Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members that due to ongoing Covid-19 restrictions, they are requested to participate remotely and must do so from within precincts of Leinster House. This meeting has been convened to consider the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 37 - Social Protection, which was referred to the committee by Dáil Éireann. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection and her officials to the meeting and thank them for the briefing document provided in advance of this meeting. As she is present, officials should not speak in public session.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I advise witnesses that the opening statement and any other documents they have submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after this meeting.

I invite the Minister to make her opening statement.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for the invitation to meet with it today to present the 2021 Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Protection. I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate of €473.5 million for 2021. The purpose of this is to address a shortfall in funding for my Department that is partially needed to fund the Christmas bonus for Vote 37 social assistance recipients. There is also a net overspend caused by funding of Covid-19 supports during 2021.

I was pleased to announce that a Christmas bonus will be paid at the rate of 100% again this year. As the committee will be aware, the Christmas bonus recognises the needs of people who are long-term financially dependent on their social welfare payment for all or most of their income, such as pensioners, people with disabilities and carers. This year, those in receipt of jobseeker payments and the PUP will receive the bonus once they have been in payment for at least 12 months - down from the 15-month requirement of previous years. It will benefit more than 1.4 million long-term social welfare recipients and is estimated to cost approximately €313 million. This cost is broken down into €131.4 million for Vote 37 recipients and €181.4 million for Social Insurance Fund recipients. The bonus that is paid to people in receipt of payments from voted schemes is met entirely by the Exchequer. As the committee will be aware, there is a 2021 deficit on the Social Insurance Fund, which is subvented by the Exchequer. This means that the Christmas bonus paid to those on social insurance schemes increases the fund deficit. Indirectly, the Exchequer will fund the cost of this Christmas bonus in full as it will provide funding to meet this increased Social Insurance Fund deficit. As the cost of the bonus is not included in the original Estimates for the Department and, unless equivalent savings on other schemes meet the entire cost, a Supplementary Estimate is required to ensure that the bonus gets paid. In the brief provided to the committee, I have separately included the additional cost of the Christmas bonus to be paid for each scheme showing the effect of the bonus on the requirement for a Supplementary Estimate. This table also provides the outturn position on the various schemes prior to the payment of the bonus, which eases comparison between the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate. I hope the committee finds this approach useful.

The balance of the Supplementary Estimate is required to meet a net overspend on the schemes and services delivered by my Department. In May 2021, a further Revised Estimate of €29.14 billion was considered by the committee for projected 2021 social protection spending. This Estimate was based on Government decisions at the time that included that both the PUP and the employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS, would cease after June 2021. It was anticipated that income support for people who were unemployed after that date would be provided, where necessary, through the standard jobseeker income support schemes. Given the fact that the PUP and the EWSS were extended beyond that date, we see overspends on these schemes and underspends on jobseeker payments.

I will go through that in a little more detail now. Both the PUP and the EWSS continue to be paid up to the end of 2021. Covid-19 has fundamentally impacted the pattern and level of spending as compared with that projected in May 2021. Spending on the EWSS scheme will be more than €2.2 billion higher while more than €700 million in additional expenditure will be incurred for the PUP. The Covid enhanced illness benefit scheme will cost nearly €67 million extra. There are also areas of underspending. In particular, jobseeker spending will be nearly €1.2 billion less than anticipated. This is largely due to the strength of the recovery in the labour market combined with the extension of the PUP. I have provided the committee with full details of all schemes where the projected end of year Vote expenditure deviates from that projected in May 2021.

The position of the Social Insurance Fund has also altered from the May 2021 projections. Fund expenditure was estimated to be in excess of €15.3 billion. Spending is now expected to be just under €15 billion - some €347 million less. PRSI income is now projected to be more than €11.95 billion, which is €825 million more than estimated. This means that the subvention required from the Exchequer is significantly reduced. Instead of an anticipated subvention of €3.76 billion subvention, the required subvention will be €2.59 billion. This is €1.17 billion or more than 30% lower.

