Vol. 722 No. 4
30 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social Protection his views on the fact that certain welfare rates and benefits available under the social welfare system inhibit a return to work; the action he plans to take on this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43939/10]
The social welfare system supports people of working age by providing income and other supports and by facilitating them in taking up employment, training, education or development opportunities. A key concern in this regard is to ensure that social welfare payments provide adequate income replacement and maintenance for the customer and their family, while also providing that sufficient incentive exists for persons to progress from the social welfare system to the workforce. Return to work patterns are often a function of more than financial rewards and include such considerations as work availability, family commitments, travel to work time and the type of available employment. However, financial incentives are important and these depend on the balance between the individual or family's disposable income when employed and when unemployed.
The replacement rate for given income levels measures the proportion of out-of-work benefits received when unemployed against take home pay if in work. While there is no predetermined level of replacement rate which would influence every individual's decision to work, clearly the higher the replacement rate, the lower the incentive to work. In this context most literature on the subject of replacement rates works from the assumption that a replacement rate significantly in excess of 70% may be considered to be excessive, while a replacement rate significantly less than 70% may be considered inadequate. In particular, high replacement rates are usually considered to be unsustainable in the absence of relevant and timely labour activation such as appropriate education, training or job placement measures and sanctions where claimants do not engage with activation processes.
In July 2010 detailed analyses of the net incomes of 327,827 people on the live register, who received a payment for a full week of unemployment compared their social welfare income to the net incomes of typical household types in the workforce. This demonstrated that the majority of social welfare recipients have replacement rates of less than 70%. In particular, when measured against the national minimum wage, 91% of recipients have a rate of less than 70% and 9% have a rate of less than 80%.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Receipt of rent allowance, or mortgage supplement, within the supplementary welfare scheme can have an adverse effect on replacement rates. In this regard it may be noted that the purpose of the rent supplement scheme is, inter alia, to provide short-term support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation. Long-term accommodation support is provided through the rental accommodation scheme. It is accepted that progress in relation to the scheme was initially slower than expected. However the pace of delivery has improved significantly. This will have a beneficial effect on work incentives as the rental accommodation scheme is neutral from a replacement rate perspective. It should be noted that just 15% of the live register cases analysed in July were in receipt of either rent allowance or mortgage interest relief.
In conclusion, I would reiterate that high replacement rates affect only a relatively small proportion of the social welfare population. This is particularly the case for those people who are fully unemployed and in receipt of jobseekers' payments. For the vast majority taking a job will lead to significantly higher net income.
According to media reports, couples on welfare earn more than people on the minimum wage. Irish small and medium enterprises confirm that even when they offer rates of as much as €15 per hour, they cannot compete with social welfare.
At a time when 460,000 people are unemployed here, why did we offer 6,600 work permits this year to people from outside the EU? Does the Minister agree with the comments by his colleague, Deputy O'Rourke, that it is acceptable to cut young people's social welfare payments or to allow them to do nixers?
As Deputy Ring knows, it is illegal to work while drawing social welfare benefits. Clearly I would not condone the practice.
The replacement rates compared to the national minimum wage are 64% for a single person, 70% for a couple with one earner, 73% for a couple with one earner and one child and 76% for a couple with one earner and two children. When compared to the average industrial wage, the replacement rate falls to 53% for a single person, 65% for a couple with one earner, 69% for a couple with one earner and one child and 72% for a couple with one earner and two children.
I have heard a number of stories about individuals refusing offers of employment but I think several factors warrant serious examination. If an individual earns an income he or she does not declare, the replacement rates are totally different, even presuming full employment and adherence to the law. This is why I am keen to progress the national employment action programme at a much higher level than heretofore. We have also enacted legislation which provides for sanctions to be imposed where an individual does not engage with that process. Replacement rates are also affected by the rent supplement.
People on the minimum wage or low incomes do not qualify for the back-to-school clothing and footwear scheme but they have to compete with those in receipt of child benefit, rent allowance and other State payments. What is the Minister and his Department doing to encourage people to take up work rather than rely on State benefits? People want to work but they are caught by the social welfare trap. If they take poorly paid jobs, they will lose the medical card, rent allowance and other State benefits. The media claim people are better off on social welfare than in low paying jobs. I ask the Minister what he is doing about that issue.
Individuals on low incomes are entitled to the back-to-school allowance.
They have to be in receipt of social welfare payments.
No, they do not. The family income supplement will suffice in such a case.
The problem is they are not receiving the family income supplement.
