Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Minister for Social Protection, I strongly believe social welfare must be there for those who need it and that we must do everything we can to help people back to work. In essence, the social welfare system must provide a safety net and a springboard to help people back to work. To achieve that, my focus has been on transforming the Department from a passive provider of benefits to an organisation that is actively assisting people back to work, training or education. In this legislation, I continue the necessary and important structural reforms of the social welfare system. I also make important amendments to the social welfare code on PRSI, jobseeker's payments, fraud prevention and to the pensions code relating to occupational pension provision.

In his Budget Statement last December, the Minister for Finance announced a number of measures to broaden the income base for PRSI in order to ensure the stability of the Social Insurance Fund. One of the PRSI base-broadening measures provided for in the Bill extends liability for PRSI contributions in 2013 to certain civil and public sector workers who pay modified rates of PRSI contributions and who also have income from a trade or profession. They will now be liable for a PRSI contribution of 4% on any income arising from a trade or profession. I will give an example with which many Members will be familiar. There are a lot of highly-paid medical consultants who work in the public system but who also have lucrative private practice income. Up to now, those consultants did not pay PRSI on the private income. We know from VHI statistics that more than 300 consultants earn in excess of €200,000 from their private practice income and of the 300, one or two earn double the amount. The Bill will change the situation and result in a fairer system. The measure will extend the PRSI base to ensure it covers all income of public sector workers from their trades, professions or other employment. It is anticipated that the change will yield up to €12 million a year in additional PRSI revenue.

In recent years, reforms have been made to the one-parent family scheme. We have discussed the scheme at length in the Chamber. I now propose reforms that will ease the transition of former recipients of one-parent family payment with young children to the jobseeker's allowance scheme. These parents will be exempted for a transitional period from the full conditionality of the jobseeker's allowance scheme, specifically the criteria that jobseekers must be available for and genuinely seeking full-time work. However, they will be required to engage fully with the Department's activation process.

The changes will allow the lone parents in question to seek part-time work rather than full-time work if that better suits their family circumstances. They will also be able to access existing child care supports and the additional supports I funded for the Department of Children and Youth Affairs for 6,000 after-school child care places. The transitional period will last, provided the individual continues to satisfy entitlement conditions for one-parent family payment other than the relevant age of their youngest child, until the child reaches 14 years of age. That was an issue we discussed on previous occasions in the Chamber.

I am introducing changes to jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance to allow for persons working as retained firefighters to be exempted from certain conditions to enable them to access these schemes. Sometimes the pace of reform in this country is slow but this has been an issue since 1972 – more than 40 years. I am delighted we are now bringing in legislation to deal with the matter because retained firefighters are extremely important in their local community. There are approximately 2,000 of them in total, of whom approximately 800 rely on support from social welfare payments to supplement their income. This is part of the cost of providing a nationwide part-time fire service. However, no legislative basis was ever provided to support the position, which led to uncertainty and difficulty for individual firefighters. I am now bringing clarity to this situation in recognition of the social good of the work of retained firefighters, their service to the community and the bravery and sacrifice shown by fire brigade personnel through the decades.

It is essential that each person in receipt of a jobseeker's payment fulfils his or her personal responsibility to engage fully with the employment and training supports provided by the State. Currently, the rules provide for reductions of up to €44 a week in the personal rates of payment for those who refuse to engage in activation. I propose that the sanctions which currently apply to the refusal to participate in training and education options will be extended to prescribed employment programmes and education courses. The changes will also provide for a strengthening of the sanctions, in the form of a disqualification for up to nine weeks, where a customer continues to fail to engage with activation measures after the weekly rate of payment has been reduced for more than three weeks. If people take part then they will go back to the appropriate level of payment.

Fraud undermines confidence in the entire system and is unfair to genuine claimants and the taxpayers who fund it by paying tax and PRSI. Identity authentication is an important part of ensuring that only those who are entitled to payment receive it. I will propose a change to provide for the introduction of a condition for existing recipients of social welfare payment that the person must satisfy the Department as to his or her identity, including allowing for electronic capture of a photograph and signature. That is already in place for new recipients. To date, more than 250,000 public services cards have been rolled out, which contain a biometric photograph. That is of great assistance in terms of limiting fraud and multiple claims.

Effective debt recovery is a key aspect of my Department's control policy. I am introducing a provision in the Bill to further improve the Department's ability to recover overpayments. It is intended to target persons who have a capacity to repay, but repeatedly refuse to do so.

This will be undertaken by way of an attachment notice to earnings, moneys due by other Government agencies, or where that individual has funds in financial institutions. To date we could only address this by going into civil legal proceedings, which are very expensive and lengthy.

I am also introducing changes to occupational pension provision. These changes gives effect to the recommendation of the critical review undertaken by the Pensions Board and the Pensions Ombudsman as part of the public services reform plan. I am also introducing a number of other amendments to the Pensions Act to: give powers to the Pensions Board to wind-up a pension scheme in certain circumstances; provide for the disclosure of information on a proposal by the Pensions Board to restructure scheme benefits and to provide for an appeal to the High Court on a point of law against a direction by the Pensions Board to restructure a defined benefit pension scheme; provide the Pensions Board with a right of appeal to the High Court to seek compliance with a directive to either restructure scheme benefits or a direction to wind-up a scheme; change the fines regime that applies to personal retirement savings accounts; and amend the terms of office of the Pensions Ombudsman.

The changes I am bringing forward today will strengthen governance and regulation of occupational pensions and give consumers greater input into pensions policy. The Pensions Board will be renamed the pensions authority to ensure public awareness and clarity of its role and functions and distinguish it from the policy advisory activities. I am very aware of the persistent funding challenge facing defined benefit pension schemes. Greater accuracy of the overall funding position of schemes will be provided after the end of June when schemes submit their funding proposals. The deadline for funding proposals is 30 June and it is essential that schemes comply with the deadline.

Trustees must meet their legal obligations. Ultimately the Pensions Board will use its regulatory powers where benefit underfunding is not properly addressed.

There was an expectation that I would be bringing forward in this Bill changes to the manner in which assets are distributed on the wind-up of a pension scheme. This is a very complex and sensitive issue and one which has received considerable scrutiny in the Department. In light of the recent decision by the European Court of Justice in the Waterford Crystal case, the Government recognises the need for a comprehensive policy and legislative response that addresses the range of issues involved. In light of the outcome from the responses to the funding standard and the considerations on the Waterford Crystal case, which are coming back to the Irish courts, I will bring forward proposals to Government on the appropriate policy response.