Taking account of the altered pattern of spending I have highlighted, it is now projected that overall social protection spending in 2021 will be €30.54 billion. This is a difference of €1.4 billion over the May 2021 estimate. Not all of this €1.4 billion is being funded through the Supplementary Estimate. There is additional PRSI income over that previously estimated of €825 million. The Vote benefited from additional income of nearly €97 million, mainly due to more than expected recoveries of overpayments from employers on 2020 temporary wage subsidy scheme, TWSS, claims. Taking account of these, the total Supplementary Estimate required to meet the shortfall is €473.5 million.

The expenditure giving rise to this €473.5 million is made up of €312.4 million to pay the Christmas bonus to long-term recipients of social welfare payments and in excess of €23 million to bring forward to the week of the budget, both the €5 increase in the fuel allowance payment and the change to the means test for the scheme, while €138 million of the Supplementary Estimate refers to net overspending on the Department’s schemes and services as set out in my earlier comments.

To conclude, I hope that my opening statement, together with the briefing material provided to the committee, has given it a clear overview of the Department's expenditure in 2021 and the reason underlying the necessity to seek a Supplementary Estimate.

Marc Ó Cathasaigh (Waterford, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her presentation and for the supplementary material, which sets everything out fairly clearly. Much of it is self-explanatory. It relates to a Christmas bonus and the continuation of the Covid measures. That can be clearly seen in the figures. It is worth saying that it is not all bad news. The performance of the Social Insurance Fund and the PRSI take are very welcome and show that there is potential for our economy to rebound. We are already seeing that rebound in our tax revenues. That is helping us deal with some of the burden of the ongoing restrictions.

I have some questions. There is an increase in funding for the non-contributory State pension of €20 million. Expenditure on the domiciliary care allowance is increasing by €3.2 million. Am I to assume that these changes relate directly to the increased budget allocations for those payments? I imagine that is straightforward.

I have a question on PUP recipients, which I asked the Minister when dealing with Supplementary Estimates this time last year when we were all hoping that Covid would be in the rear view mirror by this point. Do we have information about the PUP recipients? Do we know what age they are, what sectors they work in or where in the country they are? Are they on the scheme intermittently, coming in and out of it, or are they on it constantly, remaining on it for a long period? If they have remained on it for a long period, there must be a reason they have not transitioned onto a jobseeker's payment. What does that tell us? Are they better off on the PUP? I would imagine they are because otherwise they would have made the transition. Does that tell us that we are looking at younger people or at people whose partners are still at work? As we try to unwind the PUP and deal with the scarring to the economy, all of that will be very important.

Speaking of scarring to the economy, one of the sections that jumped out at me and made me sad was that on working-age employment supports, the community employment, CE, scheme, the rural social scheme, the back-to-work enterprise allowance, the youth employment support service, the back-to-education allowance, JobsPlus, the local employment services, jobs clubs and the work placement experience programme. The spend on all of these has decreased massively because the economy is not reopening in that way. My question relates to the longer term. We know there will be scarring in the labour market. These traditional employment supports are not in place in large measure at the minute. Is the Minister planning ahead? When this pandemic finally ends, will she have some sort of action plan ready to put in place so that those people who may have been distanced from the labour market during the pandemic will have an opportunity to find their way back in?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. The performance of the PRSI has been good. That shows that people are getting back to work. With regard to the extra spending on the non-contributory State pension, domiciliary care allowance and back-to-work family dividend he mentioned, the impact of the Christmas bonus is built into those increases. For example, spending on the non-contributory State pension for 2021 is expected to come to €1.085 billion. This includes €21.9 million for the Christmas bonus. That is why there is an overspend of €19.5 million. Spending on the domiciliary care allowance for 2021 is expected to total €203.1 million. That includes €4.2 million for the Christmas bonus. This has resulted in an overspend of €3.3 million. Excluding the bonus, there would only have been a slight underspend on this particular scheme. Spending on the back-to-work family dividend for 2021 is expected to total €12.6 million, which includes €200,000 for the Christmas bonus. Spending on the Magdalen laundries scheme is expected to total €3.2 million, which includes €100,000 for the Christmas bonus. Spending on the blind pension scheme is expected to total €12.8 million, which includes €200,000 for the Christmas bonus. I hope I have outlined the increases in the different schemes satisfactorily.

