Seanad debates

Thursday, 7 December 2017

Social Welfare Bill 2017: Second Stage

 

10:30 am

Photo of Alice-Mary HigginsAlice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I first acknowledge there are some positive measures in the Bill which has been put forward. I will, of course, be supporting those measures. There are some progressive elements, particularly in respect of maternity benefit. With regard to the payment increases, we must note that those on reduced rates will not be receiving €5 extra including, for example, those on reduced rates of pensions, who are predominantly women. They will be receiving a pro rata, lower amount of €3. I will come to pensions. I know the Minister is keen to progress that issue. I will come to it later.

The other positive elements are the increase in qualified child payment and the partial restoration of the income disregard for the lone parent allowance. I point out, however, that we still have a lower disregard than we originally did. That is still a work in progress. We have acknowledged that it was counterproductive as a policy measure. It is important that we move further towards reversing that reduction.

I acknowledge that the Minister has a personal interest in the area of lone parents. She has been very clear that she wants to address the issue and that she recognises that these families have the highest rates of child poverty and suffer deep inequity in terms of opportunities. I suggest we can do more. I may table some amendments in that regard. Some of the things we might do are not simply around payments. They also involve addressing some of the blocks to accessing education and the unfortunate overlaps around payments, what qualifies and what does not. There is also the issue of maintenance, which has been highlighted in this House. Will the Minister address how she sees that issue progressing? I urge her to move forward on it early next year because it is a keen issue for myself and others on the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection. We have been flagging it for a long time. The issue of a national maintenance body needs to examined.

One very small but practical measure that has been sought for decades is to look at availability for work on the basis of hours rather than days. Some who are parenting and particularly those who are parenting alone, may want the opportunity to work for a number of hours, for example from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. However, because one is required to be available full-time for a full day to receive certain payments, an obstacle is created for those who seek to build attachment to the workplace in different ways. Could that be reviewed? I may table amendments in that regard.

I note the family income supplement has been renamed as the working family payment. Again this is something the joint committee should consider.We need to examine whether it is just the same or whether there are differences. If it is going to be a key policy plank in the future, it may need a little bit more debate and scrutiny.As a simple measure regarding family income supplement, while the thresholds are of key importance, the requirement of 19 hours is a serious concern. I will speak on a simple practical level to make it clear. Fifteen hours of child care are provided to people in Ireland. If somebody is working in the child care sector or is relying on that child care to allow them to access work, he or she is tied to 15 hours. Such people will never reach the 19 hours that would allow them to access the family income supplement or working family payment. This is a gap into which people fall and it affects opportunities.

I want to highlight other activation concerns. Since long before I came into this House, I have called for a rural pilot for the European Youth Guarantee. I want to put it on the Minister's agenda and I will probably put forward a suggestion for a report in this area. We undertook the European Youth Guarantee, which had strong lessons for us on the problem of youth unemployment in urban areas. However, there are areas with very high rural youth unemployment, in the south east of the country for example. A pilot scheme which would allow us to identify and tackle the issues facing young unemployed people in rural Ireland might be something to consider.

My other serious concerns about our activation policies pertain to the seemingly increasing focus on sanction and compulsion, as well as the question of whether people are being given options. The full understanding of activation was always that it was employment, training or education. My concern is that education has fallen by the wayside somewhat and is not getting the same emphasis. The Labour Market Council appeared before the Joint Committee on Social Protection last February and its representatives stated that while there had been a move towards a work-first policy, we needed to re-examine the option of an education-first policy.

I am also very seriously concerned about the personal progression plans and I will be putting forward amendments in this regard. Due to the way they are being managed at present by Turas Nua and Seetec under contract from the Department, there are serious data breaches. I am concerned with what people are required to sign in order to show they are co-operating. People who wish to co-operate with employment and activation services are being asked to sign a document that is not appropriate and which breaches privacy, particularly around contact with their future employer. That is a serious concern.

The other question relates to voluntary access to schemes for those who are qualified adults and are not on the live register. I may table amendments on this but I am happy to work with the Minister on it. There are people who would like to access employment and activation supports but are concerned because they may not be available full-time or suitable for the live register. As we are losing that huge potential, I would like us to review that issue.

My last point relates to a key issue and I will table extensive amendments on it. There has been a kind of plough-forward attitude within the Department but I urge the Minister to really review this seriously. The public service card is a serious concern. The way that it is being rolled out has constantly raised concerns, including the those of the Data Protection Commissioner. Until the Data Protection Commissioner's concerns are satisfied and we can be genuinely assured that we are meeting the standards of the EU general data protection regulation, GDPR, that is coming in next year, there are very serious concerns. It is not just the individual cases that are constantly arising but relates to the manner of its introduction. It needs examination and I will urge that we pull back from making the public service card the only acceptable form of identification for claiming social protection payments while these concerns are being addressed. That is very important, and it would be appropriate and circumspect for the Department to act in that way.

My last points are wider points. I will address everything else through amendments on Committee Stage, and of course I am always just as happy to work with the Department if any of these issues can be progressed without an amendment. I acknowledge that the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Varadkar, did accept some of my proposals, and introduced them by ministerial order rather than amendment in this debate last year. In respect of preparation for Ireland's ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNCRPD, does the Minister have the scope to introduce new measures mid-year if needed?

Furthermore, in the Minister's review, I urge her to examine the private pension tax reliefs in Ireland, which amount to figures between €210 million and €2 billion. This is part of the financing package and it must be part of the consideration. I will put forward amendments unless the Minister can indicate that this is already in the picture. I understand that the Minister is constrained in addressing the pension issue right now. Will she commit that if possible, she will put forward proposals as amendments to the social welfare and pensions Bill when it comes through in the spring?

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.