Dáil debates

Tuesday, 28 July 2020

Social Welfare (Covid-19) (Amendment) Bill 2020: Committee and Remaining Stages

 

8:55 pm

Photo of John LahartJohn Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I have some sympathy for some of the arguments that have been made. Deputy Boyd Barrett ignores the part of the social contract that was fulfilled. He probably never thought he would see such a day when the State would fulfil this kind of social contract. The State did its bit in the face of an emergency.

However, he has raised questions on which I am confused. The Minister has said it is overwhelmingly people who are returning home, but it would be helpful if she could furnish the House with statistics. It clearly is not allowed for people to return to a foreign country while continuing to claim the PUP here. That is illegal and it is right to ensure it is policed appropriately under the law. Of the small percentage of those travellers who were Irish, if they were travelling to one of the 13 or 15 countries on the green list, do they lose the payment? A certain degree of confusion arises in that area and clarity is needed.

There is also an assumption, which I think it is incorrect, that only poor people are on the PUP. The employment losses were widespread and there is a stereotype about those in receipt of it. Some of them could be married. The partner of a millionaire could be on the PUP because he or she lost his or her job. They could have booked their holidays last September or October. What if someone on the PUP is holidaying at home? For someone on this allowance, what is the difference between holidaying at home and holidaying in one of the green-list countries? It is a genuine question. I am confused about that.

Some of the other Deputies did not refer to some of the profound changes the Minister is introducing that will allow the Department to attribute paid PRSI contributions to employees who receive these payments. That is a very significant and important provision for people. It will allow them to ensure they retain their entitlement to short-term payments as well as enhancing their PRSI records, something that may not cross their minds but, depending on their age, may cross their minds in 20 or 25 years when they come to draw their pension or see if they are entitled to a pension. These are critical issues that Deputies have not mentioned.

I have considerable sympathy for what the previous Deputy said about those aged 66 and older. However, the PUP was not thrown around like confetti at a wedding. It was a major State intervention that saw the State honour its side of the social contract at a time of perilous need on the part of people. I accept that some people who may not have needed it as much as others got it. It will be spent, I am sure. However, I did feel for those aged 66 and older who did not get it and who had to work because their pension would not have been enough to keep them going. I ask the Minister to address some of those confusing aspects of the PUP.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.