I have a breakdown regarding spending on the PUP. I can give the Deputy some of these figures, which are very interesting. There are currently 54,824 people in receipt of the payment. Some 31,687, or 57.8%, of these are men while 23,000, or 42.2%, are women. With regard to the rates, this week, 17,000 claimants, or 31%, are receiving €203 while the 37,818, or 69%, are receiving €250. On the age cohorts, 4,131 people under 25 are in receipt of the payment, which equates to 7.5% of the total number of recipients; 11,668, or 21.3%, are aged between 25 and 34; 14,802, or 27%, are aged between 35 and 44; 12,671, or 23%, are aged between 45 and 54; while 11,500, approximately 21%, are 55 or older. I will provide the committee with a copy of this breakdown if it is helpful. I have no problem in having it sent on.

I can only provide a broad outline with regard to the sectors involved because we do not really have any way of verifying what sectors people are in. I cannot provide any great level of detail but these are the broad sectors recipients are in. Some 1,000 people, almost 2%, work in an unclassified or unknown sector. Those working in agriculture, forestry and fisheries total 867 or 1.6%. Some 4,000, or 7%, work in manufacturing while 299 work in the area of electricity, gas, steam and air conditioning supply. Some 5,540, or approximately 10% , of those on the PUP work in the construction sector. The wholesale and retail trades and the repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles account for 9,229, or 16%, of recipients. Some 2,800 work in transport and storage while 8,227, or approximately 15%, work in accommodation and food service activities. IT, financial and insurance services, account for approximately 7% of recipients while real estate activities account for another 7.5%. I will jump to the bigger categories. Some 3,000, or 5%, work in the area of professional, scientific and technical activities while 6,375 work in the area of administrative and support service activities. Approximately 950 recipients work in public administration and 1,800 in education. Some 2,000 work in the area of human health and social work activities while 1,325 work in the arts, entertainment and recreation sector. Some 2,792 work in other services. Some 12,557, or 24%, of those on the PUP are self-certified as self-employed while 39,545, approximately 75%, are employees. That is, again, a good breakdown. I will have it forwarded to the committee.

With regard to what we are doing to get people back to work, of course, a number of our services have not been operational due to Covid. That is why there has been an underspend. I had plans to do a roadshow around the country to encourage employers to meet with people who are looking for work and to link up with them but, unfortunately, I had to cancel that because of the new restrictions. I intend to get out on the road again in the new year. The new strategy, Pathways to Work, was published in July. This shares the key aims of the programme for Government and sets out how the State will provide employment supports for the years ahead. One of its commitments is to expand the caseload capacity of the public employment services, including both the internal services in Intreo offices and contracted services, by 100,000 jobseekers.

The focus of Pathways to Work is to ensure as many employment and training opportunities as possible are made available to people who are unemployed and they are supported in preparing and competing for these opportunities. As the committee will be aware, there is a significant number of apprenticeship places and we have the work placement programme. There is a number of different schemes there that we will be encouraging and working with people to take up in the new year. I hope the restrictions will have eased off somewhat by then.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Carey is next.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, to the meeting and thank her for her presentation and her continued engagement with the committee. I approve of this Supplementary Estimate.

I have a few issues. I have raised with the Minister over an extended period of time the issue of community employment, CE. There is a need to reform CE to make people eligible. I am aware the Department has carried out a number of reviews. Could the Minister update the committee on that work? When does the Minister envisage that a decision will be made, basically, on the eligibility criteria to make CE more easy to get into? Community employment is a win-win for the person and for the community where they work as well and I cannot see why the Department is dragging its heels on this.

In relation to the Christmas bonus, when exactly does the Minister envisage that it will be paid? On the issue of changes to the means test for support carers, will the Minister have a look at that?

I have received much communication on the offer that was made to CE supervisors in the ongoing issue with their pension. Is that issue finalised or does the Minister expect some more offers to be made to the CE supervisors and retired CE supervisors? Could the Minister update the committee on that as well?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Carey. In terms of the CE supervisors' pensions, the starting point for this issue is, as the Deputy will be aware, the 2008 Labour Court recommendations. We have had a number of discussions. We have put forward a recommendation to the CE supervisors and my Department has been tick-tacking with them. An offer has been made to them. I hope that can be finalised soon and that we will be able to reach an agreement there. I believe it is a very generous offer. This has been a long-standing issue. We have met with them and much work has gone into it. I particularly acknowledge the work of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, in reaching a solution to this long-standing problem. It is with the supervisors at present and there have been discussions with the unions. We hope we will be able to bring that to closure soon.