I will now outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 1 provides for the Short Title, collective citations, construction and any necessary commencements. Section 2 defines a number of common terms used in this part of the Bill. Section 3 replaces references to training provided or approved by FÁS contained in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act in light of the new structural arrangements for the provision of State training. Section 4 amends the definition of a "special contributor" which is used for the purposes of the special collection system operated by the Department of Social Protection for the collection of certain PRSI contributions. Section 5 is a technical amendment which corrects an error in the wording of section 23(5) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005.

Section 6 extends liability for PRSI contributions to modified rate PRSI contributors. Section 7 provides for a number of amendments to the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 to take account of the provisions of the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. Section 8 amends the conditions of entitlement applying to the partial capacity benefit scheme. Section 9 provides for changes to the jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance schemes to exempt persons who are working as retained fire­fighters from certain conditionality due to the nature of that employment.

Section 10 provides for amendments to the jobseeker's allowance scheme to cater for the transition of persons to that scheme who no longer qualify for one-parent family payment due to their youngest child reaching specified age thresholds. Section 11 extends the identity authentication requirements that currently apply to new applicants for a social welfare payment, a personal public service number or a public services card to existing recipients of social welfare payments under which they must agree to have a biometric standard photograph and electronic signature taken.

Sections 12, 13 and 14 provide for extension of the sanctions which currently apply to refusals to participate in training and education options to prescribed employment programmes and education courses. These sections also provide for a strengthening of the sanctions, in the form of a disqualification for up to nine weeks, where a customer continues to fail to engage with activation measures after the weekly rate of payment has been reduced for more than three weeks.

Section 15 provides for notices of attachment for the recovery of social welfare overpayments from earnings or money in financial institutions. This measure will be used in circumstances where a person who has been actively engaged with by the Department, refuses to co-operate with the repayment of his debt and where there is evidence of an ability to repay.

Section 16 provides that a working director with a shareholding of 50% or more in a company will not be regarded as being insurable as an employed contributor in that company. Company directors holding 50% or more of the shareholding of a company are not normally regarded as falling within a normal employer/employee relationship and are therefore deemed not to be employed under a contract of service and liable for PRSI class A contributions as an employee.

Section 17 clarifies the operation of the income disregard which is used for the purposes of the rent and mortgage interest supplement schemes. Section 18 extends the list of bodies that are authorised to use the personal public service number for the purposes of carrying out transactions with members of the public and for sharing personal information. The new bodies being included are the Insolvency Service of Ireland, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, and payment service providers who have been authorised by the Revenue Commissioners to collect the local property tax.

Section 19 is a technical amendment. Section 20 provides for amendments to the Civil Registration Act 2004, to allow for the provision of index information from the registers of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships to the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht in order to facilitate access to this index information. Index information on adoptions and stillbirths is excluded on privacy grounds.

Section 21 defines the term the "Principal Act". Section 22 inserts a definition of the pensions council which is being provided for in the new section 26B of the Pensions Act 1990 and amends the definition of employer to allow for a separate definition of employer used in the new section 5OB.

Sections 26, 27, 28, 29 and 34 provide for structural changes to the Pensions Board. Section 30 amends section 50 of the Pensions Act 1990 to provide for the disclosure of information. Section 31 inserts a new section 5OB in the Pensions Act 1990. Section 32 inserts a new section 50C in the Pensions Act 1990. Section 33 extends the age on which the Pensions Ombudsman must vacate that office in the context of that office being merged with the Financial Services Ombudsman being merged.

This Bill is another positive step on the road to reforming our social welfare system into an active, positive system that provides income support to a vast number of people but which all helps those who have become unemployed or who are of working age and out of the labour force to re-enter work, education and training and, where they are unemployed, to cooperate with the Department in availing of the assistance offered by it.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. As she outlined, the Bill provides for a range of amendments to the social welfare Acts, including, for the first time, extending PRSI contributions to individuals who have an income from a trade or profession. However, it does not address the long-term deficit in the Social Insurance Fund and the range of benefits it should support, while the self-employed will continue to be excluded from a range of benefits. The Fianna Fáil Party position on pensions is that we require a pensions structure which is financially sustainable and socially adequate.

The Bill also includes changes to the governance of the Pensions Board and gives the board powers to wind up a pension scheme in certain circumstances. However, it fails to address the need for greater protection for beneficiaries when a pension scheme winds up and does not address the fact that only 54% of the workforce has pension coverage, an issue to which I will return presently.

The Bill proposes changes to the jobseeker's allowance scheme to cater for the transition of persons who no longer qualify for one-parent family payment. The Government decided that for new applicants, as of 3 May 2012, the maximum age limit of the youngest child for receipt of the one-parent family payment would reduce to 12 years and the limit would eventually reduce to seven years in 2014. The Minister gave an undertaking that she would only proceed with the measure to reduce the upper age limit to seven years in the event that she secured a credible and bankable commitment on the delivery of a system of child care by the time of this year's budget. The issue of child care provision was shown in sharp relief in a recent "Prime Time Investigates" programme. All sorts of kites have been flown on the issue of child benefit. We heard, for example, that the payment could be reduced or reallocated to pay for the provision of additional child care places or other child care services. In light of the sensitivities associated with this issue, I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate her current thinking on this matter and whether she has received a credible and bankable commitment on the delivery of a system of child care.

I welcome the measure to provide index information relating to births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships and the provision to facilitate online access to this information. I also welcome the decision to give part-time firefighters an entitlement to jobseeker's payments, a measure for which Fianna Fáil has long campaigned. Until now, many retained firefighters were deemed ineligible for jobseeker's allowance on the ground that they were not available for or seeking work. Under the legislation, if a person works five days as a firefighter, he or she will receive five days of jobseeker's benefit. I am curious to ascertain the Minister's thinking on the position of the acting profession. I speak as a member of Irish Actors Equity, which primarily arises from my broadcasting activity rather than any acting prowess I may have. As the Minister is aware, I am surrounded by actors in this House and the other House and I defer to their greater wisdom. I ask for an update on this issue on which I campaigned some years ago when Irish Actors Equity argued that social welfare legislation was anomalous in that actors were not deemed to be available for work. Of the approximately 1,500 members of Irish Actors Equity, approximately two thirds do not have acting work at any one time but must survive without assistance. Has the Minister received representations in this regard? Does she have sympathy with members of the acting profession?

I do not know the reason firefighters have been singled out. I was informed earlier when I asked - perhaps naively - why this was the case, that firefighters were probably able to mount a better lobby than the acting profession. If that is the case, so be it but I would be grateful if the Minister were to outline her position on the matter because the current position is unfair. I recall that lollipop men and women were also deemed to be unavailable for work. In light of the uncertain nature of employment in the acting profession, some understanding should be shown of the position in which actors find themselves. After all, Ireland prides itself on its actors and literary giants and we like to be associated with them when they are winning awards. We should address the problem that arises when actors are unable to finance themselves because they cannot work.

