Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the fact this is probably the biggest social protection expenditure in the history of the State. However, it is the biggest pandemic we have faced in the history of our State. It was the responsibility of the Government to respond to the pandemic. It was not because people lost their jobs or left their jobs, it was because public health guidance forced people to stay at home and not mingle. This was the important thing. It is good there has been cross-party support and recognition that €203 was not a livable income and the €350 payment was introduced initially. This was a recognition that people cannot live on €203. A line has been drawn in the sand for the future with regard to payments for jobseekers and others.

I welcome the reversal of the increase in the pension age to 67 and then to 68 in 2028. When this was first introduced by a Labour Party Minister in the Government of 2011, many people did not realise the impact it would have. The first layer of people who were affected when the pension age was increased to 66 was a small cohort. It was not recognised in society what was going on. It was not out there with regard to how it would impact people. I applaud the Stop67 campaign for insisting it was part of the debate during the election. I also have to applaud the thousands of people who put pressure on the incoming Government to reverse the decision. It was the people who really made the difference. While welcoming it, it is very late to bring in the changes because many people who are retiring next year have been very anxious as they waited to see whether they would face the cut-off point at 67. I welcome it but I feel it could have been introduced earlier to allay the concerns of many people.

We are speaking of a difference of approximately €2,300 a year between the pension and the jobseeker's payment. It is no small amount. Over two years, it would have been approximately €4,500. It is better in the pockets of people who can spend in the economy and that those workers can have an expectation of retiring at a certain age. It always amazes me that when we challenge the massive plush pensions that politicians get, and they can receive three or four pensions if they have been Ministers as well as Deputies, we are told the expectation of these people is that they will keep their pension but for workers who, when they joined the workforce at 17 or 18, expected to get the pension at 65 all of a sudden it went out the door.

It is good that the commission has been set up but, as has been said, such commissions are set up to play a role in covering the Government with regard to the decisions it wants to make. I tabled a parliamentary question on the fact Stop67 was not invited onto the commission and I received a response. We should go by the mantra "nothing about us without us", and the pensioners should be on the commission, as has been said by my colleague in Fianna Fáil. The commission should include people who will be affected by the outcome of the decisions made.

With regard to the pandemic unemployment payment and the Christmas bonus for retail workers, there is a letter to the committee and I have tabled a question on this. The Minister replied that the move to ease restrictions from 1 December, including a phased move to level 3, was agreed and announced by the Government on 27 November and that as the pandemic unemployment payment week runs from Friday to Thursday, any person in receipt of it for one day of the period from 27 November to 3 December would receive the Christmas bonus payment, provided they also met the 17-week requirement. This is welcome. A number of workers probably returned on 26 November. Will they receive the Christmas bonus? The Minister made the point there were 352,000 people in receipt of the payment last week and compared it to this week's numbers for the Christmas bonus. How will it impact on those few on the borderline who were asked return to do work on the Thursday? Perhaps the Minister will reply on this.

With regard to the music industry, taxi drivers and the self-employed, I noticed the efficiency of payments being made when people applied for them, particularly when the changes were made to the pandemic unemployment payment in July and September. At least 30 people who contacted me said they had sent in the form and were entitled to the €350 or the €250, whichever it was, but they were still being put on the €203 payment. When I put the exact same information to the pandemic unemployment payment re-rate team, those people were automatically re-rated to the €250 or €350 payment. This happened in almost 99.9% of the cases in which I sent in queries. This is quite a high rate. I know many Deputies have said they applaud the workers in the Department of Social Protection, and so do I. This is a snapshot of people who contacted me and I am sure many Deputies had the same number of queries from people on the payment. It is a strange situation. Were the people in the pandemic unemployment payment section told to put it to €203 and if the people come back and make a representation through a Deputy, they would be re-rated to the proper rate? It is very unusual that 99% of the representations we make are re-rated.

I welcome the fact the Minister has accepted the amendment. Deputy Kerrane and I tabled the amendment whereby income would be €960 over an eight-week period. The Minister had listened to the music industry and had made the decision that it was possible. In saying this, it is welcome that the Minister has accepted it.

Another issue for the music industry and taxi industry concerns access to education while on the pandemic unemployment payment. I would like the Minister to refer to this in her closing speech. Are people able to go back to education from those industries and from self-employment and maintain the pandemic unemployment payment? This will be important. With regard to the taxation of the pandemic unemployment payment, a tax-free amount of up to €203 would be a welcome benefit to the industry and to other self-employed people. Will the Minister refer to this?

The joint committee on social protection has made recommendations. We raised the issue that the Government did not place enough emphasis on letting people know about the rent supplement. Two or three people contacted me about the rent supplement and they had to jump through hurdles to try to get it, even though they had been on it for at least two or three years. People were refused it. I dealt with one case involving rent supplement payments in 2018, 2019 and 2020.

This was despite the fact all of the information was there. It is a very complicated application. I ask the Minister to review how that rent supplement application is assessed. It also makes the point that mortgage interest supplement should be reintroduced on the basis that, in September, when the changes to PUP were being made, the banks had cut back on mortgage assistance. I believe mortgage interest supplement should be looked at.

See this speech in context