Mr. R?n?n Hession:

I remember the Leas-Cathaoirleach’s other point now, which was around secondary benefits. I will deal with that as well. On the wage subsidy scheme, I agree with her point around the language. It is pitched around there being basically a deficit in productivity that the subsidy is attempting to address. That characterises it immediately in a negative way. We will review that scheme later this year. We increased the basic subsidy from €5.30 to €6.30 an hour I think two budgets ago. It goes up €9.45, depending. With a minimum wage of €11.30, that is a significant subsidy. We will look at the minimum. To be honest, we do not want to find that the only employment we get for disabled people is where the State is effectively paying for it or that it ends up being low hours, insecure and with no prospects. That was the original thinking behind having the 21-hour threshold. In other words, a commitment is expected from the employer. However, we do not want that to then be excluding the person.

It is that balance but we will look at that data this year. The RAF is the first one we will get done and then we will go on to do the WSS and we will have a consultation on it. We will be talking to everyone about that.

On the secondary benefits, we had a meeting with the OECD recently where we tried to determine what is the best approach in terms of policies. Regarding secondary benefits, back as far as 2007 or 2008 the OECD said that unless we addressed that issue, we would have a lot of difficulty. We have made changes on a few fronts. People can keep the free travel for five years now and can keep the medical card for three years. We have also significantly increased the disregard. It used to be €120 but now it is €427. When the former Deputy, Finian McGrath, was a Minister for State, the disregard was increased.

I am not sure what the answer is on that, to be honest, because what do we do? Do we say to people that they can keep their secondary benefits forever? Perhaps for some people, because of the nature of their disability, they do need to keep them forever. However, there are resource implications if we do that so does that mean fewer people get the benefits? Does it mean that there are significant additional benefits that only some people are getting? Even with the best will in the world, once there are a lot of secondary benefits attached to a payment, there is a big risk to leaving that payment. It is a leap of faith, even if the person wants to and it is the best thing to do, financially. Health outcomes can be better when people are in employment. It is difficult because on the one hand, we want to support the person when they have a need but if they are able to move off the payment, they are giving up a lot. To be honest, it is a topic that has to be looked at interdepartmentally. It applies across numerous areas. As was said earlier, the housing support grant has a means threshold, as does the SUSI grant, the fuel allowance, the travel allowance, and the medical card. It is a delicate balance and I am not sure what the answer is actually.