Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)

I second the amendment. I thank the Labour Party for instigating the debate, which is very useful. I also thank Senator White because she knows more than most people about the challenges facing small businesses. I wish to address a number of issues in this debate and I hope that, if they are not within the Minister of State's remit, he will refer them on. The Labour Party motion mentions the provision of greater levels of social protection, including protection in the event of illness for those who are self-employed and whose business fails, leading to a collapse in income. I, for one, do not wish to harp on about business failures but it is a reality that many people face because every week there are more of them. While we do not want to emphasise failure and wish to celebrate success, we also want to recognise the reality.

A number of years ago, when the boom turned to bust, many people were badly caught out. This was because they had high incomes on paper in 2007 or 2008 as tradesmen, including block layers or plasterers, and then sought the dole when they had no other income. Social welfare officials examined the previous year's accounts which showed that they were doing really well and thus failed a means test.

At the time, the former Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív - for whom Senator White has great time, as do I - straightened out procedures in the Department of Social Protection concerning the self-employed. He acknowledged that it was quite a complicated process to analyse the sort of accounts that would be presented to social welfare officers by self-employed people, particularly if they had bought an investment property that went wrong. A system was put in place, however, whereby social welfare officials were to look at the accounts and the position that pertained at the time of the application. Some progress was made in that regard.

In recent weeks, however, I have met self-employed people in my clinics who are now out of work. They are effectively being torpedoed by community welfare officers and social welfare officers who say their income is too high to qualify for the dole. They are seeking last year's accounts and other material that is not relevant to those people's current situation. I understood the situation to have been addressed by Deputy Ó Cuív when he was a Minister. At the time, I noticed improvements in it. The former Minister produced a complicated document on the complex process of examining these accounts.

Has there been a policy change in the Department of Social Protection on this matter? Has the Department changed the procedures to slow down applications or prevent people from getting money? That is my strong suspicion. I know it is happening with regard to the carer's allowance and the disability allowance. There is a deliberate slow-down and, in fact, a departmental official told me that. Is the same happening with respect to self-employed people? Are they slowing down applications to stop money being paid out where it should be paid?

I know of one case in my constituency of a self-employed person who is now unemployed and, due to his financial problems and the difficulties he is having with the Department of Social Protection, it is leading to mental stress and illness. Senator White is an expert in that area and I am sure she has seen it in this context many times. The problem is not just that the mental illness is devastating for him and his family but also that it is preventing him from resuming business activities because he is mentally unable to do so. In addition, no financial support is being offered for the basic, daily human essentials that social welfare is supposed to provide.

Is there any way in which the procedures applying to the self-employed can be simplified, while acknowledging that the situation may be complex? I know social welfare officers are under severe pressure but they should be trained to deal with self-employed applicants. It should be recognised that when a person closes down their shop, they are not likely to have much of an income. They may have had an income one or two months ago, but if the shop is gone, the likelihood is that there is no income. They are not hiding some secret source of income from selling cigarettes around the back of the house. That is not happening.

A change of attitude is required in the Department to treat such people more fairly. It would give them some basic assistance which one would hope would keep them from the onset of mental illness. They may then begin to think of resuming in business, creating employment and furthering the economy. I wanted to raise that point while accepting we should also be looking at success and encouraging people in this regard. None the less the plight of self-employed people who no longer have work is a reality I have increasingly encountered in my clinics in recent months. I am surprised because I thought such attitudes had been eliminated from departmental thinking.