Lynn Ruane (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 20, line 35, to delete “any” and substitute “a”.

This is a simple amendment that seeks to address the concerns we have in regard to the insertion of section 68KG and section 68KH into the principal Act. Section 68KG allows for recipients of jobseeker’s pay-related benefit to be cut or even for them to be disqualified if they fail to attend meetings organised by the Minister and notified to them. It requires them to submit an assessment of their education, training and development needs. Section 68KH would allow for a person’s benefit to be cut or for them to be disqualified if they refuse to avail of any scheme or programme of employment or work experience that is prescribed for them. This feels overly coercive in regard to cutting someone's benefit because they did not avail of a scheme that somebody else felt was fit for them but they did not feel was fit for them, their skill set, their living conditions or the geography of where they live and access work. It is to cut somebody's benefit because somebody else decides what type of work experience they should avail of.

We have significant concerns that these sections could lead to similar scenarios to those that arose with JobBridge, particularly for young people. These sections could feasibly lead to exploitative internship programmes. The inclusion of the phrase “work experience” is particularly concerning. There is a real risk of displacing fully paid labour with those in receipt of pay-related benefit under these sections. It is important for the Minister to outline what is meant by “work experience”.

If I end up on pay-related benefit, and let us say I am an engineer on pay that is at the higher end, that allows me to access the higher rate of pay-related benefit, which is €450 or 60% of a person's wage. Then, let us imagine that my family member is a labourer or manual worker and they access a lower rate of pay-related benefit. Those on the lower rates of pay are usually the most vulnerable to employment shocks in terms of having any sort of safety net or disposable income so, first, the scheme in and of itself is creating a hierarchy among workers, which is wrong. However, it also creates a system where we do not value all types of work equally regardless of what the pay is that they receive while they are in that work.

Let us imagine that I am an engineer and my family member is a labourer, manual worker or low-skill worker, and we are both attending the same social welfare department in Tallaght. Perhaps the social welfare office decides that I, as an engineer, should do work experience somewhere. Am I to receive €450 for that experience, even if that experience matches my actual skill set, when I would be paid more should I just be employed and it was not a social welfare scheme? If I am being paid €450 in pay-related benefit, who am I engaging in the work experience for? Is it for free? Is it for an enhanced amount on top of the pay-related benefit? Is it only for the social welfare payment I am receiving? Again, we are creating room for people to be exploited for their work in regard to the experience that they have or may not have. Next, let us imagine I am a cleaner or someone in a lower paid, lower skill job and I am asked to do work experience because I have lost my job. That experience might be 30 or 40 hours a week and I would still be receiving the low rate of pay-related benefit.

What exactly is meant by “work experience”? Does the work experience mean that the employer does not have to pay me and that the social welfare pay-related benefit is supposed to cover the work experience of me working in some particular sector or job for some particular employer where the pay does not match the experience that I have, the skill set or the job that I am doing? Not only are we creating a hierarchy of welfare, but we are also creating a hierarchy in terms of what the experience is that we feel someone should avail of, and how little or how much they should be paid based on the pay-related benefit.

I would like to know if the Minister is suggesting that if I lose my job and the welfare office says I have to do work experience, and I am a highly skilled worker or a lower skilled or manual worker, I am only going to receive my pay-related benefit for the job that I am doing. If I refuse to do that job or engage with that work experience because it is exploitative, or because I am being requested to work 40 hours a week in a highly skilled job that matches my skill set but I am only going to receive the pay-related benefit, will I lose my pay-related benefit? If the aim of this section is to steer recipients towards employment that would be more suitable to them, it would be more appropriate that people are not directed towards any scheme or programme at all, rather than risk losing their pay-related benefit based on being directed towards a scheme that may not suit their needs. Section 68KH provides that the recipient of jobseeker's pay-related benefit must agree "to participate in or avail himself or herself of an opportunity of participating in". The language is quite coercive. It could result in a situation in which a recipient must accept unsatisfactory or potentially exploitive work experience. It is important that the Minister outline, to use a practical example, whether I would lose my pay-related benefit if, in circumstances where a social welfare officer says I have to avail of some particular work experience programme and the only pay I will receive for the work experience programme is my pay-related benefit, I refuse to do so? Can the Minister outline exactly what the legislation says I have to do?