to lift people out of poverty.

Ireland has one of the highest rates of low pay in Europe and the number of people in part-time work continues to increase, with 13% more workers employed on a part-time basis since 2007. According to the OECD, we have the third highest rate of underemployment in the EU-28 and over one third of workers will earn €20,000 or less in 2015, yet the Government has taken no serious action to tackle the prevalence of low pay. Quite late in the day, the Low Pay Commission was set up but it is narrow in scope and does not deal with the contributing factors that create in-work poverty. Wages are only one element of it and the minimum wage, while only one small element, affects only 5% of the workforce. Many people above the minimum wage but on low pay must also be supported. We know the problem with precarious work and low-hour contracts. The Minister of State is supportive of doing something about it and there will be a debate in the Dáil during Private Members' business based on a motion tabled by Sinn Féin. It is a concrete, practical, realistic and deliverable proposal supported by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and will help workers who want to work more to go from part-time to full-time work to end the exploitative nature of many of these low-hour contracts where we have profitable companies paying their workers low wages on low-hour contracts. In the case of some retailers, 70% or 80% of workers are on low-hour contracts for years. This is clearly exploiting workers.

Much more needs to be done, even in terms of labour activation measures. We must look seriously at what works and what does not work. JobBridge is not working is and it is a clearly exploitative scheme. I welcome the call by IMPACT to scrap it. Sinn Féin has also published proposals. While I criticise JobBridge, I commend the Government on introducing JobsPlus, which is a much better scheme and is work-related. It is of great benefit and we welcomed its introduction and expansion in recent times. It involves real jobs, real pay and terms and conditions. The Minister of State shook his head when I referred to JobBridge and the Government is very defensive about it. I have a difficulty with it and some of my family members have gone through it and were critical of it. I have spoken to many people in the constituency I live in who have not had a good experience, although some have. If there is room for employers to exploit it, they will do so. A survey by Indecon showed 30% of employers who used the scheme said that, in the absence of the scheme, they would have taken on someone. That is a high figure.

One of the provisions of the Bill which is an area of concern for us, and has been raised by other Senators, is section 3 concerning the eligibility of caring payments. I am concerned at the section of the Bill in respect of family carers. In the submission on the Bill, the Free Legal Advice Centre, FLAC, and Community Law & Mediation called for the deletion of the section, arguing that it does nothing but make it more difficult for carers to access income supports. They describe section 3 as negative law making, introducing a presumption of ineligibility for the payment, which the applicant must overcome. At present, the applicant must demonstrate an entitlement and the deciding officer then makes a decision from a position of neutrality and objectivity. The submission notes that the outworking of the change will see more eligible applicants having to go to the appeals office to secure their entitlements. Our vast experience of dealing with people who must appeal social welfare or benefit claim is that it can take a long time. If we can prevent appeals having to be made in the first place, it is better for those who benefit from it. I welcome the provisions of the Bill and I look forward to supporting it.