On the governance, structure and power of the Pensions Board, the Bill gives the board a new power to wind up a pension scheme where it is under-funded, the trustees and employer are not in a position to adopt a funding proposal and the trustees fail to comply with a direction to restructure scheme benefits. This power needs to be used judiciously. The provision providing for a newspaper notification when a fund is being wound up at the direction of the new pensions authority is inadequate. Every effort should be made to notify the beneficiaries when it is proposed that a scheme be closed. Moreover, the period of 21 days' notice is not adequate, especially given the growing number of people who no longer read a newspaper. There was a time when politicians used to tremble in fear of what journalists might write about us. We are moving into an entirely new media age in which it no longer matters what journalists write because people no longer read newspapers. While politicians educate and inform themselves using all available media outlets, members of the public do not know what one is talking about when one mentions a particular story or article. This provision should be revisited because newspaper notifications may not be the best approach to this issue. Given the manner in which the media treat this House, it is no harm having diversity among the media.

The pensions council should have a stronger consumer focus. In particular, it should examine the issue of pension charges. The Minister and I exchanged views on this matter and I believe we are ad idem on it. One of the persistent criticisms levelled at the private pensions industry is that it is designed to make vast sums for the pension companies, fund managers, administrators and intermediaries. Frequently described as opaque and confusing, the industry offers mediocre to poor value for pension holders. I ask the Minister to comment. While I doubt her views on the issue have changed significantly in recent months, it is important that she place them on record. I am sure she is not only acutely aware of the problem but also intends to address it.

The status quo as regards pension priority orders remains. While the Government has stated it is committed to keeping defined benefits intact, the uncertain legislative framework is creating incentives to close defined benefit pension schemes. This will lead to outcomes which the Government has described as inequitable. The Government should act to prevent solvent firms from walking away from defined benefit schemes that are in deficit. The OECD recommends that a minimum of 90% funding should be achieved before a scheme can be closed in a case where the parent company is in financial health. To reflect more diverse working patterns the State should establish a national pension tracing service.

The Bill does not address pension coverage. According to the Pensions Board, only 54% of the workforce has pension coverage and there are wide disparities in coverage within the working population. For example, coverage in the public service stands at more than 90%, whereas it is very low in some areas of the private sector. The national pensions framework published by the previous Government in 2010 cites the examples of the hotel and restaurant sector where pension coverage is a miserly 23% and the wholesale and retail trade where it is 36%.

A survey on pensions found that of those who do not contribute to a pension, almost 80% indicated that the State pension will not meet their needs in retirement. Some 43% of respondents indicated they had not been offered access to a pension, despite the legal obligation on employers to offer employees access to a pension. Of the 43% of respondents who had not been offered access to a pension, almost 100% had never asked their employer about access to a pension. These figures highlight serious inadequacies in the system and major information gaps which the Department must address. Although awareness of the tax relief available for pension contributions is relatively high, at 73%, the majority of respondents were not aware of or incorrectly understood the amount of tax relief that applied to them.

Mandatory pensions should be given serious consideration. Among OECD countries, only Ireland and New Zealand do not have compulsory pension contributions. While most of the amendments are to be welcomed as progressive changes in how the Department of Social Protection and new pension authority conduct their business, the fundamental questions surrounding pension provision have yet to be answered by the Government.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. This is a good housekeeping Bill, which is detailed, current and relevant, especially in light of our changing social and economic circumstances. I have a number of questions on the measures provided for in the legislation. Under section 4, PRSI will be remitted directly to the Department in limited circumstances, for example, in cases of workers who are abroad.

The Minister might give us an example of when that would apply. I presume it does not apply to the immigrants who come here. Does it apply only to Irish residents who would occasionally work abroad? Will the Minister give us an example of what she means? If the income or job is established in this country as a base, with occasional work abroad, would the persons in question not be charged PRSI in any case? I would like to know more about that.

Section 5 deals with elections by wife or civil partner, where that person is self-employed, to have PRSI liabilities charged against the other. Why would that be so?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am giving them the same rights as married people.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand. However, even in the case of married people, is it that the self-employed person does not earn enough income in the first place to pay PRSI? The Minister might elaborate. I thought about what the Minister said in regard to section 6, about the 4% PRSI rate against certain trades or professions. It is stunning to think that consultants with a private practice have been earning these substantial incomes up to now and were not subject to PRSI. Why was that? The Minister said this will bring in an extra €12 million in additional PRSI. Will the Minister elaborate in her answer as to what other types of trades and professions this might apply? These are the examples that matter. We know there is not a lot of low-hanging fruit and we want to ensure there is fair treatment.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These are public servants who have a public income but did not pay PRSI on additional private incomes.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear that, but it is a very serious issue. I presume they have been paying PAYE, or tax.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Of course.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When tax is being calculated, why would PRSI not also be calculated? Section 9 deals with the retained firefighters. It is high time they got this consideration. After 40 years of lobbying, it must not have been a strong lobby, or else nobody was listening to them until now.

Section 10 deals with the transition to jobseeker's allowance for people on the one-parent family payment. This is good and is welcome. What I like about this measure is that the Minister is taking on board the changing circumstances for one-parent families as a child grows up. The Minister is naming this as a transitional allowance so it will work itself out when a child reaches certain ages.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It also takes into account that the person can only work part-time and must engage with activation measures. This is a progressive measure. Well done by the Minister.

Section 11 is interesting. The Minister is looking to authenticate identity for personal public service, PPS, numbers and public service cards. How advanced is this process and when will it be complete? This is critical to ward against fraud. A photo and an electronic signature will be required. Is that better than fingerprinting, which applies in other jurisdictions? The Minister might comment on that. The electronic signature interested me because we are very behind in this compared with the rest of Europe. I was at an EU meeting which pointed out that if electronic signatures were in place across the EU, as part of a services directive we could gain 2% growth in GDP because we would be able to engage in business across the EU. Not only Ireland but every country needs to do this. I presume once the Minister introduces this measure, it will help us to meet our services directive obligations across the EU. This must be completed as soon as possible.

Section 12 mentions the directors with 50% or more shareholding who are being moved to a PRSI class contribution. How much will that be and what benefits will these people gain? The self-employed person has been treated badly in this country, as the Minister has acknowledged, especially when their income falls or their business folds.

I refer to section 13. Will the Minister explain a little better about the income disregard for the rental and mortgage income supplement? Why does this apply to some but not all income? It is very good that the PPS number is being broadened to take into account things such as property tax, etc. I commend the Minister on the notice of attachment which will keep us out of the courts as much as possible.

