Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It must be said that this has been an extremely challenging year for workers and businesses, but also for the Department of Social Protection. I refer to the landscape that exists now . I acknowledge the work done by the Minister and her predecessor in this regard. I particularly thank the staff of the Department of Social Protection. During the first period of crisis, it was a time of immense pressure and the response times were good in ever-changing schemes. I acknowledge that and comment those involved.

This legislation before us illustrates to a large extent the role that Sinn Féin has played as an Opposition party. When I look at some of the issues that are being dealt with here, I see some of those that we have prioritised. These are: the pension age and stopping the increase to 67 years; the PUP, which was previously cut, and we campaigned to bring back and increase, and it was - it should never have been cut in the first place; and flexibility for the self-employed in the context of the PUP and for them to this payment.

On the pension age, when I went canvassing during the election campaign, I met people who, at 63 or 64, were coming up the pension age and looking at what lay ahead. Some of them had worked from the age of 16, 15 or even 14. These were people who had given five decades of work and who might have been working all, or the vast majority of, that time. To be saying to them that they need to go on further, they were grievously offended. Their families were grievously offended. It is profoundly wrong. It is crazy that those who are least likely to be able to keep working to 67 are often those who will most likely have to keep working to 67. It is profoundly wrong to say to masons, floor-layers and people who are working in physically extremely demanding jobs that they have to keep going to 67.

I welcome the fact that the Minister has accepted the amendments in respect of the entertainment industry. I am glad she listened to the arguments made by Deputy Kerrane. It is a vitally important point on the flexibility that exists there. I believe that also applies to taxi drivers. We need to look again at the situation they face. Theirs is a very particular category. It is rate based and it is either a feast or a famine for them. The hours that can be worked and the money that one get from driving a taxi do not always necessarily correspond fairly in the context of the PUP or the market that is out there. They could have a few busy weeks but it could get quiet after that. It will not be as busy as it once was because of the situation in which we find ourselves.

The final point I want to make relates to people who get illness benefit and what happens after they get it. They get illness benefit because of their stamps but they are put through the ringer after that. The demands made of them - they might not get any money while they are waiting for approval for a disability payment or the invalidity pension - are arduous. People are left in hardship. We need to look at that. People can go from a certain level of security for the period directly after they leave work if they are not fit to return to being under serious pressure. We need to address that.

See this speech in context