Anybody in employment who is earning a low income should be on the family income supplement.
I am speaking about people who will not take the family income supplement because it is a social welfare payment.
Obviously, people on low incomes are short of money. The Deputy is making a contradiction in terms by asking me what I am doing. The family income supplement exists to help people on low incomes and we should encourage them to take it up. It would be preferable for the individuals concerned and for the State to pay family income supplement because it would make it more sustainable to those on a low income.
I acknowledge that the medical card is the key to other benefits. That issue has to be considered carefully. I am also investigating the issue of people being unable to take up part-time work because three hours counts for a day's work. We must examine atypical working patterns. These complex issues are being considered by my Department.
In respect of work permits, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation sets out strict guidelines. I suggest the Deputy should put down a detailed question to that Department on the matter. Work permits are not intended for positions which can be filled by the existing workforce.
We must move on to the next question.
May I make a final point?
We are well over time on this question.
It is an important point.
The rules of the House are also important.
I am only trying to be helpful.
Of course.
I would not like to give the impression that the majority of unemployed people are unwilling to take up employment. I have repeatedly seen throughout a long career of creating employment that the majority of unemployed people will always take up reasonable employment. Only a small minority would not do so.
That was not my question. My question was about people being better off on social welfare than at work.
31 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to reform rent supplement to remove obstacles to taking up employment [44052/10]
The purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term income support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. Currently more than 96,400 tenants benefit from rent supplement payments, an increase of 62% since the end of 2007. More than 44,500 tenants have been in receipt of payments for 18 months or more.
Rent supplement is calculated to ensure that an eligible person has an income equal to the rate of supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her family circumstances after the payment of rent, less a minimum weekly contribution of €24 which each recipient is required to pay from his or her own resources. Many recipients pay more than €24 a week towards their accommodation costs because they are also required to contribute a portion of any additional assessable means that they may have over and above the appropriate basic supplementary welfare allowance rate.
The existing rent supplement assessment provides for a gradual withdrawal of payment as hours of employment or earnings increase. Those availing of part-time employment or training opportunities can continue to receive rent supplement subject to satisfying the standard means assessment rules. Where a person has additional income in excess of the standard weekly rate of supplementary welfare allowance, the first €75 of such additional income together with 25% of any additional income above €75 is disregarded for means assessment purposes. This ensures that those returning to work or participating in training schemes are better off as a result of taking up such an opportunity.
Rent supplement is not payable where a person or his or her spouse or partner is in full-time employment, that is, 30 hours or more per week. However, a person on rent supplement who is accepted as eligible for accommodation under the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, may return to full-time work, subject to a means test, without losing entitlement to the rent supplement payment. The use of 30 hours as the part-time work limit for the rent supplement is designed to be as advantageous as possible to individuals returning to the employment market without including those in full-time employment, thus reflecting the scheme's original purpose of a short-term income support payment.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Support for those in full-time employment and who require long-term housing support is provided by local authority housing initiatives which include RAS and other social housing placement schemes. I have no plans to remove the 30 hour rule for the rent supplement scheme.
I intend to keep the rent supplement scheme under review and my Department will work closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in ensuring that RAS meets its objective of catering for those on long-term rent supplement while enabling rent supplement to return to its original role of a short-term income support.
I asked the Minister his plans for reforming rent supplement but he made no attempt to reply to my question. There is a great deal of ill-informed discussion about people being better off on social welfare and I am concerned about the level of the debate in the media. Forfás is also engaged in ill-informed talk. The reality is that the majority of people are better off in work than on social welfare. However, does the Minister accept that a particular category of welfare recipients are better off on social welfare, namely, those who face high housing costs? For that reason, I ask him to give serious consideration to reform of the operation of the rent supplement scheme. At present a ludicrous situation obtains whereby a married man with two children who is in receipt of rent supplement would lose €60 per week by taking up full-time employment. That makes no sense. It is a specific problem which relates to the operation of the rent supplement scheme. Is the Minister prepared to take steps to reform rent supplement in order to make it worth that person's while? If he was to remove the 30-hour rule, that person would gain €90 per week and there would be a very strong incentive to go to work.
Yes, I agree the scheme needs reform in a number of areas. First, it was never intended to be a long-term scheme and, therefore, there are anomalies in that people are on it in the long term. As the Deputy knows, one of the problems with the scheme is that the €24 is paid irrespective of the make-up of the household. One will find people who are much better off on rent supplement than they would be, for example, in local authority housing, which should not be the case. I have spoken to the Minister of State with responsibility for housing on this issue. I believe it should once again become a time-limited scheme, which would deal with one of the traps to which the Deputy refers.