In terms of the carers, Deputy Carey mentioned the different supports that we have. As the Deputy will be aware, in the budget we certainly improved what the offering was for carers. It was something that I was keen to do. The Government recognises the important role that family carers play in Irish society and we are fully committed to support them through a range of supports and services. The main income supports for carers provided by the Department included carer's allowance, carer's benefit, domiciliary carer's allowance and the carer's support grant and spending on these payments, in 2021, is expected to amount to €1.5 billion. I was glad that I was able to improve the means test. I note that is something Deputy Carey wanted but it is something that the Chair, and, indeed, the other members of the committee, also raised with me on a number of occasions. We did that in the budget and that will come into effect next year. That means that you can earn more and still qualify for the carer's payment. The carers' groups across the country were very glad and there was widespread acknowledgement that this was a good thing to do. Of course, I increased the weekly carer's allowance payment by €5. The carer's support grant is at €1,850. That is the highest level it has ever been at. As a result of the changes that I made in the budget, a couple can earn up to €750 a week and the first €50,000 in savings will not be counted in the means test. That is something that will help those carers who carry out such important work.

Finally, in relation to the CE schemes, I acknowledge the great work done right across the country. It is not only a job activation measure. The schemes provide some fantastic social services, and it is important that we say that. Deputy Carey has raised this matter with me on a number of occasions. I intend to bring proposals to Government shortly to change the age from 62 to 60 so that persons can stay on the CE scheme continuously. If you are over 60 and on CE, you can stay on it if you choose to do so. This is something that many members of the committee have also raised with me. I will make significant changes to the referral process so that more people are referred from the Intreo office to CE schemes. I will be getting reports on that because some CE schemes have been saying that they are not getting enough referrals. I will be getting a monthly report on how many referrals are going into the CE schemes. Most important, I will be introducing a change so that where a scheme genuinely cannot fill a vacancy after advertising it, etc., it will be allowed to keep the existing CE worker in place provided he or she is happy to stay on. That is an important change and is something, once again, that many of the committee members have been raising with me. There is some vital work that the schemes are doing and it is important that those services can continue. In terms of all of that, I have to get approval from Government but I am sure I will get the support of this committee in doing so. That is what I am hoping to do. That will make a big difference to the CE schemes and help them carry out, as I said, not only job activation but that social aspect to the work they do that we need to recognise.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. Could the Minister clarify when she would expect that these welcome changes to CE will come into effect? The Minister needs to get Government approval and bring a memorandum to Cabinet. Would it need to be underpinned by legislation, regulation or statutory instrument? When would the Minister envisage that this can happen?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope it will happen relatively quickly. I have to bring a proposal to Government and get it agreed there. As I said, it has to be looked at carefully. We always make sure when we are changing things that there are no unintended consequences. As I said, I hope to bring it to Government shortly and I would hope that in the new year we will be able to make an announcement.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. The next member is Deputy Kerrane.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank you, a Chathaoirligh. I thank the Minister for her opening statement and for the information provided by her Department. I have a number of questions on to the Supplementary Estimate that is before us.

I was surprised to see a substantial reduction in the exceptional and urgent needs payments due to lower numbers of people accessing them. I have raised this issue with the Minister previously. We should have better data on these payments. There has been an obvious issue with access to community welfare officers, CWOs. That cannot be helped in some cases because of Covid and so on, but we do not have data on the number of people applying for these payments and being refused. All we get are data on the number who receive the payments. We need better data on whether a payment is given is at the discretion of the CWO. We need to know what the true demand is. I am concerned, especially given that these are the payments being pointed to when it comes to people struggling with energy costs. I would be surprised if €19.8 million was saved due to a lower number of one-off payments. Perhaps the Minister might comment on this.

