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

I have a few questions. The first relates to the Vote itself and administration. The cost of administration has increased by €21 million, which is a 4% increase. I presume the Minister will say the reason for that is the additional administration that has been involved this year and the additional demands. I understand that. Can you explain the justification for a 7% increase in the administration of the Social Insurance Fund, which has gone up by €16 million? Across the Department, the administration has gone up by €21 million and we have a substantial amount of additional money being spent, additional workload involved in it, but why is there such a dramatic jump in the administration in the Social Insurance Fund, mid-year, over and above what was profiled at the start of the year? I ask the Minister to provide me an explanation on that.

I want to pick up on something the Minister said in her opening statement. She said, "I strongly believe in the fullness of time, we will look back on the swift and effective delivery of the pandemic unemployment payment as one of the single most important actions to ensure that we had social solidarity in Ireland during those dark periods when widespread restrictions were in place across our country." I would question that comment. The most effective scheme that was run was the employment wage subsidy scheme. Looking at the costings of the employment wage subsidy scheme over its first two years, in terms of direct costs and the PRSI forgone from the State, it cost on average of €102 a week to the Exchequer, whereas the pandemic unemployment payment cost multiples of that. Every single one of us has come across cases where people have done exceptionally well out of the pandemic unemployment payment. I raise this because I was probably the lone voice at the time this was being introduced arguing that we should have expanded and enhanced the employment wage subsidy scheme rather than going down the road of the pandemic unemployment payment. I just want to flag that particular issue.

On a more practical level, I would also bring up the additional needs payments. I listened intently to what was said earlier. I came across a case recently that reflects the anecdotal evidence I have been hearing from constituents, and from some staff within the Department, that false barriers are being put up to prevent the processing of these applications.

I will give a practical example. A constituent of mine who is visually impaired and had been in receipt of the blind pension until she reached pension age needed an additional needs payment for home heating. We sent her the supplementary welfare allowance form SWA1, which is the form we were told should be sent, to fill out. She submitted that form. It took a great deal of effort on her part to get the documentation to include with it. Prior to reaching retirement age, she was in receipt of the blind pension, so we can understand the difficulties involved. In response, she received an additional needs payment application form, meaning she had to fill out a further three pages that asked the exact same questions. I have asked the Department for a copy of that form because it lays out what is needed much more clearly than the SWA1 form.

I do not get it. This woman was irate with me over filling out the form that I had been advised by the Department she should fill out only to get another form in the post for her to fill out, one that asked the exact same questions and sought the exact same documentation. She is certified as blind. This is the type of situation that is arising. Either no one is looking at the forms and staff are just issuing standard replies or there is a deliberate attempt to delay processing applications. Neither option is good. This issue needs to be addressed.

I wish to discuss an issue I have raised previously, that of long Covid. The only statistics concerning long Covid we have in this country are those that the Department of Social Protection have provided to me on people who were on enhanced illness benefit for Covid-19 and subsequently went on to illness benefit payments or disability allowance payments. I welcome the assistance the Department has provided in this regard. More than 5,500 people claimed enhanced illness benefit from the initial onset of the illness for at least ten weeks and more than 4,000 of those went on to claim payments for at least two weeks after that. Can the Minister provide statistics on the cohort of people who were on illness benefit or disability allowance for two or three months subsequent to their original claims? She might revert to the committee with the information. It would be useful to have more detailed information on people's recovery from long Covid. If she facilitated this request, I would appreciate it.

My final question is for an Aire Stáit. I welcome the changes to the means test for the fuel allowance. We have discussed this matter in the past and the changes are a positive and welcome development. They will help to deal with some of the financial hardship we are all experiencing daily. I wish to ask about the cost of energy bills. What the Department is doing is a sticking plaster - a welcome sticking plaster, but a sticking plaster nonetheless. The only long-term way to deal substantially with the issue of energy poverty is the retrofitting of homes. Project Ireland 2040 committed to retrofitting 45,000 homes per year. The Minister and I were around the table when the then Government signed off on that commitment. This year's target is just 22,000 homes, of which only 4,500 are the homes of people who fall within the energy poverty category. Next year's target is 37,000 homes. At the same time, more than 9,500 people in fuel poverty have been waiting two and a half years to access the retrofit programme under the warmer homes scheme. We have 2,900 participants in the rural social scheme. They are mainly involved in seasonal work during the summer months, which normally winds down during the winter months. I have put it to the Taoiseach and am now putting it to the Minister of State in terms of his review that it would make sense in the short term to redeploy those 2,900 staff. The managers of schemes around the country would be willing to facilitate their redeployment to work on emergency measures like installing attic insulation, attic door covers and lagging jackets in the homes of people in fuel poverty. These three measures alone would have a dramatic impact on the fuel and energy consumption of homes across the country and on people who are in fuel poverty. Even at this late stage, will the Minister of State consider such a measure?