Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Hession for his opening statement. I would like to ask a couple of questions arising from the statement and the briefing document. The initial rate of the Covid-19 pandemic unemployment payment was €203. It quickly moved to €350. Would it be fair to say that it was acknowledged that a worker who had lost his or her job could not live on €203, particularly in light of the fact that the highest rate of €350 just about covers half of the average worker's prior earnings?

It was announced in the recent budget that people could earn €480 per four-week period and retain the Covid-19 pandemic unemployment payment. Do the witnesses have any idea how many workers have taken advantage of that and in which sectors it has been utilised? That was referenced in the submission to this committee from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU. The cuts, or "calibrations" as I think they have been called, are due to be introduced in February. The Covid-19 pandemic unemployment payment rates will be reduced to €250 and €203. Has that been reconsidered in light of recipients' prior earnings?

According to emails I have received, the issue for Aer Lingus workers did not so much concern the payments and their administration. Employees were being actively blocked from getting their forms signed by their employer. I raised this with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Heather Humphreys, and she acknowledged that the Department had spoken to Aer Lingus on several occasions. That kind of carry-on sets a very dangerous precedent. Any future engagement with Aer Lingus must include how these things are resolved with employees. All TDs received horrific emails from Aer Lingus employees who were in really difficult situations. We do not want to see that happening again.

The briefing document makes several references to the fact that those currently on the €203 payment, who had prior earnings of €200 or less, are better off than when they were at work. I have heard that said a lot and I do not think it is a good thing. It points to much bigger issues of working poverty and the prevalence of low pay. I do not like that kind of language and I have heard it quite a bit. Since the legislation came in one of the qualifying conditions has been that a claimant must be genuinely seeking work. How is that monitored? Have referrals been made to job activation schemes? Can the witnesses give us a little bit more information on what is actually required for a claimant to show that he or she is genuinely seeking work? Are there sanctions or penalties if that requirement is not met, or are such measures being considered for the future?

Travel outside the State is also referenced in the briefing document. In its submission to this committee, representatives of ICTU stated that they had sought clarification on the criteria used to identify which flights were to be checked by departmental officials. People were really shocked by that operation when it was reported in the news. I would like more information on who decided on that operation and how it worked. I would also like an answer to ICTU's question.

I have a further question about how claimants apply for the Covid-19 pandemic unemployment payment. What was the rationale for removing the form from the website and asking claimants to send an email requesting it? I welcome the efforts to pay arrears before the end of the year. Do the witnesses have any idea of how many recipients will be due arrears? Can they confirm that they will be paid before the end of the year? I would like to clarify that to receive the Christmas bonus, a claimant does not need to be on the Covid-19 pandemic unemployment payment the week it is paid, once he or she has been previously been on it for four months, continuously or otherwise. I think the bonus is issued on the week of 7 December. Does a claimant need to be on the payment on that week to receive the Christmas bonus?

There has been a lot of mention of the social insurance fund. The Parliamentary Budget Office gave us a great briefing on these matters. How concerned should we be about the social insurance fund? Is the Department looking at any ways to fix what will obviously be a big issue for the fund?