Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

We will share time, with five minutes each.

As this is our first debate in the House I wish the Minister well in her portfolio. Social protection is important given the times we are in. It is the bedrock of any society and its primary purpose at all times is to protect those who need it most. Everyone will need it at some time in their lives, yet, despite this fact, on more than one occasion we have seen an ugly side to the Government when it comes to those who rely on social welfare supports. We all remember the infamous welfare cheats cheat us all campaign, brought to us by An Tánaiste.

There are positive aspects to the Bill, such as ensuring that employees who are relying on the PUP and TWSS will have their social insurance contributions taken into account during this period. However, they have been overshadowed by the Government's targeting of those in receipt of the PUP. Not only have there been threats to stop people's payments, but they have been stopped in the case of 104 people that we know of. It is regrettable that the Government did not address this issue over the past few days, in particular over the weekend.

There is a need for clarity on what exactly is going on. The Tánaiste was very clear when he spoke on television over the weekend that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is getting information from airports. Questions about this need to be answered by the Minister. On what legal grounds are staff from her Department obtaining information from passengers in airports? Since what date have those staff been in airports? What exactly is their role? What information are they collecting? What role do the Garda play in this departmental mission?

Yesterday, we heard a gentleman tell his story on "Liveline". He was approached in the airport by two gardaí and told there was an immigration check. When he returned to Ireland, his PUP had been stopped. The Department had details of the flight he was on, including the time, date and destination. We know this is happening.

We also know that the Department's website was updated to state that no jobseeker would continue to be paid his or her payment if he or she went abroad. Does that include people who go abroad to countries listed on the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's green list? Legally, can that change be made through a publication on a Department's website rather than by legislation? There has been utter confusion from start to finish about travel and Covid-19, but one thing the Government has been crystal clear on is that only those in receipt of the PUP will be punished if they go abroad.

I am concerned about the condition under section 11 that to receive the payment, people must be seeking work. Those in receipt of the payment are not automatically jobseekers. Some are simply waiting for their workplaces to reopen. For example, some substitute teachers are in receipt of the PUP. Should they seek alternative employment? If so, where,? Should bar workers who are waiting for their pubs to reopen seek alternative employment?

Those in receipt of the PUP lost their jobs through no fault of their own and the Government should not add conditions so that those who are relying on this payment can keep it. I have tabled an amendment to remove this condition and I ask the Minister to consider it.

I also want to make reference to the limit to pensionable age in the same section. We all know that those aged 66 and over were given no support when they lost work. Some were self-employed and received nothing when their businesses failed or they had to stop working because of Covid-19. They were left stranded.

I also want to make reference to the rates payable for the self-employed. More than 15,000 self-employed people have seen their payments reduce from €350 to €203 and their base rate has been determined by tax returns from 2018. I ask the Minister to consider allowing the self-employed to make a self-declaration on their 2019 income to ensure they do not suffer unfairly because of a rate based on 2018 rather than 2019. That is causing considerable difficulties for the self-employed and their families.

See this speech in context