Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the people for their presentations, which were very clear and coherent.

For means-tested payments such as jobseeker's allowance and disability allowance there is no justification for a difference in treatment between calculating the means of a person who has been employed or a person who has been self-employed. I note the differences Mr. Dolan has pointed out - I come across them regularly in my constituency work and we will need to continue to bring them to the attention of the Government.

In the course of my constituency work I have also noticed that if somebody who had been employed goes off the jobseeker's benefit and applies for jobseeker's allowance, in most cases it is a fairly routine process and the person will be fixed up fairly quickly. However, there seems to be a mindset among some people in the Department that when formerly self-employed people present they must prove their case and that the default position is that they are not entitled to it. I have come across cases where people have had to go through several Gestapo-type interrogation sessions just because they happen to have been self-employed, which is wrong. I believe that some serious re-education on the part of some social welfare officials is necessary and desirable.

Regarding the contribution aspect, I take it that the witnesses are proposing that people could opt for a higher rate if they wanted to be included in, for example, an illness-benefit scheme, and could opt for a higher rate again if they want to be included in both an illness-benefit and jobseeker's benefit scheme. I take it that the witnesses are proposing that the rate would be calculated to make it cost-neutral for the State. Is that correct? I do not know if they have worked out the rate.

We did some research on this and we produced legislation on the matter. I believe we proposed a rate of between 3% and 4% extra to cover both on the basis of a voluntary opt-in system, for which there is plenty of precedence. However, the Minister keeps telling me that it would not work, although I am not clear why. In so far as I can deduce, the logic of her replies seems to be that at the 3% to 4% level it would not cover the cost and would not be cost neutral.

If it is possible to come up with a figure that is reasonable and people can opt to contribute extra to get into one or both of those schemes - illness benefit and jobseeker's benefit - then it is a no-brainer. What is proposed is changing the law so that people can make their own contributions and get into the system if they are willing to pay for it. However, I would like to know if the witnesses have worked out the rate.