Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I hear what Ms Leonard said about the form. These forms are very useful to Members of the Oireachtas. Even as an interim measure, until we consider the broader issue, perhaps all Department of Social Protection forms could be made available in electronic form in order that they could be put up on the Plinth service, which is our intranet here. The initiative would ensure that for anyone who contacts the office of a Deputy or Senator, we could print off the form and assist people to fill them out.

I will start by asking Mr. Hession about a cohort of people over the age of 66 who do not have PRSI contributions, are ineligible for a State contributory pension, will not receive a non-contributory pension because it is means tested and some of whom continue to work servicing loans on their businesses. It is the policy of the Department and the advice from officials to Ministers over the years to increase the age threshold for receipt of the State contributory pension, yet a cohort of people who are over the age of 66, continue to work and are not in receipt of a State pension have been denied any support throughout the pandemic. They are ineligible for the pandemic unemployment payment. They are not in receipt of another social welfare payment. They are ineligible for another social welfare payment. That cohort must be shown some flexibility when it comes to the pandemic unemployment payment.

In terms of the music industry, Mr. Hession made the point that the €480 threshold is a rolling threshold over a previous four-week period. This issue needs to be reconsidered. I ask that there is an average applied to the payment of the pandemic unemployment payment rather than using a four-week period because if some entertainers or artists are commissioned to do work and offered €500 they must, unfortunately, automatically refuse. Also, they may get payment in two separate calendar months but happen to be within the four-week period so yet again they are discriminated. The most sensible approach to take is for the €480 average to span the period of their pandemic unemployment payment. The adoption of this approach would be a far better vehicle to help these people return to full-time employment, which is the primary objective.

I accept what Ms Leonard said about arrears, that it is a complex calculation and that the Department intends to pay the vast majority of people next week, which is welcome. She said that the Department is going to deal with the other people who must be processed manually over the coming weeks.

The intention is to have those paid by the end of the year. First, what sort of numbers are we talking about that will be processed manually? Second, the witnesses need to be conscious of the fact that if those people are not paid before the end of the calendar year they could end up being taxed inappropriately in 2021 on those arrears because that income comes in in 2021 even though it is to supplement their income for 2020. They may have a tax credit available to them in 2020 that, hopefully, may not be available to them in 2021 if they get back into full-time employment. Every effort must be made to ensure that all of those people are paid this year. I would actively encourage the witnesses to make contact with the Department of Finance to ensure that those people are not discriminated against in respect of the taxation code in 2021 because of that delay in paying their arrears.

I want to make two other points. The first is to pick up on Deputy Ó Cuív's point about the mortgage interest supplement. I know this is not for the witnesses to comment on but I was very surprised that the Tánaiste suggested yesterday that there would be a further lockdown in the new year. I believe he is throwing in the towel in respect of what we need to do to manage this pandemic. We need to make every possible effort to ensure that there are no further lockdowns in this State in 2021. In that context, and in light of his particular comments, does it not make sense considering that the payment guarantee that had been in place with the banks is no longer in place that we would reintroduce mortgage interest supplement, particularly for people in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment? That would make a significant difference to people, particularly to the more than half of those in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment who have seen a dramatic fall-off in their basic income.

In her evidence Ms Leonard made the point that the temporary wage subsidy scheme did not correlate with the pandemic unemployment payment whereas the employment wage subsidy scheme did. She might elaborate on that. We are quite happy to take that in written format after the meeting but I want to flesh out those complexities because they are the very issues we want to see addressed as part of this process in which we are currently involved. I do not know who wants to start. Ms Leonard is on the screen so I might ask her to start off.