Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I dtús báire, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil libh as an méid atá ráite agaibh. I asked that this issue be raised and examined to ascertain how the issue of the hidden unemployed can be addressed. In many ways that is what it is, namely, some people who may qualify for qualified adults allowance and others who do not exist in the system for one reason or another, many of whom formerly were self-employed and do not qualify for jobseeker's allowance. Such people may have built up savings and therefore, if means tested for supplementary welfare allowance, do not even get this until their means are reduced. My interest in this issue arose initially because a man from Cork wrote to me - interestingly, it was a man. While I had come across a number of cases over the years, all I could tell people was they had fallen into a crack and needed to sign on in their own right. That was the advice I had but in this instance, the man set out in considerable detail, over approximately ten pages, the consequences for him of being unemployed and not being able to access what he hoped would be some form of retraining or re-education away from the work he previously had undertaken. His point was that most schemes within the system require one to be in receipt of a social welfare payment, not to have built up credits or to have paid PRSI or anything else. I sought to bring this issue before the joint committee to try to tease out whether mechanisms exist that can be put in place. While members understand that funding is tight, the question is how can one address cases in which people seek not funds but access to a course, from which they then can go on to be in full-time employment again.

In the case to which I referred, the man had been self-employed formerly and his point was that he was excluded from the supports. Although he had paid class A PRSI for many years, on becoming unemployed he found himself excluded. He observed that although the advisory group on tax and social welfare has acknowledged this education and training deficit, the issue of the exclusion of such people has not been addressed. In another case, a man wrote to me last week stating that he lived with his girlfriend, who is unemployed, and that she was refused jobseeker's allowance on the basis of his means. However, he is not in the position to avail of her tax credits or allowances. This issue has been around for quite some time and ties in with this matter, in that she is being punished and there is no benefit. The idea of individualisation arises repeatedly and perhaps it must be examined.

I have another question with which the departmental officials may be able to help me. One problem is that if one decides to sign on in one's own right, one then must start from scratch. There is no recognition that one had qualified for a qualified adults allowance, whether for six months, six years or 36 years. Consequently, if one signs up in one's own right, the eligibility activation criteria, be they for six months, nine months or one year, all start from scratch. This can be a deterrent and there are cases of women who may be in abusive relationships, who desire to get out of them and who wish to have the requisite training to revert back to the work they had. However, because they do not have this, it may hold them in that abusive situation for longer. Obviously, were they to leave the home, they could qualify for a payment but one is starting from scratch. That is the key and one of the initial issues to be examined specifically could be the qualified adult allowance and a recognition that someone in receipt of that allowance is in receipt of a payment. If the State is recognising them, it should recognise they exist and this is a question for the Department.

Ms Alice-Mary Higgins made mention of Dr. Mary Murphy's proposals and Dr. Murphy might provide detail regarding the aforementioned administrative individualisation. Finally, Ms Higgins mentioned the spousal swap option had been ended but this was contradicted by Mr. McKeon.