Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015

I welcome the Bill and support its provisions generally. I will deal first with the two clarifications provided for in section 3 in respect of qualification for carer’s benefit, carer’s allowance and the carer’s respite care grant. These clarifications are necessary and should be welcomed, even though, on the face of it, it seems they might make eligibility more difficult. In reality, all of us who live in families give some level of care, at some time, to other members of our immediate or extended family. This is as it should be and most people do it gladly and with no expectation of payment. The majority do that caring work in conjunction either with work in the home or in a place of employment. Having been a carer, I am aware there is a continuum of care required, depending on the level of need. At one end of the scale would be people with a minor dependency which requires a minor level of care while, at the other end, there are people who are totally dependent on their carers. I clearly recall the debate leading up to the introduction of the carer’s allowance. It was specifically envisaged as a maintenance payment to people caring for individuals with a level of dependency such that no remunerated employment was possible for the carer. It was never intended as a compensation for people who provide the type of caring most of us do at some point and which people always did in the past.

 There is a cohort of people, however, as identified by Deputy Harrington, who fall between the two stools. These people are not so involved in caring that it takes all of their time, but nor are they free to take up employment in the way most of us are. Identifying these people and the particular disincentives to employment they face is important if we are to support those who genuinely want to return to work while, at the same time, continuing to provide some level of care. The clarification of the level of care and attention required for eligibility for the carer’s allowance as it exists now and provision for the verification of that eligibility by a medical assessor from the Department are essential to ensure the scheme remains viable, is not abused and will remain available to those who are giving full-time care and are genuinely dependent on the payment.

 Moving on to other aspects of the Bill, I particularly congratulate the Minister on the provisions in sections 4 and 6. Both of these measures give long overdue recognition to the trap that exists for people who have been out of the workforce for extended periods. The Minister has targeted these issues in the past and the various anomalies that exist. These provisions serve to change the role of the State from one of providing payments for unemployment to one of providing incentives to employment. As Deputy Harrington noted, it is very important to offer people who have been long-term unemployed the opportunity to improve their standard of living, avail of the dignity work brings and give them and their family some hope for the future. When one has been out of the workforce for years, there may be real financial barriers to returning to work, particularly where the opportunities for employment, initially at least, are in low-paid jobs. In addition, at the outset, it may be that only part-time employment can be entertained, particularly in the case of lone parents. We are gradually addressing these barriers, which traditionally have made unemployment more rewarding financially than a return to work. Deputy Naughten spoke about how the loss of a medical card, particularly for families with children, can represent such a loss that the possibility of taking up employment becomes a real challenge. Tackling those anomalies by, for instance, the introduction of free GP care for children under six, is a vital step in assisting people to return to work. Where there are several children in a family, having a medical card can be crucial.

 In addition to the financial considerations people will take into account when contemplating taking up a job, there are psychological disincentives. Being out of the workforce for a long time can mean people lack confidence or their skills, particularly technical skills, are out of date. This can rule them out of the running for jobs for which they might have been qualified in the past. An especially welcome aspect of these measures is their recognition that there are multifaceted issues for people moving from dependence to employment. The provisions seek to deal with those issues, in so far as the State can do so. Sometimes, of course, it is necessary to acknowledge that the State cannot do everything. The provision that part-time or temporary work arrangements will not preclude qualification for the jobseeker’s transitional allowance for lone parents is a crucial measure. For parents who may well have been out of the workforce for many years and may in the past have never even considered going back to work, this is a real incentive to contemplate so doing.

 The back-to-work dividend is targeted particularly at families, and rightly so because it this cohort for whom a return to work can be a particularly costly undertaking. Deputy Naughten observed that some people have turned down jobs simply because benefits, particularly their eligibility for a medical card, offer such an advantage relative to those available from low-paid work. By allowing welfare payments people receive while unemployed to remain in place for two years, these measures provide a cushion for families in that crucial period when parents are returning to work, and will apply equally to jobseeker’s benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, jobseeker’s transitional payments and one-parent family benefit. As Deputy Breen noted, however, this provision does not apply to people coming off carer’s allowance. I expect this is an oversight and I ask the Minister to review it. By any assessment of fairness, those people should be included. In addition, the Bill recognises that returning to work may require access to certain specified training, supported employment work placement schemes and so on.

 There are other disincentives to returning to work, each of which the Minister is tackling gradually. One that comes to mind because I was discussing it earlier with several colleagues is the difficulty that arises for people as they transition from a weekly welfare payment to a monthly salary. The challenges this presents can actually preclude people from taking up employment because they simply cannot survive for a month without any income. The problem is exacerbated because community welfare officers cannot use their discretion to assist people who are in employment. That is another anomaly we should examine to see whether anything can be done to address it. Certainly, the ability to help people in those circumstances should be included as one of the areas of discretion for community welfare officers. It is not an issue for everybody, but for those without back-up family support or the ability to borrow from a credit union, for instance, there would be a much better chance of their returning to employment if that facility were available. Deputy Áine Collins mentioned a case she was aware of where a person gave up a job recently because she had borrowed so much and put herself so far behind in her first month of employment. That is tragic. Jobs are not yet so plentiful that we can afford to have people falling into that type of trap. Having said that, the figures released today showing falling unemployment levels right across the country are very welcome. Now that we are beginning to see more new jobs available month on month, the measures in the Bill are timely.

 The legislation includes measures to deal with social welfare fraud. For as long as I can remember, this has been a major issue. I congratulate the Minister on her efforts to tackle it, which have led to a significant improvement in this area. We owe it to taxpayers, who fund all the benefits people receive, to do so. We also owe it to those who are in genuine need of support. If benefits are to remain available, it is imperative that it is not seen as speaking out of turn to report instances of suspected fraud.

It is absolutely essential that fraud be wiped out of the system and that the system is perceived to be absolutely clear and fair. Otherwise, taxpayers rightly will object to a system that is not perceived to be entirely fair and is not a system in which every possible effort is made to ensure there is no fraud.