Seanad debates

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Social Welfare Bill 2011: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages

 

3:00 pm

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

As Senator Norris stated, we are grateful to the Leader and the Minister for extending the debate. I am glad that the latter is remaining in the Chamber because we can only benefit from having the line Minister present for debates of this nature.

I thank Senator Moloney for correcting me earlier. I was so absorbed in trying to marshal arguments in respect of various sections that I got ahead of myself. I have already made a number of points in respect of section 7 with regard to the cut to one-parent family payment. Will the Minister, as was the case with previous sections, provide the justification for this cut? There is a concern that what is proposed in this regard could have a disproportionate impact on mothers, particularly as 98% of those who receive the one-parent family payment are women. One-parent families are at greater risk of poverty than most other families. Those in one-parent families are four and a half times more likely to live in poverty.

I am sure the Minister would agree that we must continue to provide sufficient support to the vulnerable mothers to whom I refer. The changes in the income criteria, the penalisation of recipients who make the effort to upskill and join community employment, CE, schemes and the dramatic halving of the eligibility age will hit these mothers rather hard. I would again welcome an explanation from the Minister in respect of this matter, particularly in the context of the restrictions relating to CE schemes. The entire thrust of the Bill — which the Minister outlined earlier in this debate and on Second Stage — and that of the wider programme for Government relate to job creation. The current Administration has stated that it is concerned with encouraging people to enter or re-enter the workforce rather than the opposite. It appears that the proposals contained in this section were framed in the context of making savings of €20 million next year and of approximately €112 million overall. Will the Minister indicate whether she is of the view that saving money on the one hand will give rise to financial difficulties on the other, particularly given that making such savings inhibits certain individuals from increasing their incomes through upskilling?

There is a matter I had intended to discuss in the context of section 15 but given that the Minister touched upon it briefly, I will raise it now. I refer to the responsibility of employers in this area. In general, initiatives aimed at providing supports to people always seem to come from the Government side. What is the role of employers in this regard? We can discuss employers' responsibilities or the lack thereof when we reach section 15. Radical changes are taking place in the economic landscape — not just in Ireland but across Europe — in the context of conditions of employment, job opportunities, re-education and upskilling. Dealing with all of these matters and developing initiatives in respect of them is too big a burden for the Government to bear alone. The State cannot be expected to provide all the necessary employment and upskilling opportunities. Successful employers, particularly many of the multinationals, have a role to play in this area. There is an overriding concern that what is proposed in section 7 is going to restrict, inhibit or, at best, discourage those in one-parent families from accessing real job opportunities or upskilling themselves in order to be in a position to avail of those opportunities.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.