Verona Murphy (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for all the work she has done over the years? I will be sorry to see her go and wish her all the best in the future.

With all the talk of Estimates, once again it is a 96-page document which we received quite late yesterday. Given that we are in the middle of a pandemic and we are not going to be able to debate it, the Regional Independent Group and myself will support it.

There are some anomalies which I want to address, however, with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. There are two significant issues that arise because of our duty as legislators. I do not like this reference to the working age. It has significantly marginalised those over 66 years of age. On the one hand, if they had an employer who signed up to the temporary wage scheme and decided to pay them, they were all of a sudden deemed to be of the working age and entitled to be paid. However, if they were depending on the Covid payment or the pandemic unemployment payment, they were no longer entitled to it because of their age.

I have had significant contact with people not just in my own constituency about this matter. It is a national issue. From the Estimates we received last night, it can be noted that less than 1% of social welfare recipients over the age of 66 receive a Christmas bonus. The number of those who should be recompensed in some way because they were working in order to supplement the pension that they received is actually lower than that previous figure.

Let us face it; not too many people are able to survive at 66 on €248 a week. That is assuming they are in receipt of it, because a large cohort of people are self-employed and for whatever reason did not have a pension or were not eligible for the State pension and they now have no income. Many are in dire straits and are moving into the poverty trap. We, as legislators, have a duty to them to keep them out of that poverty trap. I know a particular gentleman who is 68 years old and has continued to work because his marriage broke up when he was 62 and he had to borrow money to recompense his wife for the separation. He has no means with which to pay that back. This is not a mortgage; it is a loan. He has tried to set aside the payments for a period but that has not worked for him and he is now out of a job and is living on €248 a week with no means of saving to pay his loans. We have a duty of care to that gentleman. I ask the Minister to make a lump sum payment available through the supplementary welfare provision or otherwise. I ask her to undertake to do this for those over 66 who have been in employment and were excluded from the pandemic unemployment payment.

She mentioned that she expects an increase in the uptake of the back to school allowance. Due to the anomaly that has been created, while there may be an increase in those applying, there may not be an increase in the number getting it. I will tell the Minister why that is. A family with a mother and father who are both in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment of €350 a week is above the threshold for a family with three children, which is €674. If they got the allowance, they would receive €825, but because they are €26 over the threshold, they will receive nothing. On the other hand, a couple with four children receiving €700 from the pandemic unemployment payment would be eligible for €1,000, because they would be €11 under the threshold. The differential between the two families' thresholds is only €37 but one would get nothing and the other would get €1,000. I want that anomaly addressed before people start to apply because the applications generally open on 1 June. It is paramount that nobody is beset in September with the fear of not being able to afford to send their children back to school. This is meaningless when it comes to income, especially for those who think there is going to be a clawback, as Deputy Gannon noted. I would hate to think that this Government is going to give with one hand and take with the other from the most vulnerable in our society. It may well be the case that the parents of those children will not be able to get back to work if we do not get our childcare system in order. I would appreciate if that were addressed in the short time we have, particularly as applications open. Many parents, not just in Wexford but also nationally, will be very upset by being beset with this worry. I ask for that to be clarified as soon as possible.

Clarity on arrears is also essential. Many people have been onto us who applied for the Covid payment but who for whatever reason, whether they applied through the post or on the Internet, did not receive their payment in some instances until six or seven weeks into the payment's existence. Now is the time we need clarity on that. I appreciate that it cannot be addressed quickly but these people did not get recompense from the social welfare office. Not everybody has received their payment yet and are now seven weeks without money, which has put them in a significantly dire position.

We also do not have any clarity on whether the cap on redundancies will end on 31 May or if it will be continued further down the line. It is a very significant issue for both employers and employees. Where they stand, whether they can claim the redundancy and whether the employer has to pay it needs to be clarified.

I suggest that, in the unprecedented time we are in, to safeguard the jobs of those who will not be made redundant within certain sectors containing businesses that will have to make some people redundant, is significant. The Government should consider that if redundancy is an issue, it should be paid out of the insolvency fund. Otherwise, all we are going to serve to do is to put pressure on the employer unless the business in question has considerable amounts of money which I assure the Minister, in the small and medium enterprise sector, there are not many. I ask her to consider that the insolvency fund be the basis from which redundancies are paid.

See this speech in context