Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Carey for raising these issues. I thank him for his comments on the bravery of the gardaí last night.

As the Deputy knows, we have supported many people through the PUP, with total expenditure to date amounting to €7.75 billion. We are considering the future of the payment. It is the role of the social protection system to provide a basic income. With regard to sector-specific measures, we need to take the point up with the Ministers with responsibility for the relevant sectors. The social protection system has never paid sector-specific payments because it gets very complicated and it is probably unworkable. For example, where does one draw the line between a painter or electrician on a film set in the arts sector and a painter or electrician on a building site? Many supports have been given to the music, entertainment and arts sectors through the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has provided a broad range of supports for the business sector. Therefore, there are sector-specific supports within each Department.

We have been working with CE supervisors and have had discussions with them. For several years, they have been requesting, through their union representatives, the allocation of Exchequer funding to implement a 2008 Labour Court recommendation. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform had to have regard to any potential Exchequer exposure associated with dealing with the specific issue relating solely to the CE supervisors arising from the Labour Court recommendations. The Deputy can appreciate that. Any proposals to resolve this specific issue can and will only apply to CE supervisors and CE assistant supervisors. We have been working closely with the relevant Department and we have made a proposal. The proposal was sent to the unions representing the CE supervisors and CE assistant supervisors. The unions had a few queries and we have reverted to them with the answers. We are engaging with the unions on this basis. I hope we will find a resolution very quickly. The process is at an advanced stage. Any settlement arising will apply only to those parties who were the subject of the 2008 Labour Court recommendation and the related discussions with the Department, that is, the CE supervisors and assistant supervisors.

I am confident that we have a solid basis for progressing and resolving this issue while not exposing the Exchequer to any additional costs. That is the position as it stands. As I have said, I hope we will get this long-standing issue resolved fairly soon.

Regarding the payment for the 65-year-olds, the Deputy will remember that, before we brought in this payment, people who had to retire at 65 had to come in and fill out a form. This was the issue which was raised with me at the time. I saw it myself. They had to fill out applications for jobseeker's payments. These were people who had worked all of their lives but who had to retire at the age of 65 because of their contracts. They had to sign on and to present and say that they were available for work. I felt that was wrong. That is why we brought in the retirement payment for 65-year-olds. Originally, this could be claimed for nine months, depending on one's contributions. We then made it available for the full year but it only applied to people who retired at the age of 65. It remains in place. People do not have to sign on or attend an Intreo centre. The social insurance contribution requirements are not as high as those for State pension eligibility. Given that they have a recent attachment to the workforce, people retiring at 65 should, in most cases, meet the PRSI requirements. One has to have been working at the age of 65 to get it. That is part of it. Unfortunately, the particular person Deputy Carey mentioned would not seem to qualify but, if the Deputy wishes to provide me with the details, I am happy to take a look at the case.