The issue of amendments to the Civil Registration Act 2004 is a big one and I have a big question for the Minister. I have been lobbying for this for a long time, as she knows, though possibly not for what the Minister might be thinking about in this regard. There are two parts to this, the first being to enable online searching for genealogy purposes. I presume when the Minister gives access to the register of deaths and marriages, etc, the people under consideration are no longer living. That is important for data protection.

What I look to the Minister to amend in the Civil Registration Act 2004 concerns the registration of deaths abroad. We have had conversations about this, both public and private. Our Irish citizens who die abroad while on holidays and who carry Irish passports do not have their deaths registered in this country. The trauma and grief and the lack of closure for grieving families in this area are considerable. I have met the Minister's principal officer in the Department and I know she is moving on this. If she referred to this in the summary, it would be truly appreciated. There are people waiting for this response today, as I speak. In the last term in this House, the social protection committee had a very long session where families came before the Chair to talk about the closure it would bring to their grief if they knew that their Irish children, husbands and wives who had died abroad could at least have their deaths registered here.

On the issue in Part 4, under section 60-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has less than a minute.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister might explain the fines regime for personal retirement savings accounts, PRSA. I commend the Minister on the pensions council. It is a good idea because the pensions area is very complex. Will the eight members the Minister is to nominate be from the industry? When will this happen? I know they will be unpaid but will they receive expenses?

Section 26 regards the direction and restructuring of a pension scheme. Has the Minister applied this in many cases? The area of pensions is a mess at present. Section 27 gives the Minister power to wind up a pension scheme that is underfunded. Will all members of the scheme be notified and what will happen to their contributions? This is a very big concern. I note the Minister stated that after 30 June, she will have an update on overall funding of schemes. Will she give the House a statement at that point?

That sums up my position. It is a very useful Bill with a great deal of housekeeping and wrapping up, but the Minister is dropping into a great number of areas. That is the reason I have so many questions.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister back to the House for the second day in a row. I thank the Sinn Féin Members for facilitating yesterday's debate on youth unemployment and the youth guarantee. I commend the Minister on her efforts to move social welfare from a passive system to an organisation that activates people to work. I know from experience in my area that the new office in Killarney is working well. I have been in touch with many of the new social welfare officers who tell me to send people down to them because they are there every Tuesday evening. An appointment is not necessary. Many people are not aware of what is available for them but the new system is working well.

Like Senator Zappone I will confine my remarks to certain issues today because we will have more time to debate the Bill in detail next week. I welcome the broadening of the PRSI base. Every time we speak about funding we seem to use hospital consultants as an example. Earlier today we had a lengthy debate with the Minister for Health on the lack of hospital consultants. Although he argued that money does not tie a person to a country or a job, I am afraid that it has a significant influence. Senator Healy Eames asked why this was not applied previously. I understand that a ceiling formerly applied to the income subject to PRSI and an individual was not liable for PRSI on earnings above that ceiling. I welcome that provision is being made to address that issue. It is anticipated that the change will yield up to €12 million per annum. Will that money be reinvested in the social insurance fund or will it be spent elsewhere? I would welcome any measure that builds up the social insurance fund, which has been raided over the years because the money was badly needed.

The jobseeker's transition allowance is a welcome measure, particularly in respect of parents who are about to come off the one-parent family payment. Activation is the key word in this regard. Many parents, including working couples as well as lone parents, find they have to give up work in order to look after their children. As they might be able to access part-time jobs, it would be welcome if the allowance could apply in those circumstances. They are currently disqualified from applying for jobseeker's benefit or allowance because they are not available for full-time work. I recognise there is more pressure on families with lone parents than on those with two parents but the problem exists for both types of family.

Last year, the Minister announced that she would not make changes to the one-parent family payment unless proper, safe, cheap and accessible child care was put in place. I accept that she has started the ball rolling in this regard. However, I am of the view that what is proposed in the legislation represents another step towards putting in place child care of the sort to which the Minister previously referred because parents will now be available to mind their children when they have finished school for the day. There is no better place for a child to be than in the safe hands of his or her parents. In a way and albeit by a different method, the Bill before the House is putting additional child care in place.

I am aware that the Minister has proposals regarding changes to family income supplement in respect of lone parents who are working. Those who lose their one-parent family payments and who are receipt of family income supplement cannot have their cases reviewed for one year. In other words, once the decision is made it obtains for 12 months. I know the Minister had proposals to introduce changes which would allow for a mid-term review in this regard. That is most welcome because I have come across many lone parents whose payments have been reduced either as a result of the income they receive for part-time work increasing or because they have lost their entitlement to those payments. The family income supplement paid to such individuals could not be adjusted to take account of these reductions and, in such circumstances, the Minister's proposals are very welcome. Perhaps she might make arrangements to bring forward those proposals as quickly as possible in order that they might be implemented.

I live in a rural area and retained firefighters are extremely important. There is no doubt about that. It is actually sad that it has taken 40 years for us to reach our current position. Successive Governments of various hues were responsible for failing to take action on this matter. We are all, therefore, to blame for the fact that this matter has not been dealt with previously. Fair play to the Minister, however, because she is prepared to take action and make changes. It is essential that firefighters should live in close proximity to their fire stations. They must be able to get to those stations quickly in order that all the necessary personnel can travel to the scene of an emergency as fast as possible. The distance which firefighters must travel to their stations definitely has a bearing in this regard.

On the penalty rates, will the Minister outline whether there are exemptions for people who are the subject of activation measures? If a person is sick and cannot attend for activation, then he or she would obviously be on a different payment. Are there any reasons that people do not make themselves available for activation?

In the context of fraud, I visited my local office in the company of the Minister a couple of weeks ago and we were informed in detail about the photographic identification required of clients. What technology makes possible is absolutely fantastic. For example, the technology they are using now allows local offices to make exact photographic representations of individual clients' faces and this means it is not possible for others to present in their place. Perhaps last year or the year before someone suggested that clients' fingerprints should be taken and people were up in arms about this. However, fingerprinting is becoming a way of life and my husband and his work colleagues are obliged to present at fingerprint readers on their way into work each day. We will watch this space in order to see what happens.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has one minute remaining.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Cathaoirleach must be joking. He is always doing this to me.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Time flies when one is going well.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had better keep talking. The Minister indicated that the Department will be extending the photographic identification process to those on other social welfare payments. How extensive will its efforts be in this regard? Will those on invalidity pensions or-----

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The process will be extended to everybody.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a difficulty with that because many pensioners and those who are on invalidity pension may not be able to attend in order to have their photographs taken. A large number of these individuals are quite elderly and incapacitated and they may not be able to present themselves to be photographs. I am concerned that their payments will be stopped. I am aware of a lone parent whose payment was stopped. She received a letter requesting that she attend to be photographed but she rang the Department and indicated that she could not be present at the time stipulated because she was working. The message did not get through the system and her payment was stopped. Having the payment restored - this eventually happened - proved messy. I am concerned that pensioners' payments might be stopped if they do not attend to be photographed. Perhaps the Minister might monitor how matters proceed in this regard.

