Ann Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am taking this matter on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection. The jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance schemes provide income support for people who have lost work and are unable to find alternative full-time employment. The 2015 Estimates for the Department of Social Protection provide for expenditure this year on the jobseekers' schemes of €3.01 billion. It is a fundamental qualifying condition of both schemes that a person must be fully unemployed for four in any period of seven consecutive days, so a person working more than three days a week will not qualify. It is recognised that a changing labour market has resulted in a move away from the more traditional work patterns, resulting in an increase in the number of persons employed for less than a full week. This is an important policy issue for the Department of Social Protection but any changes to the current criteria could have significant cost implications for the jobseeker's schemes.

In 2011, the advisory group on tax and social welfare was established to harness expert opinion and experience to address a number of specific issues around the interaction of the tax and social protection systems. The group was also tasked with examining how the social welfare system can best achieve its goals of supporting persons through periods of involuntary unemployment, while incentivising work and disincentivising welfare dependency. Subsequently the Tánaiste asked the group to broaden its remit to include issues relating to atypical working patterns. In the course of its work the group looked at the current system which, in allowing people to work on three days a week and still get welfare support, is a very significant support to the functioning of the labour market and those who work part-time.

In this area it is often argued that the schemes should move to a system where hours, half-day, income levels, or a combination thereof, are used for measuring the level of employment engaged in by scheme recipients. It is suggested that such alternative approaches have the potential to offer greater support to the small numbers of workers whom the current system cannot accommodate.

On the other hand it may be argued that if such changes increased the flexibility of the system and allowed greater levels of access to income support, counterbalancing measures would have to be introduced to protect the integrity and fiscal sustainability of the jobseeker's schemes. Such measures could have the effect of removing support from a much larger cohort of workers. For example, if the current system of allowing three days of work in any seven days were replaced by an hours-based system, then the threshold for access to the schemes could not be 24 hours as this could significantly increase claim numbers and cost. However, any move to an hours-based system with a threshold of less than 24 hours could disenfranchise claimants currently working for three days.

Another issue of note would be the effect of any change on labour market practice. The jobseeker's schemes play a very important role in supporting persons to gain a foothold in the labour market and we must ensure that any development of the system continues to support people to sustainable, full-time jobs rather than facilitating any erosion of job quality.