I have raised the issue of community employment with the Minister several times. I welcome her remarks about the proposals she will introduce. Some of what she is suggesting needs to be considered in terms of the rural social scheme as well, given that there might not be someone available to replace another in rural areas. The six-year rule causes difficulty. I welcome the Minister's comments on examining referrals monthly. As I raised with the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, last week, there are more than 2,500 vacancies being advertised online at the moment. That is a large number of vacancies and points to a serious issue. I am glad that it will be addressed and I welcome the Minister's remarks about allowing people to stay on beyond 60 years of age, reduced from 62, until they reach retirement age. Where efforts have been made to replace a person on a scheme but no replacement can be found, he or she can now remain on the scheme if willing. I welcome the Minister's proposals in this regard.

There is a figure for the amount of funding provided to the child maintenance review group. Does the Minister expect the report by the end of the year, as was the plan? It is important work and I hope that we see the report being published once the Minister receives it.

I wish to mention the blind pension. At our meeting this time last year, I raised this matter with the Minister. That the blind pension is means tested creates an issue where the partner, husband, wife or whatever of a blind person has a change in circumstances. I have met people whose partners' circumstances have changed and who have as a result either got a reduced blind pension or lost it altogether even though they remain blind. We need to examine this matter. I am not sure what the figure is for the number of people receiving this payment, but where a person is blind for life, he or she should be entitled to it, full stop. I ask the Minister to examine this matter.

Regarding a State pension for family carers and lifelong carers, the Minister mentioned after the budget that she was considering this possibility and was hoping to make progress. Will she update us? I presume she will engage with stakeholders like Family Carers Ireland.

I understand that, on budget day, a figure of approximately €1.9 million was announced for the increase from €100 to €120 in the income threshold for the fuel allowance from January. From a reply to a recent parliamentary question, though, the figure appears to be just under €4.2 million. Was there a change in the number of people who would receive the payment? Last week, the Minister stated that she hoped to bring the change in ahead of January. Will she comment on this?

An issue was raised with me a couple of weeks ago about a person in her 40s on a widow's pension, working full time and paying PRSI. She got unwell with Covid, received the Covid illness payment, ended up with long Covid and had to leave work again. She was not entitled to the illness benefit because she was in receipt of the widow's pension. I did not realise it but it appears that widows, lone parents and deserted wives are not entitled to illness benefit where they receive the widow's pension. Obviously, this affects women primarily. I did not realise this was in the legislation. I appreciate that a person on a pension typically cannot get a second social welfare payment but if widows, perhaps even young ones in their 40s who are working full time and paying PRSI, are unable to access the illness benefit should they get sick, especially where they have families, it puts a great deal of pressure on them. Will the Minister undertake to consider this issue?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for her questions and will try to answer as many of them as I can.

Regarding exceptional and urgent needs payments, there was €3.7 million of an underspend due to a lower number of one-off payments than was provided for in the Revised Estimate and this resulted in a saving of €19.8 million. We estimate allocations when putting the budget together but there were 38,000 fewer payments than we expected. This was offset by a cost of €16 million due to a higher average payment value than was provided for in the Revised Estimate due to the nature of the one-off payments and the fact that the value of claims can vary significantly over time.

Under the supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, scheme, the Department may make a single exceptional needs payment to meet essential one-off expenditure that a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of his or her normal weekly income. An urgent needs payment is a one-off payment made to persons who would not normally qualify for SWA but who would have an urgent need. This payment is demand led and payments are made at the discretion of the officers administering it, taking into account the requirements of the legislation and all the relevant circumstances of each case in order to ensure that the payments target those most in need of assistance. Unlike other payments administered under the SWA scheme, the habitual residence condition does not apply to emergency needs payments or urgent needs payments. By its nature, the housing category is the largest expenditure within the exceptional needs payment scheme, accounting for over 68% of expenditure in 2020. This includes payments for necessary items, for example, bedding, flooring, furniture, household appliances, rent deposits and rent in advance. As the committee knows, I have changed the criteria for women and men who were victims of domestic violence so that they do not have to be means tested for the first three months of rent supplement payments.