It is harsh that where an overpayment is the fault of the Department, the recipient is required to pay back the full amount. I am of the view that there should be room for negotiation in this regard. Fraud of this nature is not intentional and is the fault of the Department.

There is much more I wish to say but I will have to wait until Committee Stage. The Cathaoirleach is smiling at me as if to say "Sit down, Senator Moloney, and let someone else speak". We can discuss the matters to which I refer in greater detail on Committee Stage.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Burton, and I welcome the Bill. I regard the Minister as a reforming Minister who appreciates that a Department that spends €20 billion per annum, or 40% of Government expenditure, must regularly review and refine the various schemes designed to assist so many of our citizens.

Many people who today rely on social welfare never expected or intended to be in that position, and we must redouble our efforts to help get those people back to work and contributing to the economy. There must be closer linkage between the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to ensure that impediments to taking up employment opportunities are minimised. There is a debate on the issue of how we can ensure that happens.

There are some positive elements in the Bill. I welcome the progressive scheme to help lone parents return to work. We all agree that paid work is the best way out of poverty and social exclusion but it is crucial that lone parents are helped in a compassionate and supportive way to return to work in a way that best suits their family circumstances.

All of us want the Minister to take a hard line on social welfare fraud because fraudsters are taking money that is needed to support the most vulnerable in our society. I hope the improved security measures - photographs and electronic signature - is sufficient given the sophistication of today's criminals. I want a security system that is foolproof. We have the technology and the expertise to put in place a system that will crack down on this once and for all. We do not want to hear any more stories of multiple PPS numbers, multiple claims or foreigners flying in monthly to collect large sums of money, although it is possible some of those stories are exaggerated. We must get to grips with that particular problem.

In trying to crack down on that type of crime, would the Minister consider the possibility of an amnesty? In other words, if people came clean regarding their social welfare fraud could they possibly evade having a more severe penalty imposed on them? The Minister might consider that suggestion.

I welcome the Minister's decision to improve pensions governance and oversight. In recent years we all saw the carnage in private pensions schemes that were under-funded by employers and that left employees without a pension or with only a fraction of the pensions they expected on retirement. We need a wider debate on the pensions industry and pension reform, as well as a legislative response to the European Court of Justice decision in the Waterford Crystal case.

One section of society that has been very badly treated by the State in recent years is the people who are self-employed. Those are the people who created many jobs during the good times. While their employees were entitled to redundancy payments and unemployment benefit, they were entitled to nothing. That cannot be fair or equitable, and I ask the Minister to address that injustice. If we want people to be risk takers and create badly needed jobs, there must be support available if those enterprises fail.

I welcome the section that resolves the issue for the retained firefighters. It was an issue on which I campaigned because coming from a rural area I know the importance of having our retained firefighters available in emergencies. They should not be discriminated against, and I very much welcome that the Minister has addressed that issue.

I ask the Minister to examine and support Senator Healy Eames in respect of the registration of the deaths of people who died outside the country. The relatives of those people need closure. It should be a simple process to address the issue, and I genuinely believe it is within the Minister's gift to address it for once and for all.

There is a real need for efficiencies in this area. I am keen that we would pay people in a way that is safe and that we will move to a cashless system of payment but I have a concern that many of our rural post offices will suffer as a result of that. I am concerned also about people getting moneys paid into their bank accounts. I discovered recently, and business people are bringing it to my attention, that if one goes into a bank in any town, including my town, on a Saturday afternoon the chances are one will be unable to get money out of the ATM machine because the banks are not putting the facilities in place to top up those machines over the weekend. That is affecting local businesses-----

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

And the payment of services.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Absolutely. I know the banks want everybody to opt for payment by card, thereby eliminating the need for cash, but the customer is paying dearly for that. Business is suffering as a result of the banks failing to give a service to the customers that the customers deserve. As a Government we need to examine that.

The Minister is a member of a Government that was given a mandate to fix a badly broken economy. The people want her to succeed and return our country to prosperity. They expect fairness, and I believe the Minister is trying hard to spend her budget in a way that targets the least well-off in our society. She has the support of the people, and I wish her continued success in the reforms she is attempting to make.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are here a year after the Minister introduced changes to the one-parent family payment. There is some element of a climb-down in this Bill, which shows that people who object to this Government are not always wrong and that sometimes they can be right and have a point.

In so far as the Minister's proposals go, I welcome them. I welcome changes regarding the retained firemen. I regret there is nothing in the Bill relating to mortgage interest supplement, which was a particularly cruel cut introduced this time last year when people were put in the hands of the bank. Effectively, what has happened, and it is up to us to change it, is that people are not aware of mortgage interest supplement now. I met a couple last week who were a year on a revised payment with the bank and I told them they should apply for mortgage interest supplement, but they did not know about it. They had just been told by the community welfare officer that they were not eligible for it. People need to be aware of their rights.

I was disappointed when the Minister announced major changes to rent supplement and that, in regionalising certain counties, she did not do the same in County Meath. I am aware representations were made by some of her colleagues from County Meath on the rent allowance where rents in Dunboyne, beside the Minister's area, and in south Meath are vastly in excess of rents in other parts of the county, although it must be said that the rental market in County Meath is extremely tight and it is helping to create a massive housing crisis. The uniform rate for rent allowance in County Meath is not helping matters. I thought when the Minister changed it in Kildare, Fingal or other areas that Meath would be included but I understand it was not, which was a mistake. The Minister's colleagues told us they had been in contact with the Minister about it. I hope she would listen to them and re-examine this because there is a strong case to be made on the rents in County Meath. There are massive regional variations but, overall, they are quite high in what is a tight market.

This is the type of Bill that is published at this time every year.

It is not as controversial as last year, but at the same time we believe the changes the Minister has made do not go far enough. The tinkering around the edges with pensions will not solve our problems. The extension of PRSI contributions to individuals with an income from a trade or profession moves the game somewhat, but it does not address the real supports many people require. During the recent by-election in Meath East, I met an individual who is self-employed in a trade. He begged a welfare officer for €50, as that was all he needed to get his business back up and running, and now he has a six-figure turnover. A little help for the self-employed can help them and then help the economy. The person in question is employing people. His story was told in the Sunday Independentbefore Christmas.