The second issue one could examine is whether it is right that there would be a fixed payment irrespective of household income because, as the Deputy said, one gets crinkles as it is withdrawn. I understand what the Deputy is suggesting in regard to the 30-hour rule. We have already committed to considering this in the context of mortgage interest supplement. I am open, subject to cost criteria, which is one of the issues, to looking at this whole issue because the scheme is not working for the purpose for which it was established.
The Minister should be gone beyond the point of looking at it. This is a critical aspect of the welfare system that works against people taking up employment. It is clear that the 30-hour rule is the problem, as well as the withdrawal rate. Will the Minister give an undertaking that he will tackle this problem in the upcoming budget? It is key to removing the poverty trap and unemployment trap that exists.
There are simple solutions. If the 30-hour rule is removed, it means that for every family on rent supplement where a family member takes up a job, the State saves €19,000. This is a win-win situation. If the Minister applies himself to considering those key areas of reform, everybody stands to win out of this. Will he give us an assurance he will tackle it in next month's budget?
I assure the Deputy I am tackling this whole issue. I have had a number of meetings in regard to the rent supplement scheme. I have met all of the relevant bodies and I will consider the suggestions the Deputy has made. I have been considering suggestions such as that and I am working on a number of other issues in regard to the rent supplement scheme, one of which will be dealt with in the Bill we will be discussing this week, where, for example, we will be addressing the issue of the RSI number. I am reforming the scheme. Some issues are easier to deal with than others and I will move on all of these as speedily as possible.
The 30-hour rule is a very easy one.
The most fundamental change we need is to go back to where the scheme started. This was meant to be a scheme of short duration. It was never intended to be——
It is not, however, so the Minister must reform it.
The most fundamental thing we must do is to get back to that situation. I am working with the Minister of State with responsibility for housing to get back to a situation where this scheme is of limited duration and does not become a semi-permanent arrangement. It was never designed——
That is not a solution. The Minister needs to reform the scheme for the 100,000 people on it.
It is a major part of the solution.
32 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social Protection the action he is taking to assist persons who are over indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43940/10]
The Citizens Information Board, which comes under the aegis of this Department, is responsible for the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, which assists people who are over-indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems. The role of money advisers is to help clients to assess their financial situation, make a budget plan and deal with creditors.
There are 51 MABS companies providing money advice to clients operating from 65 locations around the country, as well as National Traveller MABS, which operates on a national basis. In addition, MABS National Development Limited is funded by the Citizens Information Board to provide a national support and development service to local MABS companies. The MABS national telephone helpline is available from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday to Friday, and the MABS website can be accessed 24 hours a day at www.mabs.ie. Some 90% of clients presenting to MABS are assisted through the telephone helpline which provides assisted self-help to ensure clients take steps to assess and address their situations. Last year, an additional 19 money advisers were recruited by MABS, bringing the number of MABS staff to 277. The additional advisers have been appointed to MABS companies throughout the country.
The money adviser works out a budget and negotiates on behalf of the client with all creditors, including financial institutions and sub-prime lenders, to secure better terms for the client in managing the repayment of their debts. Where required by the client, the money adviser can assist with setting up a special account with a local credit union into which the client lodges an agreed amount of money regularly and from which each month the money adviser makes the repayments to the creditors on behalf of the client. It is important that people coping with debt difficulties take early action and approach MABS for help and guidance, which can be the first positive step for people in addressing debt difficulties.
The Department was represented on the expert group on mortgage arrears and personal debt, established by the Department of Finance and chaired by Mr. Hugh Cooney, which published its final report on 17 November 2010, with recommendations on measures to assist in dealing with the difficulties created by mortgage arrears.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The report recognises the valuable role of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service in providing information and advice to assist the increasing number of persons with debt problems, as well as its advocacy role in regard to dealing with indebtedness.
Following the assignment of MABS to the Citizens Information Board, the structures and operational practices have been the subject of an ongoing review in the context of enhancing the service and enabling it to respond to the increases in demand. In this regard, the Department and the Citizens Information Board will be considering the expert group report with a view to shaping the future role of MABS to address the recommendations contained therein. In line with the package of measures recommended by the expert group, the Department's mortgage interest supplement scheme, which provides an invaluable safety net to mortgage borrowers, will be reformed to ensure its focus is aligned with the other measures being introduced.