I will provide some figures. In 2021, bills accounted for 1,387 payments, child-related costs accounted for 1,733, clothing accounted for 6,954, funeral expenses accounted for 2,085, general expenses accounted for 11,077, housing accounted for 21,373, illness accounted for 1,088 and urgent needs payments accounted for 259. Some people might not have been able to get the same access to this scheme during Covid - I do not know - but the money is there and available to those who need it.

As the committee knows, I want to make some changes to community employment schemes. I will consider the rural social scheme as well. Deputy Ó Cuív has raised it with me a number of times.

Regarding vacancies in community employment schemes, there is a shortage in the labour market because people are in employment or are not choosing to join a community employment scheme. There are many reasons. We want to encourage people to take up these opportunities to get experience and full-time employment. The primary purpose of the scheme is to get people prepared for full-time employment. I will be keeping a close eye on the figures. There are vacancies in many areas.

The blind pension continues to be a means-tested payment. I understand the Deputy's point. People who qualify for this payment are blind for life, which presents them with many challenges. Dealing with a specific issue can have other consequences, but I will examine the matter to see what we can do, if anything.

As for the carer's State pension, the pensions commission has recommended that people who have been caring should receive a pension. I agree with that and want to progress the proposal as part of the report on pensions.

As for the fuel allowance, the threshold has been increased on the budget week change. That is why I am looking for the extra money. The means test has also changed such that applicants can earn €120 in excess of the State pension, an increase on the previous figure of €100. That is demand-led. We cannot just say how many people will benefit because we do not know how many people will apply. Any figures we have put in would be based on people who had applied and did not qualify but would qualify now. There are, however, many others out there, I am sure, who have not applied. We would encourage people to apply for the fuel allowance and allow the calculation to be made. Some people might qualify for it even though they may think, when they do the calculations themselves, that they do not. They should just send in the application forms and we can have the calculations done.

As for the widow who applied for illness benefit, if Deputy Kerrane could give me the specific details of the case, I would be happy to follow it up and come back to her on it, if that is okay with her.

I think I have covered off everything she raised.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked about the child maintenance review group. I thank the Minister.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry; I forgot. I have the details of that. As the Deputy will be aware, in 2020, we established a child maintenance review group to examine certain issues with child maintenance. I know that she has an interest in this, as do I. The group is chaired by the former Circuit Court judge, Catherine Murphy. The terms of reference are to consider and make recommendations on the current treatment of child maintenance and the current provisions relating to liable relatives managed by the Department and the establishment of a child maintenance agency in Ireland. The work of the group is well under way. The group has held 11 meetings, and a number of further meetings are scheduled. A public consultation process to facilitate feedback from all stakeholders and members of the public has been undertaken and the group's report is due to be finalised by the end of the year. When I get the report, I will bring it to the Government and then publish it.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know what is wrong with my camera. I just cannot open it. I confirm that I am in Agriculture House.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is grand.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the clarification on the supplementary payment. I have just two questions. Many other areas have been covered. Regarding the CE supervisors, it is good that an offer has been made. It is to be hoped they will be happy with the offer.

I wish to ask the Minister about the EWSS. A number of Deputies have tabled questions about the PUP to her in the past week or so. She referred to the fact that she will continue with the cuts to the PUP and said employers are encouraged to avail of the EWSS to retain staff on their payroll, yet the scheme is being cut today. If that cut had not taken place, how much extra would the Department have needed in the Revised Estimates? On the basis that the Government has advised people to go out only once a week rather than possibly twice or three times and to cut back on their social contacts, does the Minister think her Department is right to make this cut?