People are not looking for a lot. I appreciate there are issues of cost. Perhaps a major debate is required on how we would pay for such a system. However, I urge the Minister to go further because one of the things that is holding people back from becoming self-employed or going into business is the lack of support when things go wrong. I refer to a small amount of support, not major support. I have lost count of the number of business people, self-employed people and small company directors who told me they would not under any circumstances recommend that their children go into business because while it is all right when things are going well, when things go wrong or a business fails, one is in serious trouble. That is not only a drag on those families but on the overall economy and is contributing to the social welfare bill because some people end up getting social welfare following a means test to which they perhaps did not contribute, whereas if a business person is able to stay alive with the hope that something could be provided, perhaps the situation could be turned around and he or she could get back into business, as happened with one individual whom I know. He was an inspiration to me when I spoke to him.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the House. I apologise that I was not present for the early part of the debate, but I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the Bill. My colleague, Senator Moloney, who is far more expert in this area than me, has spoken eloquently and comprehensively on it. She made the point clearly that the Bill represents another step in the Minister’s reform programme in terms of seeking to move the social protection system from being a passive one to an active one with the focus on reactivation. The Minister referred to the need for social protection to be not just a safety net but also a springboard. For far too long the safety net aspect has been emphasised and we have not placed enough emphasis on the springboard element.

Colleagues on both sides of the House have paid tribute to the Minister and I wish to add my voice to theirs. She is a genuinely reforming Minister who is putting the emphasis on the springboard aspect of social protection and on activation measures, which is important. That is to be very much welcomed by everyone. In particular at a time of high unemployment, especially high youth unemployment figures, it is important that the emphasis is on upskilling, retraining and ensuring people get a foothold back in the labour market. In the boom times we used to talk about getting a foot on the property ladder, but I always think the far more relevant and important ladder is the career ladder and allowing people to get a foothold on it, especially when they have fallen off it or have not had an opportunity to start on it. My students are in quandary now as they graduate and are looking for the first step on the ladder. That is where internships and the JobBridge programme can help people to get a start.

The main provisions contained in the Bill, some of which address the activated element of the social protection scheme, have been addressed by previous speakers. There are five areas of change, namely, changes to the jobseeker’s payment schemes, changes in liability for PRSI contributions, measures to tackle social welfare fraud, including identity authentication requirements, which everyone has welcomed, and the debt recovery aspect, including the attachment of earnings orders which, from the criminal justice side, has been quite contentious. We must consider moving towards that as a way of recovering debts more efficiently. There are also changes in the governance structure of the Pensions Board. Section 16 contains provisions for the facilitation of online access to index information from the register of births, deaths, marriages and civil partnerships. That will be very important to people tracing their ancestors and for genealogy purposes.

I wish to focus on the changes in section 10 that seek to help lone parents back to work. I am one of the many people who lobbied the Minister following the changes to the one-parent family scheme. I was very much persuaded by her own words when she introduced the changes about the history and context of the introduction of what was then the unmarried mother’s allowance. The payment was hugely progressive at the time because it brought lone mothers out of a poverty trap and enabled them to rear their children by themselves. One cannot underestimate the hugely progressive impact the introduction of the payment had, but decades on, it was timely that we would examine the issue again because, more recently, the lone parent’s allowance has not succeeded in lifting lone-parent families out of poverty. It is clear there was not enough of a springboard element to the payment. Many of us spoke to the Minister about how best to change the measures relating to the lone-parent family allowance to ensure that was the case.

The measures in section 10 are important because they will help lone parents to transition actively to the labour market and support them to get back into work. The advocacy groups to whom I spoke at the time were very keen that there would be the type of modification the Minister has introduced to ensure lone-parent families would be exempted for a transitional period from the full conditionality of the jobseeker’s allowance scheme. That is exactly what the Minister is doing with the introduction of the jobseeker’s transition payment, which is important. Jobseekers who are lone parents and who qualify for the lone-parent allowance must no longer fulfil all the other criteria in terms of genuinely being available for full-time work. They can now seek part-time work rather than full-time work if that better suits their family circumstances. They will also be able to access existing child care supports. Work is ongoing to ensure better access to child care, not just for lone parents but for all families. This is a progressive pathway back to work for lone parents and their families. It is an important reform for the Labour Party in government and I very much welcome it. As the Minister said, the change has been welcomed by many of the advocacy groups.

Colleagues referred to section 9 which relates to retained firefighters and the changes in jobseeker’s benefit and jobseeker’s allowance to allow persons working as retained firefighters to be exempted from certain conditions to access the schemes. Again, there is cross-party support for that important change in recognition of the enormous social good retained firefighters do.

Senator Moloney asked me to mention pensions, which she did not get an opportunity to speak about in detail. I said she spoke comprehensively but that was the only omission. I welcome the changes the Minister is making to occupational pension provision, which give effect to recommendations that were made. On behalf of Senator Moloney I welcome the changes, which, as she said, will strengthen the governance of pensions and will give consumers greater input into pensions policy.

I echo the words of Senator Mullins who spoke about self-employed persons and access for them to social security entitlements. Something that was raised with me on many doorsteps during the 2011 general election, and many other colleagues will also have heard the issue, is that people who employed a number of others in small and large businesses during the boom times and whose business have failed find their employees qualify for social security entitlements such as redundancy but they do not. That is a real omission and it is something we must examine and address in the future.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ar dtús, ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire. Bíonn sí anseo go minic. I commend the Minister. Her focus has been on transforming the Department as a passive provider of benefits to an organisation that is actively assisting people back to work, training and education.

In the legislation she is continuing the necessary and important structural reforms of the social welfare system. She must be applauded for her efforts to date. Reference was made to ATMs. Banks in my home town of Carlingford, which is a historic town that is attractive to tourists, regularly run out of cash. ATMs are the first port of call for tourists and more often than not there is no money in them. Something must be done to ensure visitors to Carlingford have access to cash because it is bad for business. Many people from Northern Ireland require euro currency.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing the Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

Terry Brennan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I understand that. Many speakers have referred to retained firefighters. I campaigned myself on the matter on several occasions.

Since 1972, the social welfare system essentially has subsidised the State's cost of providing a nationwide part-time fire service. However, a legislative basis was never provided to support that position. I commend the Minister on bringing in that measure. I compliment the firefighters for their patience in waiting 40 years. I thought 35 years was a long time to wait for my Narrow Water bridge but there were others waiting longer for something they wanted. Well done to them for their patience. I want to acknowledge the service given by those men and women and the sacrifices they made. Many of them made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duties in the past 40 years.

The grave issue of fraud must be tackled with gusto. Fraud undermines confidence in the entire system and is unfair to genuine claimants and taxpayers alike.

