Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill that is before the Dáil today and the opportunity to contribute to it. The Bill is timely. It is important that we bring forward these amendments, which are fair to people who have been working hard and paying their taxes. Therefore, when they fall on hard times there are additional supports available to them.

When we are in a time of full employment it is appropriate that we look at the social welfare system and examine how we can make sure it is fit for purpose. I often felt that bringing forward changes at times of high unemployment was unfair. The Minister is making the changes at the right time. I wish to raise a couple of points with her in the hope that she might take them on board as we proceed with the legislation.

I also have some points to make that I would like the Minister to take on board when she is negotiating for the upcoming budget. They are suggestions that will make for a fairer social welfare system.

One of the issues I have been contacted about recently concerns employers who are finding it incredibly difficult to get people to work. In certain instances, people are handing in their notice and saying they would be better off on unemployment benefits. Welfare was never designed to be a lifestyle choice. It is there as a safety net for when people get into difficulty. I made a suggestion through a parliamentary question to the Minister that when people go in to sign on for the first time, the activation officer should contact their previous employer and double-check that the job has ceased, rather than that they have chosen to leave it. That is one action that should be taken.

A second issue to address is the X's and O's system. It is a bit archaic that people will only get a social welfare payment if they do not work for one particular day. Given the variety of employment out there and the different ways people are working, there are opportunities to work a couple of hours a day, in the morning or evening. People are being disincentivised or discouraged from working at all if they will lose their full rate of social welfare for working only an hour or two. We should look at a proportionate reduction to facilitate people to work a small number of hours.

Deputy Naughten made a point about encouraging people with disabilities back into the workforce. From talking to people with disabilities, one of the big impediments to their working is the risk, if they go back into the workforce, that if it does not work out for them or it becomes too onerous and they are not able for it, the process of reapplying for the disability allowance takes some time. We should look at a system that would support people by making the transition to work easier and, if that transition does not work out, enabling them to go back on their welfare payment a lot more easily. It is the same with partial capacity benefit. It seems particularly difficult for people to transition from disability to partial capacity without risking losing their entitlements. I have an example I can share privately with the Minister.

I acknowledge that over the past few years, the Government and previous Governments have gone some way to address the inequity between employees and the self-employed in regard to their welfare entitlements. One of the anomalies that has not been addressed is in respect of illness benefit. People who are self-employed get sick. It may be for a short period. If the illness lasts longer than 12 months, they now qualify for invalidity benefit, which was not always the case. However, I could give many examples of one-man or two-men operations that have had to close their doors for four or five days or even longer. In those situations, self-employed people are not earning and are not in receipt of any illness benefit. That should be reviewed. Self-employed people, if certified by a doctor as being unfit for work, should at least qualify for illness benefit. We should bear in mind what we have done regarding mandatory sick pay and the onus and responsibility we are putting on employers in that regard. At a minimum, we should look at how we can support employers if they get sick for a time.

Members often speak in this House about carers. They are among the few welfare recipients who actually work for their payment. They save the State tens of millions of euro, if not hundreds of millions, every year by keeping people out of long-term institutional care. Until a constituent came to see me the other day who is in this situation, I did not realise that a full-time carer, who is living alone and not with the family member for whom the care is being provided, is not entitled to apply for the fuel allowance or the living alone allowance and, thereby, is excluded from the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, grant to install home energy upgrades. The person who came to see me is being penalised a number of times, despite having been a full-time carer for some time. People who lose their jobs qualify for the fuel allowance after 12 months on unemployment allowance, and rightly so. People who are providing care, working for their payment and saving the State money should, if they are living on their own, be entitled to the living alone allowance and the fuel allowance. I ask the Minister to intervene in that regard. Perhaps she will consider the matter in the context of the upcoming budget.

On welfare fraud, I encourage the Minister to talk to social welfare inspectors who have recently retired. I could give her the name of a man who worked in my neck of the woods for a long period. He could give many examples of how welfare fraud is slipping through the net and how, with some additional powers, it could be reduced or eliminated. He does not feel inspectors are being given the powers they need. In the context of this legislation, I ask the Minister to carry out exit interviews with some of the people retiring from the social welfare service. They will give her the benefit of their long experience and knowledge of how we can stamp out welfare fraud.

See this speech in context