Thomas Pringle (Donegal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 14, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:“27. (1) The Minister shall review the impact of the eligibility criteria on seasonal and parttime workers in terms of their access to Jobseekers Benefit with the intention to consider the possible increase in the payment from 6 to 9 months and from 9 to 12 months and shall bring forward a report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on same within 3 months of this Bill being enacted.

(2) The Minister shall review the impact of the €12.70 rate per day for subsidiary employment earnings on seasonal and part-time workers and consider the potential for increasing the payment and shall bring forward a report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on same within 3 months of this Bill being enacted.”.

My two amendments ask for two reports to be brought forward on the passing of the legislation. They relate to the impact social welfare changes over the past number of years have had on seasonal and part-time workers. In the debate on Committee Stage the Minister said this seems to have been raised in Donegal in particular in recent times and I have been raising it for a couple of years. It is positive that the Department is at least aware that it is being raised in Donegal.

The reductions in the length of time somebody can be in receipt of jobseeker's benefit, from 12 to nine months and from nine to six months, have had a disproportionate impact on seasonal workers. It is particularly acute in the context of the fishing industry because the length of the season has declined significantly over recent years, leading to the situation where workers can get jobseeker's benefit during the lay-off period but, because of the new time limits, they transition to jobseeker's allowance prior to the commencement of the season when they restart work. This means a substantial drop in income for many of them and I know of one couple both of whom work in the fishing industry and who suffered a reduction in income of some €120 per week between the two of them. This is a huge reduction, particularly given that the fishing industry has depended on the mix of social welfare, jobseeker's benefit and the working year, so that people can be available to work in the factories at short notice when work becomes available. The response of the Department will be that a person can move on to jobseeker's allowance but the means test assessment of earned income from six or eight months beforehand reduces the payment he or she gets. This is fine for the Department because it saves it money but it affects the ability of people to stay in the area and be available for work when work comes back again. It has got to the perverse stage that even IBEC is complaining about it because the effect on the availability of workers is making things more difficult for employers.

It is important, therefore, that we look at the implications of reinstating the original periods applicable to jobseeker's benefit. In response to parliamentary questions I have submitted in the past, the Department estimated that it would cost approximately €39 million nationally to reinstate them which, in the overall scheme of the budget of the Department of Social Protection, is not significant at 0.03% of its entire budget. It would make a significant difference, however, to the day-to-day lives of people who cannot get alternative work because of the lack of alternative available employment where they live.

The second part relates to the rates for subsidiary employment, where people can access their jobseeker's benefit on the basis of having subsidiary employment of less than €12.70 per day or €4,500 per year. This had a stark effect last year in south west Donegal where the Department, for some unexplained reason, decided that part-time farmers were self-employed and were not available for work so refused them jobseeker's benefit. The practice for many years was to work during the fishing season and sign on for jobseeker's benefit during the off period, while continuing to farm for 12 months of the year. Subsidiary employment is employment one can do while doing one's main employment and this is what farmers had been doing until the Department decided to assess them as self-employed. I had 21 cases, probably only a small proportion of the total, of which 18 were successful on appeal and where the social welfare office accepted they were not self-employed and so could have jobseeker's benefit.

The €12.70 per day rate has not been increased since 2007 but it should be looked at again with a view to increasing it. Hopefully, the report such as I am proposing would address this. In responses to my parliamentary questions the Department was not able to put a cost on the effect of increasing the rate, which makes an even greater case for carrying out a study on its impact.

I urge the Minister to take on board my two amendments. The Department could very easily prepare the reports as all the information should be readily available. It is important that these matters are discussed in the social welfare committee so that they can feed into the budgetary arrangements for next year.

See this speech in context