Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions and Deputy Ó Cuív has questions as well.

First, I wish to say to the Department, as well as to echo what the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Deputy Ó Cathasaigh, has said, that using the straw man model is an effective tool in promoting engagement on an issue. Issues such as the one before the committee today are abstract until they are developed or drafted out and it has been an effective tool for the committee to be able to understand this issue. The model promotes engagement and public consultation on a complex area that will have significant implications into the future. I wish to commend the Department on its approach to this.

Second, Deputy Ó Cathasaigh raised a point on small businesses and there is huge concern out there at the moment. In the evidence Ms Harrington gave this morning, she made the point that a 0.1% increase works out at approximatively 90 cent per week for a worker on average wages. What is the typical average cost of this 0.1% increase on small and micro-businesses? What will it work out at? I acknowledge that Ms Harrington may not have that answer at hand. If she does that is great but if she does not, she might come back to the committee on this matter because the committee is hearing concerns from those on the employers' side rather than on the employees' side.

Third, Ms Harrington stated that heads 5 to 15 cover the key conditions of entitlement on the requirement to be fully employed. To clarify, what is the position then for someone who has the opportunity to gain part-time employment and to work one or two days per week? Does that person, similar to the current situation, get a pro ratapayment based on the number of days they work or is it an all-or-nothing scenario? Can Ms Harrington clarify that? Also, the Department is moving away from the condition that people must have a full two-year record of employment prior to becoming unemployed and I think that is a positive development, given the way in which employment has changed and is changing in recent years. However, Ms Harrington talked about employees having to demonstrate a stronger, more recent attachment to the workforce. What type of test is envisaged in that regard?

My final question is on the tapering of the scheme. Ms Harrington may have to stay with me for a minute while I explain. While I welcome the fact that the Department listened to the concerns the committee raised regarding this, the tapering in this scheme has a hidden clawback in it and committee members are concerned in this regard. As it is set out, people will receive 60% of their gross earnings, subject to a maximum of €450 for the first three months. That means that anyone earning up to €750 will get 60% of their earnings for the first three months. However, as it tapers off, people will get 55% of their earnings in the next three months, up to a maximum of €682. If someone earns more than that, they will not get 55% of their earnings because there is a cap of €375, which is actually a 17% reduction on the cap that is in place for the first three months. For someone who remains unemployed for the final three months of this scheme, they will get 50% of their original earnings, up to a maximum of €300. Of course, that means they will only get a full 50% if they earn €600. Therefore, for a person earning up to €750, they will get 60% of their salary in the first three months, whereas in the final three months, that figure of 50% of a salary is only for people who earn up to €600. People will lose out significantly; it is actually a 20% reduction between the second three-month period and the third three-month period. Despite the impression being given that there is a 5% reduction on the salaries every three months to the support income people will receive, it is actually a reduction of 17% and then of 20% for those in receipt of it . The way this is presented is a misrepresentation of the impact this will have on people who, sadly, have fixed commitments. Their mortgage payments will not reduce and nor will their outgoings in terms of running costs for their homes but yet there will be dramatic reductions on the base level income they will receive under this scheme. I appreciate if Ms Harrington can comment on that.