Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I wish the Minister well in her new role. It is a huge undertaking and I wish her the best. While people have commented on rural affairs being in with the rest of the Department but I have no doubt that a good Monaghan woman will see to it that rural affairs does not take second place.

As far as the legislation is concerned, I am pleased that the PUP will be put on a statutory footing. It will be a social insurance benefit within the social welfare code. However, by putting it on a statutory footing, it will come under the remit of European legislation on the co-ordination of social security. The most recent iteration of this legislation was put in place in 2004 and all exportable benefits are covered by it. It does not change the level of benefits as that is up to member states, but this Bill puts rules in place to govern what happens those payments when people exercise their freedom of movement. That is one of the four freedoms under the EU. We have a right to travel from one member state to another and, in this context, I refer to article 64 of EU Regulation No. 883/2004, which refers to unemployed persons going to another member state. There is quite a bit in it but I will refer to the pertinent elements. They concern an unemployed person who satisfies the conditions of the legislation in the competent member state, that is, Ireland, for entitlement to benefits and who goes to another member state. It states that people going to another member state "shall be entitled to benefits for three months". They have to register the fact that they are looking for work within seven days but there is a seven-day period during which a person travelling from one member state to another who is on an unemployment benefit cannot have that benefit terminated. They cannot lose their benefits. I understand that the Department has to protect its finances but it does not, under EU legislation, have the power to terminate an unemployment payment when a person leaves their own country to travel. At that point in time, no member state has the power to do that.

Those who travel have obligations when they travel but, equally, they have rights and it is up to the member state to make sure those rights are in place. If, for example, somebody from France living and working here became unemployed, claimed the PUP and had to go back to France for a family occasion such as a funeral, wedding or whatever it might be, for three or four days and returned, would their payment be stopped? Something tells me that, under European legislation, that could not happen. That needs to be examined. It is not directly related to the legislation today but it is an important part of the public discourse on this issue right now.

If someone is on a pension, he or she can travel to another member state for a week or a month and still receive his or her pension. That is fine and that is part of the legislation. However, if one is on the PUP, one cannot leave the country at all and retain one's payment. This payment is given to those who, through no fault of their own, lost their jobs because of measures taken by Government to close businesses, yet these people cannot leave the country for any purpose. This is discriminatory and it penalises people who already find themselves in a vulnerable position. I am not talking about a free-for-all, and the State has an obligation to ensure we all abide by the rules and there is no unfairness, but why are we singling people on the PUP out? I know many of those people. They ask me what they have done to deserve this kind of treatment. Very few people on the PUP will go abroad on holidays unless they had booked and paid for those holidays with their after-tax income before the lockdown. If a person goes abroad for a family reason, for example, why are they penalised? I do not suggest we have no rules or guidelines but if somebody leaves the country, that in itself should not be a reason to stop the payment.

Many of my colleagues have spoken about those who work in the arts and creative industries, including the music industry. This sector is suffering hugely. They are not unemployed, as such, but they have no possibility to work. They did not lose their jobs. Their jobs were closed down by the State and we all recognise this had to happen. An issue for many in the music industry is that many are self-employed and, as of now, it seems to me - and the Minister can correct me if I am wrong - that only 2018 accounts are taken into consideration when assessing the rate of PUP. That means some people are arbitrarily excluded or are in receipt of lower payments than they should be. If someone started a business in 2018, their income was considerably lower than what it was in 2019 or the beginning of 2020. The same applies to people who changed businesses, and I have come across at least three people in that position. They were in another business or they were employed and that terminated in 2017. They started out in 2018 and now their PUP has been cut. Can a person produce accounts for 2019 and submit them to Revenue? I see the Minister nodding her head and I am delighted. That is good news for people because it takes the arbitrariness out of that decision-making. I will wait until she confirms that is the case.

Some other anomalies have been raised by my colleagues which she has heard before but she hears them because we hear them. People come to us who find themselves in these situations. Many colleagues have spoken of the over-66s, those who are self-employed, those who run pubs and those who drive coaches and minibuses. Pubs are still closed and people cannot work. Those in the coach and minibus industry rely largely on foreign tourists and while indigenous tourism is picking up and I support the call to holiday at home, very few of us will use those coaches or minibuses. It looks like it will be at least nine or 12 months before that industry begins to pick up. These people, some of whom are over 66, cannot access the PUP, even though they work and pay their taxes. At a time we are looking at increasing the retirement age, it is a very mixed message to say that if one is over 66, one cannot receive the PUP but, at the same time, look to increase the retirement age.

I support the amendment proposed by my colleague, Deputy McNamara, on the issue of seasonal workers. They have to be taken into consideration because, as we know, tourism could not survive without them.

Finally, like previous speakers, I want to express my thanks to the Department officials. Their very efficient work in processing cases needs to be recognised. When a citizen is in trouble and the matter is dealt with quickly, it makes a big difference to that person.

See this speech in context