I am satisfied that the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and the mortgage interest supplement scheme will continue to assist people in overcoming their indebtedness and managing their finances.
According to the Financial Regulator, over 40,000 mortgages were in arrears for over 90 days at the end of September, an increase from 26,000 last year. Independent forecasts estimate 300,000 people will be in negative equity this year and over 500 homes have been repossessed in 2010. Some of the recommendations of the report published last week by the expert group on mortgage arrears are in place but others will require legislation. Will many of these recommendations be put in place by the end of the year and which ones does the Government plan to put in place immediately?
There is a time-bomb waiting to explode in regard to mortgage arrears and we need to do something about it. There have been two reports but what we need is action. When will we have it?
I had been working on this issue prior to the publication of the final report. Immediately it was published, I asked officials to draw up a list of the issues that can be dealt with by circular letter, those that need regulations and those that need legislation. I understand I will have that list this week. I have asked the officials as a matter of priority to come up with a response, particularly in regard to the mortgage interest scheme, which comes under the direct responsibility of my Department. I agree with the Deputy that we need to move on this issue very quickly.
Will the Minister ensure the revised code of conduct on mortgage arrears is implemented immediately? Which banks have signed up to the deferred interest scheme? This is the most important issue. It is now that people need help. The Minister referred to MABS. The major problem people have is that, given the waiting lists, they cannot get appointments with MABS and must wait weeks, which creates another problem. The Minister is correct that MABS is doing an excellent job through its interventions but more people are needed on the ground. Staff should be transferred into MABS from other Departments. Something must be done to deal with the waiting lists.
Within MABS, priority is given to those with very urgent cases. Each company operates separately but I am more than aware of the need for people in extreme circumstances to receive urgent attention.
The latest survey on waiting times shows that the average waiting time is approximately 4.9 weeks, with waiting times ranging from one week or less to some 18 weeks. Urgent cases are prioritised and dealt with as quickly as possible. The average waiting list has 42 people.
This is why we appointed extra staff to MABS and it is important the assessments are put together. It is also important that people would provide all of the required information. In my experience of those with debt problems, information is sometimes given in dribs and drabs. It is important that they provide all of the information so a holistic view can be taken of their problems. We must do all we can to help people who have financial problems.
I stress that financial problems are in no way confined to mortgage holders. A very high percentage of those with debt problems are living in rented accommodation, therefore, it is simplistic to think the mortgage issue is the only aspect of this problem. It is a new issue that has grown rapidly but it is by no means the only one.
33 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of persons claiming rent supplement for more than 18 months for each of the past three years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43941/10]
The purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. The overall aim is to provide short-term assistance, and not to act as an alternative to the other social housing schemes operated by the Exchequer. There are currently more than 96,400 tenants benefiting from a rent supplement payment — an increase of 62% since the end of 2007. More than 44,500 have been in payment for 18 months or more. At the end of 2007 there were 32,123 rent supplement recipients who were in payment for 18 months and while the number decreased to 31,667 at the end of 2008 it increased again to 35,133 at the end of 2009.
The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which was introduced in 2004, gives local authorities specific responsibility for meeting the longer term housing needs of people receiving rent supplement for 18 months or more. Details of these cases are notified regularly by the Department to the local authorities through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Local authorities meet the housing needs of these individuals through a range of approaches including the traditional social housing, the voluntary housing sector and, in particular, the RAS. Latest figures from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government show that a total of 30,008 transfers from rent supplement to local authorities have occurred since 2005: 16,696 rent supplement recipients to RAS and a further 13,312 recipients to other social housing options.
It is accepted that progress on RAS was initially slower than expected. However the pace of delivery has improved significantly. In total, 14,000 recipients were transferred to RAS and social housing in 2008 and 2009; achieving targets set for RAS transfers for these years. The target established for 2010 is for a further 8,000 rent supplement tenants to be provided with a housing solution by local authorities.
In consultation with the Department, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has approved a number of pilot programmes in different local authorities to increase the flow of transfers. These include allowing applicants for RAS to seek out their own properties which, subject to compliance with the normal conditions and the agreement of the landlord, may then be taken into the leasing programme. Approved housing bodies under the leasing initiative have also been advised that they can source applicants for social housing support from long-term rent supplement tenancies also.
The Department continues to work closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and is represented on a number of RAS implementation groups. The purpose of these groups is to ensure that the RAS meets its objective of catering for those on long-term rent supplementation while enabling rent supplement to return to its original role.