The Minister is proposing to provide for the introduction of a condition for existing recipients of social welfare payments, which has been mentioned by other speakers. The person must satisfy the Department of his or her identity. How does the Minister propose to implement that, and how long will it take to complete that proposal? Will she put in place a time limit for current recipients to fulfil their obligations? What difficulties, if any, does the Minister envisage in implementing this scheme?

The Minister might comment on welfare tourism. Does it continue? Is it growing or has it decreased? What should we do to ensure it is obliterated forever more.

I congratulate and commend the Minister on her efforts and the changes she has introduced in her Ministry to date. I congratulate all her officials also. The Minister's heart and soul are in these changes, and I welcome what she is doing.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this legislation on Second Stage. There are major anomalies in the entire social welfare budget, particularly with regard to self-employed people. The legislation proposes changes that will not address any of the difficulties being faced by people in self-employment.

In the past ten years this country has seen an exodus of people who were formerly employed in manufacturing jobs and in the construction sector in particular. Many of those people were self-employed and, as a result of the social welfare rules that govern the area of PRSI contributions and the class of contribution paid by self-employed persons, they find themselves unable to draw down a social welfare payment. That is wrong and this Bill does nothing to address that particular query.

That is an issue faced by small fishermen, regardless of whether they own the vessel, and even men who have small fishing vessels with a crew. For Revenue reasons the crew members are defined as being self-employed. I will give the Minister an example. Even though those persons can be sacked by the owner or the skipper of the vessel, for social welfare and Revenue purposes they are deemed to be self-employed. When they are sacked they have no entitlement whatsoever to a social welfare payment. That is wrong.

That is only one example of persons who are self-employed. Many of the people who were self-employed were working for themselves and employing people during the economic boom. Now, due to the lack of employment and the anomalies in the social welfare system, they are being forced to leave the country. They have no alternative because they have no source of income, and this Bill does nothing to address that. That is one of the reasons we are opposing this legislation.

As politicians we are moving from a culture where a substantial part of our work was helping people obtain Government assistance by way of grant aid or whatever. That is fine because it is part of our role, but I find now that an increasing number of hours of my work are spent dealing with social welfare queries. The reason for that is simple. The application process is becoming unacceptably burdensome on individuals making applications. Genuine applications are being refused. The appeals mechanism is a disgrace. It is unacceptable, and it is happening on this Government's watch.

I have been dealing with a man who is suicidal. He cannot walk or work, yet the Minister's Department is telling him he can do both. Despite all the medical evidence having been sent in by consultants and doctors, it is not being accepted by the Minister's Department. Is it the case that the officials in the Minister's Department are being told to approve only a select number of applications or is it a type of game where one out of every 20 is picked? That seems to be what is happening because the medical evidence is not being accepted for genuine applications or for appeals being made.

I am genuine in raising that issue with the Minister. It may be an issue that arose in other Administrations but it is certainly happening under the watch of this Administration. Something must be done about it because how can I deal with representations from people who are thinking of committing suicide because they have no income whatsoever? They are being asked to pay the household charge, the property tax and they have to pay house insurance and so on but they simply do not have the money. They can go to the community welfare officer, and that is the response that comes back from the Minister's Department, but they do not qualify for an entitlement because their wives may be earning up to €300 a week. In terms of the household bills in the case I mentioned, the son and daughter are in college. There are fees associated with that and the income does not meet the demand. Something has to be done.

I know the Minister has to battle in Government with other Ministers at Cabinet level, and sometimes I pity her, but pity does not solve the problem. Something must be done and if it is not done quickly, the man about whom I speak, and others, will do something drastic that none of us should have to comprehend as public representatives. I am pleading with the Minister because this Bill does not touch on that at all. Applications and appeals must be dealt with within a minimum period and all the medical evidence must be taken into consideration for social welfare payments. That should be happening but it is not happening, and it must be dealt with. It is not directly related to this legislation but it is related to the Minister's brief. I greatly appreciate the Cathaoirleach's latitude in allowing me raise the issue.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate in such detail and with such knowledge regarding the way social welfare impacts on a huge number of people in our population.

To deal with Senator Ó Domhnaill's contribution, the fundamental problem is that in the aftermath of his Government's disastrous bank guarantee over 250,000 jobs were lost in this country in three short years. Everybody, including the Senators opposite, deeply regrets that but what we have to do is get people back to work because this year the estimated spend is €20.3 billion. That is not a small amount of money, as has been said.

It represents approximately 38% of total Government spending.

I make the point with regard to social welfare that the staff and deciding officers in law make their decisions. I have no legal power and would not wish to exercise any power to direct staff to make decisions. It is unfair to imply that staff are getting some kind of direction from somewhere to refuse decisions. The positive point about social welfare is that it is based on law. Members will be aware that one problem with Health Service Executive schemes, for instance, is that by and large they simply are based on administration and one therefore has huge complaints about the unfairness with which some people are treated compared with others. When one bases a scheme in law, part of the problem obviously may be the application of the law is therefore more rigid, but it is based on law with deciding officers having the power in law to make decisions. There are no instructions to deciding officers and were proof required on the allegations the Senator is making, since areas like disability, for instance, have transferred over to the Department of Social Protection, the figures show there have been huge increases in the number of people qualifying.

As for this Bill, I am glad a number of Members referred to and welcomed the developments regarding both the part-time firefighters and the retained fire service. As Senator Brennan observed, it is true the Department is subsidising the retained fire service throughout the country. One issue about which one must think in respect of social welfare is that employment patterns are changing in that many employers increasingly only offer minimum hours contracts. This certainly is true in particular of some of the larger retail centres and applies in particular to young people and women. The consequence is people may be getting two to three days of work and are claiming two to three days of social welfare benefits. This is one way in which the social welfare system is subsidising a great deal of employment activity, for which it often does not get very much recognition. However, it constitutes a direct subsidy to many employers, particularly some of the very large supermarket chains.

I also take the point raised by Senators Mullins and Brennan about ATMs running dry in towns such as Ballinasloe and Carlingford. The Government pay the banks handsome fees to process electronic business for social welfare clients or customers and it is important they make cash services available. Almost everyone knows that for someone who is on a small income, and someone whose income is based exclusively on social welfare payments is on a small income, it is much better to be able to manage that income on a cash basis rather than with any kind of credit or debit card. I certainly will make this point to the banks because, as Members are aware, the country has given its all for the banks of this country and requires some services from them in return for everything that all the ordinary citizens have done for them.

