Mr. R?n?n Hession:

I thank the Deputy for those questions. When I was here before to discuss issues in respect of disability - I believe that discussion was with this committee - I was asked about the pay-related benefit and the straw man. At the time, I characterised it as being a bit like going to IKEA and seeing a mock-up of an apartment. If you ask people what they would like in an apartment, it is very hard to answer because there are too many variables. Sometimes the easiest thing is to show them what an apartment would look like but to allow everything to be customised. That is effectively what a straw man proposal is. You set out one version of what a pay-related jobseeker's benefit scheme would look like. Exactly as Deputy Ó Cuív said, each of these variables can be changed. Every change will have an effect, whether on cost, behaviour or coverage. The purpose of the straw man proposal is to get people's views on precisely the questions the Deputy is raising, for example, whether it is better to have a lower payment for longer or a higher payment for a shorter period, and to determine the implications of any such course of action. These are exactly the kind of views we are looking to draw out.

With regard to the Deputy's first question, which related to illness benefit, although it also applies to things like paternity benefit, just as the taps in an IKEA mock-up do not necessarily work when you turn them on because they are not fully plumbed, a later iteration would have to look at how this would connect with the wider social welfare system. However, it would not be our intention for people to fail those contribution tests as a result of availing of another scheme. We would intend to capture such people in further refinements of any proposal like this one.

On the six-month duration and the costings, we have some preliminary modelling, which is reflected in the costings. They are really just indicative. We have not simply just looked at numbers. We have also looked at behaviours around durations after six months and up to nine months. We went back to 2019 figures, that is, to pre-pandemic figures, to try to get a sense of those costings. There is a behavioural aspect. Not everyone will necessarily stay for the full duration. In fact, the experience is that, on average, most people are gone within the first three months or so.

With regard to partners, we know that 90% of people who are in receipt of jobseeker's benefit are on the personal rate. In other words, 90% are not claiming for dependants. The current system is already pay-related in the sense that there are bands, although 85% of people are in the top band so the bands are not all that meaningful. It is also based on family composition with provision for qualified adults and qualified children although 90% of people just claim for themselves. On that basis, the Deputy is right that, after six months, people would reach the end of their benefit if they were still on the payment. At that stage, they would move to the means-tested schemes. As with all means-tested schemes, if there is other income or supports in the house, those would affect their treatment under the means test.

On the issue of self-employment, again, all of this is customisable. However, I will just say that jobseeker's benefit for the self-employed is a relatively recent scheme, having been introduced in 2019. We do not have the real-time information we have in respect of jobseeker's benefit for employees. That is pay related in a banded way whereas jobseeker's benefit for the self-employed is not. You have to be fully unemployed to avail of it. We do not have real-time look-up capabilities. That was one of the issues we came across with the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP. There is a lag in reporting with regard to self-employed income whereas, in the case of pay-related benefits, we look back three months and then 12 months before that so we have a good picture of a person's income over a year, including any variations over the course of that year. We have good information for such claimants but we do not have that for self-employed claimants. Those who combine employment with self-employment represent another cohort we have yet to crack. It was especially complex to calculate such claimants' income for PUP.

As I said, the scheme design is at a level that allows us to paint a picture and get views on any design questions within it. Exactly as Deputy Ó Cuív said, these are customisable. Ultimately, the cost of the programme for Government commitment is being met by PRSI contributions rather than Exchequer funding. To some extent, it is a question of determining the right balance between benefit and contribution rate but the changes to the contribution rate that would be necessary to meet these costs are not enormous.