Currently there is a very serious economic crisis in the country. The Minister is correct. We spend between €500 million and €600 million per year on rent allowance. We also have NAMA — through which many thousands of houses are being paid for by the State and the taxpayer. Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Michael Finneran, and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and whatever other agencies deal with NAMA, to try to make some of these houses available to people on rent allowance instead of having the State pay twice, for NAMA and for rent allowance?
The Minister is also correct in regard to the RAS. The local authorities have failed; there is no question about it. They have failed to take people who are getting long-term rent supplement and put them on the RAS. I agree with Deputy Shortall, whose point was correct. There is an anomaly concerning rent allowance that needs to be dealt with in the coming budget in order to encourage people to take up a job on the basis that their rent allowance will not be affected. We cannot have this situation continuing which is giving a bad name to people on rent allowance.
In that regard, when a person is approved for RAS, even if he or she is not yet in receipt of the allowance, the rules regarding rent supplement change. That is one solution. The solution I put forward must be applied in conjunction with the Minister with responsibility for housing. We need to reform all of this and rent supplement must again become a short-term scheme and any person who is likely to need long-term rental should be transferred to RAS urgently or at least approved for that scheme on an urgent basis. That deals with the poverty trap
What about NAMA?
The Minister needs to provide for that.
This is a priority question.
I am providing for——
The Minister needs to transfer the budget to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
This is a priority question and the Minister may only answer questions posed by the Deputy who submitted the question.
I would love to answer the Deputy's question but I have been overruled by the Chair.
I would have no problem talking to NAMA if I thought it would resolve the issue but what the Deputy will find is that rent supplement is being paid on many of the properties already taken into NAMA. That would not change matters. As the Deputy knows, NAMA transfers loans. Only in cases where a receiver is appointed would NAMA be the actual owner of the property rather than the property being used as a security. I have no problem, however, and I agree with the Deputy. Obviously, if the State owns empty houses they should be filled. That is a matter for discussion but as I understand it at present, there is not the handy answer the Deputy might think.
I must disagree with the Minister. It is only when one walks the streets in Donegal, canvassing, that one sees the vacant estates all over the place. NAMA has many vacant estates and we should seek a way to have such estates made available to the State which is already paying for them
I have another question that I would like the Minister to take up with the Minister of State with responsibility for housing, Deputy Finneran. I believe that the Department of Social Protection should provide the funding for rent allowance but housing should be a matter for local authorities, not for the Department. In my county alone, there are a number of vacant local authority houses which have not been used but, again, are being paid for by the taxpayer. They should be used for rent allowance purposes and made available to people. There are many hundreds of local authority houses. The local authorities are not doing their job. We have to save this money for the taxpayer and these houses should be taken up for use. I ask the Minister to speak to his colleague, the Minister of State about this.
That is more appropriate for the Minister of State with responsibility for housing.
There is a mix-up between the two.
I have been discussing all these issues with the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and, obviously, NAMA comes up in that context. The idea is worth exploring but I do not think there is a simple answer. When a loan is transferred to NAMA it is the loan rather than the property that is transferred. The property is the collateral. Only in cases where NAMA moves in and the person whose loan is taken over has his or her assets appropriated would the State have direct control of the asset. All these points are looked at on a continuing basis.
Local authority houses provide the answer to this problem. I fully accept the Deputy's points about filling local authority houses and people refusing housing. We have to deal with that issue and it formed part of my discussions with the Minister of State. A second issue is getting local authorities to move much faster on the RAS, putting people onto that scheme or approving people for it, thereby dealing effectively with the poverty trap mentioned by Deputy Shortall.
Much progress has been made.
34 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Social Protection the position regarding the number of self-employed persons; the number of these who are currently unemployed; the pension provision of these persons; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [44059/10]
Self-employed people pay PRSI class S contributions which provide cover for long-term benefits such as State pension, contributory, and widows-widowers pension, contributory. Employees are covered by PRSI classes A, E, H and P, which provide cover for the above benefits as well as for short-term contingencies such as jobseekers and illness benefits. In 2008 there were 338,187 persons in PRSI class S. In general, contributors get good value for money by paying for social insurance contributions. PRSI coverage is related to the risks associated with employment or self-employment, the annualised system of contributions for self-employed people and the practicalities of administering and controlling access to short-term payments for self-employed people. Self-employed people pay class S contributions at a rate of 3% per annum, a much lower rate compared to the 14.75% full class A contributions paid by employees and their employers, and this is reflected in the narrower range of benefits they receive. A system of separate arrangements for employed and self-employed workers within a social insurance context is common in other European social protection systems.
