Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The documentation we received was very helpful. At the macro level it seems that the Supplementary Estimate is very modest in the context of Covid continuing a lot longer than we had hoped. It is €470-odd million.

Then, if the amount for the bonus is taken out, which is always added at the end of the year as it is never part of the initial Estimate, I think everyone expected to be paid. Then we go through this shilly-shallying every year where we pretend that it is not in the Estimate and we have a big announcement and we give the bonus. If that little shimmy is taken out, could the Minister confirm that the real extra Estimate that the Department needs is in the region of €100 and €200 million? In the context of a total gross expenditure of €37 billion it is not a huge amount.

Will the Minister give a breakdown by sector of people who are still on the PUP? In some sectors such as hospitality, it makes perfect sense that there are people still on the PUP. Business is definitely down. That is also the case of things such as arts. On the other hand, I was surprised by the figure for construction. All we hear all the time is that there are not enough construction workers to build houses, other buildings and so on. If the Minister has more detail of that and whether there are particular sectors or of specialties in construction that have been hit, that would be very useful. I ask her to send on the list she read out because it is interesting. Obviously, aviation is in there somewhere but it will be broken down sectorally so there are people involved in administration will be listed under administration, and there are mechanics and those involved in maintenance.

We had a budget in October but the Covid situation has not improved as people hoped. The big questions is whether there is likely to be a knock-on effect into 2022. Are the Estimates beginning to become a little redundant for 2022 or, in the greater scheme of things, will it be significant?

PUP has higher rates, but even if a person is on the PUP on the lowest rate, he or she could continue on it indefinitely. There is no termination date. There is a lesson that we should learn from this after the pandemic. Most families now have two incomes. The jobseeker's benefit period is quite constrained and when it concludes, the person is moved to jobseeker's allowance. When that happens the spouse's income is taken into account and that can have a significant effect on family incomes and paying mortgages and so on in the real world. In many cases it is a couple in a household earning the money. Has the Minister reflected on the desirability, once the pandemic is over, of extending the period on which people can remain on jobseeker's benefit? The main difference is not the rate of payment, which is the exact same, but that on jobseeker's benefit a spouse's income is not assessed.

The Minister will know that I would love to see a radical review of means tests. I will never give up on this. It has been a mission of mine since I got into politics and there have been some minor concessions. This country's means testing system is archaic and anachronistic. I have a specific question. She might have the answer but, if not, she might get it for me. The estimated cost to the Department of the changes to means testing which she made were announced in the budget this year. That will be in the Social Welfare Bill. What is the estimated gross cost of those for the coming year? It would be very instructive to us if we could get some fix on that. I have a list of the changes that the Minister gave me in rely to a parliamentary question, which is very useful, but I would love to know how much the changes will cost. I always believe that the radical changes we need would stimulate more activity and, therefore, would not be very expensive.

Finally, I am delighted with the proposed changes to CE schemes. I hope they will happen sooner rather than later. There are 1,977 vacant places on schemes, which is why the budget is underspent. There are 1,033 on the Tús scheme and 107 on the rural social scheme. The Minister said that participants would be allowed to stay on CE if there is no one to take their place. Will that be extended to Tús? Tús is a cheaper scheme per head for the Department. When it was conceived, it was only intended to be a one-year scheme. Will people be allowed to stay on the scheme where they do not get alternative employment and where there is nobody to take their place? The excuse given all the time was that they could not stay on it because there were others there to take their place. That is not true in some communities. It is similar with the rural social scheme. Will the Minister consider abolishing the six-year rule? It was never needed from the beginning to end. It was a very recent rule. The scheme was working fine without it. I never received too many complaints about people not being about to get onto RSS. Will she abolish the six-year rule because is totally unnecessary?