Michael Harty (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome some of the provisions in the Social Welfare Bill 2016. In particular, the almost €5 across the board increase in social welfare payments is a positive move given the reductions over many years in those payments. The increase in these payments is indicative of an improved economy. I welcome the extension of eligibility to invalidity pension, treatment benefits and paternity benefits to persons who are self-employed paying class S PRSI. In regard to farming, I welcome the partial disregard of GLAS income in the context of means testing for the purpose of social assistance payments and farm assist payments.

I would like to put a proposal to the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath, to which I hope consideration will be given. There are people who would like to return to work and retain their jobseeker's allowance or other forms of social welfare payments. This is particularly relevant to people who want to work as carers in their communities. Currently, a person who works for an hour or two per day as a carer loses a full day's jobseeker's benefit or other social welfare payment in respect of that work. I am asking that consideration be given to a reduction in the daily payment rate to reflect the number of hours worked. In other words, taking a notional working week of 35 hours, a person who works for two hours per day three days per week as a carer or in any other employment would, instead of losing three days' worth of social welfare benefits, lose only six hours of their 35-hour entitlement in terms of benefit. The reduction would be proportionate to the number of hours, rather than the number of days, worked.

Many care providers are experiencing difficulty recruiting carers to work in their local communities. This curtails the services that they can provide. If the reduction was based on the number of hours, rather than the number of days, worked, it would encourage people to return to the workforce. It would also improve the mental and social standing of individuals if they were allowed to care for people in their communities . Obviously, this would also be of benefit to the care provision agencies and, additionally, it would reduce the Government's social welfare payments bill. I accept that there would be a need for a limit to be set in terms of eligibility and so on but if reductions were based on the number of hours, rather than the number of days, worked, then people who are concerned about their communities and, in particular, elderly and disabled individuals within those communities would be willing to return to work as they would not stand to lose a substantial portion of their social welfare benefits. I would ask that consideration be given to that proposal if not in the context of this Bill then in future legislation.

See this speech in context