In this context it may be noted that self-employed workers generally achieve better value for money by paying social insurance compared to employees. The 2005 actuarial review of the social insurance fund found that a male, married, self-employed contributor earning gross average industrial wages had a value for money index of 10.3 compared to an index of 3.1 for an equivalent employee.
In basic terms this means that, with regard to benefits, the self-employed contributor can expect to receive over ten times what he contributes to the social insurance fund compared to the employee who only gets three times what he and his employer contribute despite the fact that the range of benefits available to employees is greater.
There are no plans at present to extend cover for short-term benefits to this group of insured workers. Any such measure would have significant financial implications and would have to be considered within a budgetary context. Consideration would also have to be given to an appropriate increase in the rate of the PRSI class S contribution.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Self-employed workers who do not qualify for a social insurance-based benefit may establish entitlement to social assistance-based payments such as jobseeker's allowance, subject to a means test. They can apply for the means-tested jobseeker's allowance if their business ceases or if they are on low income as a result of a downturn in demand for their services. A self-employed person's means are assessed in a flexible manner, taking account of the individual's particular situation and the overall economic circumstances. As it is more difficult to predict exactly what level of income a self-employed person might earn in the coming year, their income and activity levels in the last 12 months are generally used as a guide to estimate their likely future earnings. However it is not simply assumed that the previous year's earnings will be received in the coming year.
It is recognised that the present downturn in the economy is having a significant impact on many self-employed persons and the consequent reduction in their income and activity levels would be reflected in any assessment of their means from self-employment for jobseeker's allowance purposes for example the loss of a contract or completion of same.
If a self-employed person's situation changes after they have made an initial claim for jobseeker's allowance, he or she can apply to have his or her means assessment reviewed in the light of the changed circumstances
Did the Minister indicate in his reply the total number of self-employed people in the country? How many of them are unemployed? Is that statistic available?
The statistics on people paying class S insurance are available.
The start of the question concerned the position of the number of self-employed persons who are currently unemployed and the pension provisions of these persons.
The total number class S insurance is approximately 300,000. There are currently 9,016 people categorised as self-employed receiving jobseeker's allowance. The weekly average payment for this group is €206. In addition, there are 10,580 farmers receiving farm assist with an average weekly income of €207. However, I must warn the Deputy about those figures. If a self-employed person has zero income because his or her self-employment has finished, such as a lorry driver who had a contract for hauling cement or blocks which finished completely and he or she had sold the lorry and had no income, then such a person would not be classed as self-employed under my statistics.
Do we have statistics on the number of self-employed people who are unemployed and are not receiving any benefits? Do we know what the number is? They are the people who comprise the figure of 9,016 to which the Minister referred and are part of the live register. Do we have figures on the number of people who were self-employed and are now unemployed and who receive no payment?
No, not necessarily because——
Does that mean the unemployment figure of——
Deputy Ring quoted a figure of 426,000 earlier. That is the live register figure which includes 60,000 people who are in part-time employment every week. The unemployment figure, as measured by the Central Statistics Office, is much lower than the figure the Deputy gave.
What is the exact unemployment figure?
I understand it is approximately 300,000.
Does it include the unemployed who were self-employed?
Yes, it does.
All of them.
All of the 9,016.
Please, Deputy. We will structure the question a little bit.
If a person became unemployed and does not claim a payment and sign for a credit, of course it does not include such a person. The people who were self-employed and become unemployed and would not be entitled to payment are those who have other means, for example they might own properties, have capital assets, have money in the bank or have a spouse's earnings taken into account, and therefore might not be eligible. I cannot give the Deputy an answer to the question because it is not available to me and we do not have a number.
Would the Minister agree that it might be beneficial if we had a mechanism whereby we could put a figure on this?
It is not that simple. Some people who were self-employed give it up for many reasons and might decide they had enough income in the household to live on without being self-employed. That is a personal choice. It is very important that the social welfare code is a safety net for those whose income drops beneath a certain threshold. One of the concerns I have had for a long time is the issue of self employed people who became unemployed. Deputy Ring will know that for a long time I have believed the fairest system for the applicant and the State — if one is self-employed and allowed to have a self-employed income it is very hard to monitor it — is to offer work through activation. When one gets busy again one will not be able to do both and in the meantime one is contributing to society through one's work.
