Michael Moynihan (Cork North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

That is correct. The Deputy will use five minutes of my time.

I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairlefor the opportunity to speak on the Social Welfare Bill 2017 and to address a number of issues. There are many people involved in the area of social welfare. Much has been made in the Bill about the benefits for self-employed people. This is particularly relevant after the 2008 crash, when many self-employed people applied for social welfare benefits but discovered that they were outside the system. They could not get social welfare and had to go through a means test. The S stamp was not of any real benefit to them. People right across the spectrum have raised concerns on this issue for a long time.

The invalidity pension that is proposed within the scope of this Bill for self-employed people has a clause which states clearly that they will be eligible only if they cease trading. If one considers the working conditions of those involved in agriculture and for small traders, there are many issues, such as workplace accidents and so on, that arise. If, for example, a farmer is injured or has a serious illness and the farm is means of obtaining a livelihood for the family, then the wife or spouse will continue to work the farm - perhaps with some outside help. The farm is down in income because the farmer has been injured and is incapacitated. How will we allow this farmer to get his or her invalidity pension if the clause states that he or she must cease trading? Perhaps the Minister could look at the clause in question before the next occasion on which the Bill comes before the House.

It will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for some businesses and self-employed persons, whether in the production of fruit and vegetables, farming or a small business in which a spouse is also working. If other family members are working in the business and the PRSI number of the person who is injured or incapacitated is used as the main number for the business, he or she will not receive an invalidity pension where he or she would otherwise qualify for the simple reason that there is this clause, unless he or she ceases to trade. I ask the Minister to have a real look at it. She should look at the terms because it will definitely undo a lot of the good that has been promised in the introduction of invalidity pension for self-employed persons.

Another issue with which I want to deal relates to community employment scheme supervisors. I understand there was a meeting last Thursday with the Department, the Labour Court and other interested parties in that regard. Community employment scheme supervisors have been employed, but the issues involved are technical. It is said they were employed by the sponsors of a scheme and they now face a situation where there is no pension for them. It was understood there would be a pension because they were paying into a scheme but there was none through FÁS as it was or SOLAS as it is now. The Minister might tell the House about the meeting that was held last Thursday and set out the thinking involved. Certainly, there have been various commitments in the past six or seven years, including in the programme for Government, that an accommodation would be reached for these supervisors.

While I am talking about community employment, one of the biggest difficulties involves people who are 62 to 64 years of age who have finished their time on schemes. This is a long-running issue and every case should be made on these schemes. There is a lot of therapeutic work which benefits both society and the participants and consideration should be given to extending participation in schemes right up to pension age. This should be considered across the board, given the enormous benefit everyone has received.

There has been a debate back and forth in the Chamber on PRSI and pension records. I thank the Minister for the reply she gave to a parliamentary question last Thursday. There was a huge difficulty, as I know from many negotiations with senior officials in the Department. Now public representatives can look for records. When people are approaching their 60s and want to look at their records to see if they will be entitled to a pension, they do not know how to interface with the Department. They do not want to set up online accounts and provide all of those details. I am glad that the Department has seen sense and that we will be able to get the records. The people concerned will also be able to obtain the records themselves; they will not just have to use the offices of public representatives. They will be able to contact the Department directly. This was about finding a way to obtain private information held by the Department for which people should look. It is very worthwhile and I appreciate it. We put a great deal of effort into trying to have the position changed.

Issues also arise in relation to branch offices. Negotiations are ongoing. No more than any other infrastructure in rural or urban Ireland, we need to maintain the branch offices, just as we need to maintain post offices. A report was issued yesterday which stated responsibility for television licence fee collection should be handed over to Revenue, which would be a detrimental step. We need to channel as much business as humanly possible to post offices. Since I entered the House, people have been talking about getting all of the business of the State into post offices. In that regard, this is a retrograde recommendation, but I digress. To return to social welfare issues, an agreement on branch offices must be put in place rapidly. I ask the Minister to outline to the House how matters in that regard are being progressed.

The rural social scheme has benefited many families in the 15 years since its introduction and the introduction of the farm assist scheme. Many farmers' spouses joined the scheme and improved their skills enormously. They learned computer skills, worked with local development companies and went on to find employment through the scheme. People in my area have benefited enormously from it. Therefore, the scheme is very worthwhile. However, there is some confusion about it and who is entitled to benefit from it. If a farmer has a low income and participating in the farm assist scheme, he and his family are entitled to benefit from the rural social scheme. If a farmer has a dependent wife or child who is in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment, the wife or child can take part in the rural social scheme. There seems to be some confusion about how the scheme is being implemented. I hope there is no attempt being made from on high to remove the scheme, given its enormous benefits. People who have been trying to join Tús or community employment schemes participate in rural social scheme programmes which give them a sense of worth and on which they work very well. I ask for a full breakdown of what happens when a herd number and a single farm or basic payment application is made within a family and someone is in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment. As I understand it, a person can join the scheme in these circumstances. I know that it is difficult to fill Tús scheme places because of the employment figures but there should be more encouragement in that regard.

I have a real issue with JobPath. According to the Department's own statistics, a lot of people who have been participating in JobPath have ended up in receipt of disability allowance or disability benefit. I do not know whether there is a trend, but the JobPath programme has certainly come to the end of its usefulness. People are not progressing in the way intended when the programme was designed. While there is a major issue with JobPath, I encourage greater participation in community employment and rural social schemes.

Many colleagues have spoken about the change in women's pension entitlements on foot of the 2012 Act. It is one of the biggest issues. In the newsletters I have sent during the years I have always encouraged people to check their records to ensure they are up to date on all parts of their work history. Women are having €35 to €50 cut from their pension payments each week because they took time out to provide a valuable service for the State by rearing families. It is predominantly an issue which affects women, but it is also a problem for some men, particularly farmers. They would have worked away from the farm in their earlier years and then became self-employed farmers in the 1970s and 1980s, right up to 1988 when PRSI contributions became compulsory for the self-employed. They are now looking at the non-availability of the contributory pension. The ten-year rule was in place heretofore. I know some people who worked in the sugar factory in Mallow in their earlier years and who then worked on their farms. By the time the calculation is made, they are out of money or debarred completely. If they had never worked in their earlier years, the averages would have been a lot better. There is an issue which must be looked at. Information was provided that it was being tackled and that an agreement was being made between the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection and the Department of Finance.

That does not seem to be the situation now. There needs to be a coherent, concerted attempt to resolve this issue, which predominantly affects women and a certain category of men. It is discrimination, pure and simple.

Social welfare has saved many families. Whether through the supplementary welfare scheme or whatever, it fills the breach in difficult cases. Social welfare workers use great discretion and have been more than good in trying to help families. However, there are situations where, for example, the top-up on the SUSI grant cannot be paid because the family receives family income supplement. I know a man who had been working and receiving family income supplement but who, when he was injured and off work and receiving illness benefit, could not get the supplement. He is now outside the limit needed to qualify for the SUSI top-up grant. There are serious anomalies that need to be resolved.

I would like a comprehensive reply on the Department's thinking about the rural social scheme. I urge the Minister to reconsider the invalidity pension for the self-employed because, while I understand that there is a strong intention in the Department to help those who are self-employed, there is a clause in the Bill which will debar the majority of those who would need it.

See this speech in context