I welcome the changes to the carer's allowance and the announcement she has made in that regard. There is one group, however, that I have raised with her previously and wish to raise again today, which is those availing of the benefit payment for 65-year-olds. I have heard from a woman who was working until recently, when she turned 65. She applied for the benefit payment for 65-year-olds and the half-rate carer's allowance and was refused the latter. Yet when she reaches 66 and avails of her State pension, she will be able to get that allowance. That is an anomaly arising from the change made from the jobseeker's transitional payment to the payment for 65-year-olds and it should be looked at. Very few people around the country may be affected by it - I do not know - but this woman is losing nearly €150 a week now. I ask the Minister to look into that and to change that as soon as possible in order that people such as this woman are able to avail of the half-rate carer's allowance. They should be entitled to it when they turn 66 with a State pension.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will answer the question about the over-65s first. I take the point the Deputy makes. As she will know, the over-65s payment is a new payment and was introduced to deal with a specific problem. As we know, people found that their contracts terminated at age 65 and they were going onto jobseekers' payments. We changed that such that they can now apply for the benefit payment for 65-year-olds. The payment was set up to resolve a problem we had. I agree that we need to move forward on this in a broader sense. I think we can do that through the pensions commission recommendations. I take the Deputy's point, however. I was glad that I was able to bring in a good number of changes in the budget to improve the position of carers. As she will know, the means test for carers' payments was changed to increase the number of people eligible. Carer's allowance is there to help people who carry out caring roles. That is the position at the moment but, as I said, I take the point she made and will look into the matter. It would be better, however, if we looked at this in the overall context of the pensions commission report.

As for the PUP, as the Deputy will know, businesses are open and able to trade, and many are actively recruiting. The number on the live register is down to approximately 165,000 and the number on the PUP is down to 55,000. There are, therefore, no signs at present that there are lay-offs happening as a result of the midnight closing time. The number of people claiming jobseeker's payments and those claiming the PUP continue to decrease. The EWSS Estimate is based on the decision made. We do not have a figure to hand as to what the cost would be without that change. The Estimate for the EWSS is provided to us by the Department of Finance. As the Deputy will know, we set out a pathway and a plan for the PUP and now two rates are payable, a rate of €203 and a rate of €250. That will continue for those receiving the PUP until the end of January or early February. Then they will transition onto jobseeker's payments. For some people it is actually more beneficial to be on jobseeker's at the moment because they may be able to qualify for a qualified dependant payment, that is, they may be able to claim for a partner or spouse or for qualified children. For some, therefore, it is better that they apply for jobseeker's. As the Deputy will know, the PUP was introduced at a time we had thousands of people out of work because of the restrictions. That is somewhat different now. If people are laid off, we are able to cope with the numbers that come in. If people come to us, we can go through the full suite of social protection supports we have available and we are happy to do that with them.

I think I have answered the Deputy's questions. I thank her for them.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the CE schemes, in exceptional circumstances we allow participants to stay on. However, there is a balance. We do not want people to be permanently on CE schemes, starting off at a young age and spending all their time on it when we would want them to try and get back into the workforce. For older people on the CE schemes, we are looking at reducing the age from 62 to 60. That would be a welcome change.

I will have a look at the RSS. We intend to review it in 2022 and we can have a look at what happens there. As the Deputy said, Tús is a one-year scheme. We will have to put the changes to the CE in action first. I will not start on the other schemes just yet but I keep everything under review.

I will try and give some of the figures on the Supplementary Estimate. It required €473.5 million, not €1.4 billion, because the balance of the additional expenditure will be funded from higher PRSI receipts of €825 million and higher receipts of €97 million from appropriations-in-aid. The additional €473.5 million would provide funding to pay the Christmas bonus of €312 million and meet the 2021 costs of the fuel allowance increase. That has gone up from October 2021 with the balance required for the net overspend on schemes and services. It is €130 million net.

I will give some breakdown on the PUP. There are 5,540 construction workers on PUP, which is 10% of the total. We hear that there are a lot of vacancies in that sector so we will work with people on that. That said, these are very broad categories. It is very hard to get the detail we need in the different sectors. This is very broad but those are the figures we have. We would like to be able to work with those people in that sector because we know there are job opportunities. If they need different skills that is why we have the apprenticeship schemes to upskill and reskill them to help them get back into the workforce.

I do not have anything here for aviation. I am not sure of the figures on that. It is not on this list we have and I cannot give the Deputy the figure. Those are the PUP figures and we will get a copy out to him.

He also mentioned the jobseeker's duration. In the programme for Government, we are committed to looking at a pay-related benefit, which will also involve an examination of the duration of the payment. I came from a credit union and saw many times that when people were laid off work unexpectedly, they suddenly took a severe drop in their income and were very concerned about how they would meet those bills. That is why we should consider the pay-related benefit and we can take learnings from the PUP payment, because it is linked to pay prior to Covid.

