Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

We oppose the section as a whole for some of the reasons outlined by my colleague but also because of some of the other very important problems with this scheme as it is designed.Some aspects of the scheme are sound, but there are fundamentally regressive aspects.

The individualisation of the jobseeker's pay-related benefit payment means that many low income earners will be considerably worse off, compared to receiving jobseeker's benefit. Lower earners will be potentially disadvantaged, in particular. These are the workers who are most susceptible to income shock because they typically have less in savings. We know from the wealth survey in Ireland that it is not those on high incomes with high overheads, who we are often told need this cushion, who will be affected. Rather, it is those who are on low incomes, are less likely to have any assets, savings or anything else they can cash in and tend to be living hand-to-mouth who will be most negatively impacted by this change. In particular, a crucially regressive aspect of this benefit, as opposed to jobseeker's benefit, is that recipients of this benefit, high and low income earners alike, with child and adult dependants will be worse off.

Under jobseeker's benefit, the number of dependants a recipient has relates to their ability to qualify for qualified child or adult payments in respect of an adult dependant. Under this Bill, households with, for example, two or three children where a person is moved to a jobseeker's pay-related benefit will receive no supplementary benefit and no provision has been made for same. Perhaps the Minister can clarify if there is a plan to deal with that, but no provision is made in the Bill for qualified adult or child payments. That is why we desperately need a proper distributional analysis of the Bill, showing how the scheme will add to income inequality and increased poverty rates in households.

We are also concerned about the rates of benefit under section 38KE, in particular the lowest benefit levels. According to analysis from the Vincentian Partnership, in 214 test cases income supports from social welfare were inadequate to meet minimum needs in 70% of cases. A key amendment we had was that the minimum essential standards of living be met - the basic test of a social payment. This is what our social protection system should do. It is meant to be a redistributional social protection system.

Other countries may have an income replacement, but other countries do not have the extraordinarily high level of income disparity that we have in Ireland. In Ireland those on the lowest and highest incomes are miles apart compared to what they are in many other European countries. It is a huge issue. That is why we always ask about the equality and poverty indexes, and say they are terrible. They refer to income after social welfare and tax because we rely heavily on the social protection system to act as a redistributive tool that ensures that the core job is done, namely making sure that everyone's basic needs are met.

The research from the Vincentian Partnership shows that the system does not do that very well. However, this scheme, in particular, will do this worse than any other scheme we have seen for a while because it is only designed to treat people as employed and working units and does absolutely nothing to recognise their responsibilities and the fact they are part of a family and household. The scheme will be an individualised and very neoliberal version of society, rather than the idea of social protection as a safety net, a foundation, as redistributative and one of the ways we ensure collectively the well-being of the population.

The reduced duration for jobseeker's benefit for those with fewer contributions points to the fact that there will be a negative impact. The way the scheme is designed will impact negatively in particular on those who have been in part-time employment. Those in part-time employment will receive not only a lower amount, but the duration of the payments will be shorter. When we talk about who is in part-time employment, it is predominantly women. We have yet another policy that is not properly gender- and equality-proofed. Women tend to be in more part-time employment and are often on lower incomes, and are likely to come up much the poorer. How will the Minister address the distributional issues and issues in respect of families and the family status of people in receipt of these benefits?