Bernard Allen
Question:4 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the proposals, if any, he has to introduce new provisions to deal with difficulties that part-time workers have in obtaining their entitlements. [1666/94]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Part-Time Workers' Entitlements.
In April 1991 I extended social insurance to part-time employees earning £25 or more per week. This measure brought 27,000 part-time workers into social insurance for the first time and means that such employees are now insured for the full range of social insurance benefits and pensions. The vast majority of these workers can now qualify for short term benefits such as disability benefit and unemployment benefit.
Changes in the benefits system were required to accommodate this group. One of these changes involved the payment of graduated rates of disability, unemployment benefit and invalidity pension. Clearly if part-time workers were given access to short term benefits on the same basis as full-time workers, their social welfare entitlements could in some cases exceed their earnings from employment. Accordingly, the rates of benefit paid to workers on low earnings were related to their earnings from employment.
The purpose of unemployment benefit is to provide a replacement income to those who lose employment. Providing full social insurance cover for part-time workers, including those who normally work only a day or two per week, meant that it was necessary to review the conditions for unemployment benefit to ensure that they were in line with the scheme's objectives. Thus, claimants are now required to have lost at least one day's employment each week to be eligible to claim unemployment benefit.
Earlier this year I reviewed the operation of this condition and recently introduced regulations exempting persons in casual employment from it. This change will be of major benefit to a significant number of workers, estimated at 10,000.
An unemployed person who does not qualify for unemployment benefit can claim unemployment assistance for the days of unemployment. Last year I revised the rules governing the assessment of insurable earnings for unemployment assistance purposes to improve the position of workers with earnings from part-time employment. A person can now earn an amount equivalent to the normal daily rate of unemployment assistance plus an additional £15 per day for each day worked. Thus, for example, a married person with an adult dependant and two children can earn up to £35.32 per day for each day worked without affecting the rate of unemployment assistance payable for each day not worked in the same week.
The Minister said that an estimated 10,000 part-time workers will benefit from this so-called improvement. Will the Minister give an estimate of the total number of part-time and casual workers on the register and will they qualify for pay related benefit?
Other than short time workers currently there are 10,000 people working part-time and claiming unemployment benefit. Many of these will benefit from the new regulations. The main groups who will benefit will be in meat processing plants, casual dockers, hotel workers and people in the retail trade. The change is substantial.
I asked about seasonal workers, short time workers and pay related benefit.
Some seasonal workers who were entitled to unemployment benefit found they did better on unemployment assistance. In their case it could mean they would have to return to unemployment benefit but that is the equivalent of what their colleagues would have had. Many seasonal workers in hotels, in the retail trade, in processing plants and casual dockers are now covered by this regulation and we will monitor progress. A difficulty arose when conditions had to be imposed because we all wanted cover for part-time workers, particularly for long term pension purposes. The conditions for short term benefits had to be revised, otherwise the State would end up paying virtually everybody.
I was amazed earlier when the Minister suggested the social welfare system was simple when it is the complete opposite. Is the Minister aware of the social welfare appeals office report which lists the growing number of appeals against decisions made by part-time workers? Will he agree that it is an incredibly complex area and that to have the regulations understood by recipients, there is a job of work to be done?
I agree this system is complex, of necessity, because of the different things people do and the different areas in which they work. The short-time, the systematic short-time, the part-time work etc. is what makes it complicated and we try, in legislation, to meet those needs. I agree there is a continuing and very important task in providing better information immediately. We are doing a fair job in that we provide fact sheets on everything immediately and try to set out as clearly as possible the general position. We get a great deal of help from the voluntary organisations, from our offices throughout the country, and from a variety of centres. Dissemination of information is a big problem but we are trying to improve access to information on decisions through the decisions advisory office.
At times I am confused by the complexity of the system. I am confused by the Minister's admission that he is making it up as he goes along — I am watching it as it develops. Will the Minister agree that the difficulty in relation to part-time, temporary, casual and seasonal workers was due to the introduction of the "dirty dozen" social welfare cuts which the Labour Party promised to repeal.
The Deputy is entering into another area.
I will ask the Minister a straight question. He did not respond to my first question about pay related benefit because he would have had to acknowledge it was abolished in July. Can the Minister stand over the legality of taking PRSI contributions from workers, even part-time workers, and reducing their benefits by abolishing pay related benefit? Has he examined the legality of the provision introduced in July?
On pay related benefit the Deputy will be aware that——
The Minister abolished it.
——the money goes into an extra increase in the basic rate. We put an extra £3 million into the system bringing the total up to £21 million, to improve the basic rate. That was the recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare. The Deputy cannot have it both ways. He cannot come in one day and say we should do what the Commission on Social Welfare say and another day——
The Minister is robbing Peter to pay Paul. He cannot have it both ways either.
Deputy Allen has asked questions, he should be good enough to listen to the answers.
The Minister will not give a straight answer to a straight question.
Deputy Allen must listen to the Chair.
The key point——
The Minister is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
——is that the money went directly back to the workers and the Deputy should recognise that. My main objective was to bring part-time workers who were being discriminated against into pension entitlement. It is not too difficult to get them into the system. We can pay the full pension even though the person is earning a small amount of money per week. I was pleased to make progress in that area. In addition, support for short term benefits was improved but it had to be on a sliding scale and conditions had to be attached. If a person is paid £30 or £35 per week and unemployment benefit is £61, it is easy to understand that they might choose most of the time not to work. If that were the case companies and businesses would adjust business practices to make the maximum use of State support when we were trying to support the workers and ensure they got reasonable cover. In that context anomalies were created with which we are trying to deal. We have to be flexible. We can take a hard line, legalistic approach, which has been the procedure for too many years, or be flexible and move to meet the needs of workers. We are moving to meet the needs of workers.
The Minister did not answer my question——
Sorry, Deputy, I want to proceed to other questions.
I asked about the legality of the decision to abolish pay related benefit and I got a convoluted answer. If workers enter into a contract to pay for a benefit and pay for it, it cannot unilaterally be withdrawn.
As I pointed out to the Deputy and as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare the money goes towards improving the basic rates.
That is not correct.
This House decides on legislation and this House decided what should happen. As Minister for Social Welfare——
The Minister is doing it with his 40 seat majority.
——I am implementing the decisions of this House. That is from where the law comes.
From the Minister and the Labour Party.