The subject of consultants' PRSI was mentioned by a number of Members and the issue is that, as Senator Moloney noted, there was a ceiling on the charge to PRSI on earnings. Consequently, a person on a consultant contract of more than €200,000 would have reached that ceiling. However, on foot of the abolition of the ceiling from PRSI, for the reason of a loophole in the law they were not charged to PRSI on their other income. In the case of some consultants with big private practices as well as a public practice, the amounts involved from their private income will produce a small amount for the social welfare system. Certainly, the VHI statistics indicate that more than 300 consultants earn at least €200,000 a year from private earnings, more in the case of quite a number of them.

There is a really important issue regarding the changes to the rules mentioned by a number of Members about providing greater sanctions for those who refuse to co-operate with regard to education, training and employment training opportunities. By and large in Ireland, people support the unwritten social contract that a good, strong system of social protection is needed and that one contributes and pays while one is working. However, taxpayers who contribute by paying PAYE and PRSI, many of whom are on small wages, get a bit fed up when they see people they know personally in the social welfare system who are not honouring their side of the social contract, which is to make themselves work-ready and available for work in the context of the many supports the Department has made available to them. Senator Moloney spoke of the recent conversion of the offices in Killarney to the new Intreo system. It really is positive and in a point referenced by many Senators, I am convinced it will assist in the fight against fraud.

The new arrangements with regard to biometric photographs and electronic signatures mean we will have rolled out this system. Thus far, we have rolled out approximately 250,000 personal services cards to all new entrants into the social welfare system. Anyone coming into Ireland, anyone who signs on as a new jobseeker and anyone who registers for a PPS number is going to the new system, and already it is bearing fruit. For instance, if one's photograph comes up and one has been signing on in Carrick-on-Shannon but it appears as though one also has been appearing in the office in Letterkenny, the software will highlight this and will signal that this appears to be the same person. I do not suggest that Senators Ó Domhnaill and Mooney look like each other in any way-----

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are very honest people in the north west.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was simply thinking aloud as I look at the Senators. However, intelligent software is being used. A number of Members asked the reason fingerprinting or iris recognition technology were not used, as the latter also is available and is used in many places of employment. I found a system that had been commissioned and tendered for when I came into the Department but which had not been commenced. The Department had been talking about doing this stuff for at least ten years and I felt it was very important that it be done now. Incidentally, the card has a lot of capacity to store a huge amount of data, including, for instance, people's interaction with the health services, should those services decide to utilise it down the road, as well as information with regard to education services. There is a huge amount of data capacity on the cards and while it can be upgraded in respect of stronger identification, let us get the system first.

As for pensioners and people in receipt of invalidity benefit, the only complaint I have heard from pensioners concerns a proposal to use the biometric system that is in use for passports, as this would particularly facilitate pensioners. However, a couple of pensioners have told me they would prefer fresh photographs and an opportunity to get their hair done because they did not think their current passport photograph does them justice. I think we all have had moments like that. While I will bear in mind people's comments, we are trying to facilitate people through the use of passports because, as Members are aware, there is not a great problem of fraud in respect of people who are retired or are in receipt of very long-term payments. All the studies the Department has undertaken in this regard have shown this to be the case.

Last year, Senators supported me strongly with regard to the checks at the airport and to give social welfare officers the power to stop people. The policy is working very well and the social welfare inspectors at the airports have undertaken a significant amount of work in questioning people, with the result that a number of those cases already have come before the courts. Some involve people from abroad who lived in Ireland and then return even though they have gone back to live abroad. Others have involved Irish people who have gone abroad to work but who continue to return to claim.

All such fraud undermines the position of claimants, particularly the retired who rely on social welfare in most cases for their principal income.

On pensions, we are, as I stated, looking at the issues arising. There is a great deal of work ongoing in the Department. I would hope to come back at a later stage on it. We are also getting the funding proposals, which have to be in by 30 June. That will give us much more information.

On Sinn Féin's position on the transition arrangements for lone parents, I repeat that it is really important we change to an active system which enables lone parents to go back to education as soon as possible. The most successful lone parents tend to be those who have a great deal of family or community support in order to stay in education or return to education and training as soon as possible. Many older lone parents for whom that period is over frequently express regret to me that they did not go back earlier in order to build for themselves the possibility of a better paid job with a better status. Sinn Féin takes a different view, but I am telling Senator Ó Clochartaigh what many women express to me and, I am sure, to some of the women Senators here.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are well able to articulate our own view. I thank the Minister.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think Sinn Féin is wrong. What proves it, if Senator Ó Clochartaigh cares to check, is that the system to which we are moving is similar to the one in the North and in the UK and I have not heard a single Sinn Féin representative complain that the ageing-out point is seven in the North of Ireland.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are two different parties.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps, privately, Sinn Féin has discussions in which it is strongly critical of the North's system but I have not seen any of it referenced in public. One must remember that we all share a common view, including, I hope, Sinn Féin because almost every other party here and most of the Independents here share it, that we want to enable-----

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the Scandinavian child care system?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----all currently on a social welfare income during their working lives, whether as lone parents or as persons with a disability, to participate in employment to the maximum extent possible and appropriate so that they have a level of income-earning capacity which is in excess of minimum social welfare payments. That makes sense for everybody and it is a win-win for the individuals and for society.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister needs to deal with child care services.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I stated, perhaps Sinn Féin discusses, compares and contrasts-----

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The child care services in the North.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the position in the North in private.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister promised Scandinavian child care services.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister without interruption. I ask the Minister to conclude.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On child care, I am pleased to have given a significant amount of my tight budget to create the first system of after-school child care. Last year, Senator Ó Clochartaigh and others stated that the community employment sector would close down. Since the Department has taken over community employment schemes we have increased it, for instance, with Tús, of which Senators Mooney and Ó Domhnaill will be familiar. It has been an opportunity that has been jumped at by significant numbers of those around the country to participate in assisting their local community and getting them closer to the labour market. We have taken on significant numbers on Tús supervisory contracts from the ranks of those who were formerly unemployed. Rather than the closedown that Sinn Féin was tending to predict last year, we have expanded the number of opportunities and I made provision for an extra 10,000 places in the budget.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister would need more spaces. She is waffling.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the issues raised about the Árd Clárathóir, the Registrar, where persons are anxious to have arrangements on the registration of deaths abroad, the officials are working on legislation in that respect. Like much legislation, it is technically complex, but we are making quite an amount of progress on that. I hope to bring proposals in that regard to the Dáil and to this House before long.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about actors?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On actors, I have not heard about that particular issue previously. The great benefit of the social welfare system is that arrangements are set in law. Obviously, we will look at any such proposals, subject to affordability, in the context of future legislation.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What of an amnesty for some who might be defrauding the system?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mullins can put that question to the Minister on Committee Stage.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to sit again?

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 18 June 2013.