Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992

Vol. 423 No. 5

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Regulations.

Michael Finucane

Ceist:

12 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the drastic effects on the casual workforce on the docks in Foynes, County Limerick as a result of the recent changes in the social welfare regulations affecting those on unemployment assistance and the fact that considerable financial hardship is now being caused to these workers and their families as a result of its implementation; if he will clarify the way in which these families can now be assisted under the social welfare code; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Mr. McCreevy:

The assessment of income from insurable employment as means for unemployment assistance purposes was introduced to remove unjustifiable inequities between the treatment of self-employed persons and those under a contract of service. While the income of self-employed persons was taken into account as means, that of employees working under a contract of service, irrespective of the amount, was heretofore totally excluded from assessment. This disparity in the treatment of insured persons working part-time and claiming assistance for the remainder of each week was indefensible when considered in the context of equity.

The new provisions for the assessment of insured income came into effect on 29 July but they have been structured so as to contain an incentive to persons to accept offers of part-time employment. This incentive is provided by the disregard of an amount equal to the maximum daily assistance payable for each day worked plus a weekly amount of £10. For example, a married man with three children working three days a week will have £74.50 of his weekly earnings disregarded. The balance of earnings will then be assessed as means in determining the rate of unemployment assistance for days of unemployment.

I have made inquiries regarding the position of the casual workforce employed at Foynes Docks and the information available to me reveals that certain dockers employed at Foynes are earning between £11,000 and £18,800 per annum or £207 to £360 per week while also in receipt of unemployment assistance. Clearly this is something no one can justify. There are others who have received only short periods of work and whose earnings are correspondingly less.

The whole basis of the unemployment assistance scheme is that persons unable to find employment and who do not have entitlement to unemployment benefit receive a payment from the State, funded out of taxpayers' money and determined on the basis of a means test. The intention of the recent change is that all claimants should be treated in a more equitable fashion.

Mr. Finucane:

I accept that what the Minister says is partially correct. I was responding to workers who earn small amounts of unemployment assistance. The Minister is aware of the casual nature of docks work. At certain times of the year docks tend to be busier than others and they depend very much on casual employees. Many of those employees have been drawing unemployment assistance. Would the Minister not agree that he has created a poverty trap and blocked any incentive to employment for people on unemployment assistance? Is the Minister aware that many of the dockers in Foynes were exceptionally busy because of the meat boats in the summer? Does the Minister not consider that many of those people should be rightly restored to full unemployment assistance if they are unemployed?

Mr. McCreevy:

I have a fair amount of information regarding the dockers in Foynes. There were up to 200 dockers employed at Foynes Port and only 62 who were in receipt of unemployment assistance had their earnings assessed; 22 lost all entitlement to unemployment assistance, 23 suffered a reduction in unemployment assistance and 17, who had an underlying entitlement to unemployment benefit but who had opted for unemployment assistance due to the higher long term unemployment assistance rates, reverted to claiming unemployment benefit. I do not agree in this case that the application of the rule has caused any unnecessary hardship.

Built into the regulations I announced on 29 July I have given an incentive for people who work for some days and have some part-time insurance employment. I cannot make a case for the dockers at Foynes Port. The earnings of some of these people are quite substantial.