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

Taking everything into consideration, on devoted money, the Minister came in within budget. The other things were conscious decisions of the Government to give out more money. That is a different issue. That is a sign of good budgeting. They are massive figures. I see small overruns and then I look at the figure and it is €2 billion or whatever for pensions and there is a small overrun. The Department should be complimented on that.

I then looked at the underspend. There is a large underspend, thankfully, on jobseeker's allowance, Tús and community employment, CE, schemes. I am a bit disappointed. I hope that now, as we go into next year, that the Minister will tell the Department of public expenditure that her Department is making savings - it is on a roll - and that she will look at how many people can be facilitated who are on jobseeker's allowance, which means they have to be available for and actively seeking work, but cannot do anything until they get a full-time commercial job. The idea of CE schemes, including Tús, is that it is preferable for people who are on jobseeker's allowance - they do not have a job - to engage with some kind of activity or work or, in the case of CE schemes, training. It has been proven time and again that it is good for people's personal well-being. The Minister will find evidence of that in her Department. Mental well-being is linked to having a purpose in life and getting out. People get more money and keep a connection with the workforce and the discipline of work. It means they have an employer who can give them a reference and so on. When employers look at CVs, the ones that pose the biggest problem or worry employers the most, is where people were unemployed for more than a year and did not get employment or engage with anything. They ask what people did with their time and whether they worked in voluntary organisations. Has any thought been given to trying to once again persuade the Department of public expenditure to loosen the terms of people remaining on these schemes until they get commercial employment? I will not rehash the debate I have had time and again that some people are unlikely to get full-time employment but are much better off on a scheme than being forced into idleness. It seems that now is the obvious time, when there is no pressure on jobseeker's allowance.

I will look at the three budgets together. The underspend on jobseeker's allowance is €70 million. The underspend on community employment programmes is €26 million and on Tús it is €15 million. It is a considerable amount of money when they are added up. It is well over €100 million. We would get the cost back - the difference between the cost of someone being on a CE scheme and straight cash - of people being allowed to stay in the schemes. There are social benefits and the monetary benefits would not in any way eat up the savings. People who are on jobseeker's allowance should benefit from the saving.

I looked at fuel allowance. I might not be reading it correctly, but it seems that if we take out the one-off payments, it came in under budget. It seems that even though the means-test thresholds were raised quite considerably, it still came in under budget. Not as many people availed of it as expected. The figure I have for fuel allowance is €437 million, minus €25 million for the variance, including cost-of-living measures. It is easily understood. It is a guessing game when we start using means tests. Is that not right? The figures were conservative when the changes were made, so there is room for a little more generosity. The Minister is aware of my view on means testing. A suggestion has been made at this committee that instead of the rule being that the figure for a single person over 70 is €500 and a person who hits €501 gets nothing, there should be a half-rate or some kind of tapering off, rather than people losing the whole thing overnight. Older people and others who receive this payment really appreciate it. I noticed there is a small saving on free travel. That indicates that the recent announcement the Minister made about people who are excluded from driving for medical reasons will be easily funded. That is positive.

Normally, farm assist payments go down as the unemployment rate goes down, because the vast majority of farmers are part-time farmers who work when work is available. It is strange at first view that farm assist payments have not gone down. There are no savings. I think I know the reason. I have raised this issue many times. It relates to anyone with a dependent child or adult. Under the change of rules, those who joined the rural social scheme, RSS, after 2016 only get €22 or €25 per week - it is a small amount of money - for 19.5 hours work. I think people with dependants are shying away from the scheme. They ask why they should do 19.5 hours work as there is no benefit. People on the rural social scheme work hard and do productive labour. People who were on the scheme previously got the full payment and anyone who is on the scheme who joined before 2016 - some people have been on the scheme for many years and have benefited hugely socially, economically and in every way - gets the full payment. Means were ignored as long as they were under the threshold of means. Everyone who is farming should have a small profit. I hope they have. Could that be looked at again? The figures speak for themselves. It is terrible to think of people going on the farm assist payment and not making the fantastic contribution that any of us who have had experience of RSS workers know they make. They are exceptionally skilled because they are all farmers and know what they are at and they make exceptional contributions to rural communities.

The figures for humanitarian aid are not big in the greater scheme of social welfare. That needs to be in place into the future. It is a good scheme and my experience of the people who deal with it is that they are considerate of people in difficult circumstances. That is hugely helpful.

My final question relates to a big ticket item. Will the Minister tell the committee how much people with temporary protection from Ukraine, TPUs, cost in a year? How much did they cost in the past year? More important, what efforts are being made to facilitate people who come from Ukraine - no one is arguing with that; they have made good contributions to a lot of our communities, schools and so on and have integrated well - to acquire English and engage in the workforce? Do we have any idea how many of them are transitioning from dependence on social welfare into the reverse, that is making a contribution to the social insurance fund by working?

Anecdotally, I have heard that in my own area there are a reasonably good number because the buses are full every day with people going to work. Has the Minister seen a levelling off of the number? I understand the number in the country is not going up rapidly at the moment, although I could be wrong. Is the Minister seeing a drop in the number of people claiming because more and more people are engaging in the workforce? Can we facilitate more engagement through good transport services and so on, particularly in rural areas, where many are living at the moment?