The cost of the means changes is the full-year cost of changes to carers, disability and fuel allowance means test of approximately €30 million. We will come back to the Deputy with a more accurate figure on that. I think I have covered off most of his questions.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can the Minister confirm that is €30 million?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the gross expenditure is north of €30 billion?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To put it in terms people can understand, that is like €30 out of €30,000. It is really margin of error stuff.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That €30 million is for those specific changes there, but I will come back to the Deputy with more.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know, but I am just trying to get this into proportion in my head, because there are so many noughts. The figure of €30,000 million has seven noughts and €300 billion has-----

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many noughts.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----ten noughts. Some €30 million is tiny money and it just shows how cheap these changes are.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would a €1 rise in general rates be approximately €80 million?

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If one gives a €1 rise to everybody, it is approximately €80 million. These changes are just over one third of that. That is very useful.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the Deputy has raised this with me on many occasions. I take the point he makes and I have a good long report here on some questions he raised with me. I will come back to him on those. I just did not get a chance to go through them in detail yet. If the means test were changed across the board, it would have a huge impact.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not so convinced that would be wholly true. A small number are getting caught by very cruel cuts. Let us take the dependent adults on the contributory pension. Presumably, in 80% or 90% of the cases in which people were caught, it was the ordinary partner who earned the money, put it in joint accounts and got caught. If one knows the rules and all the intricacies of the system, one can avoid it quite easily, as the Minister knows, by putting it all into the earner's bank account.

However, people always advise sharing when one is in that arrangement where one works as a child rearer in the home and the other works outside of the home and that is the way the couple decide it. That is the way it was for many people who are coming to pension age now. The general advice would be that it is great to share everything and what is yours is mine and what is mine is yours, especially not to allow the income earner control everything and, therefore, we weaken ourselves down the road. A huge number of people is not caught, but people are sad when they are.

It is similar to parents leaving money to kids with disabilities. The Minister told me previously that 99% get the full payment of disability allowance. Small numbers get caught, but it can be very sad when it happens.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with the Deputy and I will work with him on this because he made valid points and he has been keen to pursue it since he was a Minister in this Department. We are in a better position now to look at these things. I take his point on the joint savings. It is not a case of what is yours is mine and what is mine is my own. It is a case of sharing. I will look at it and engage separately with the Deputy. I am happy to meet with him and we will go through it again.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister for the changes she has made to the carer's allowance and, in particular, the reforms in the CE schemes. The committee has directly raised these issues with her. There are a significant number of vacancies, up to 2,000, on the schemes. It is important we try to get the participation rates up. A small bit of flexibility will make a big difference there. Overall, the Minister is now spending one in four euro of every euro allocated by Government. A significant tranche of funding is going directly through her Department. Some €58,000 is being spent every minute by the Department, which is a substantial sum. That leaves significant responsibility on this committee to monitor the spending of that money.

Members earlier raised questions about trying to get people back to work. It is imperative we deal with some of the barriers forcing people to remain in low-paid employment or to remain on the live register and not take up employment. There are issues relating to tax and PRSI, in that if people work additional hours, they are financially worse off as a result of it. These issues have to be eradicated from the system.

Our housing income thresholds have not increased in a decade, while house prices have more than doubled in the same period. The cut-offs are black and white. People go €1 over the income threshold and end up losing their housing support and being removed from the housing list. That is completely unacceptable. The objective of all our Covid supports should be about trying to keep the connection with work and keep people in work.

I am not just saying this now. I said this in advance of the PUP coming in. We should have resourced the EWSS more and given it priority. The decision was made to introduce the PUP and that is the payment in place at the moment. Seeing as we are talking on 1 December, I will focus on the EWSS, as the Minister knows the rates are being reduced from today.

She also knows first hand, as a former Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, how vital that support has been to small local businesses over the pandemic to date. It has been a vital support to them to keep their doors open, employees on their books and it is hoped, be able to trade out of this pandemic. They are the backbone of the economy. In my constituency in counties Roscommon and Galway and in her constituency, they are the bulk of the driving force behind our local economies.

However, some of these sectors are being crucified. Hospitality is one, but there are others. The Minister is correct in that they are being allowed, under the Government restrictions, to remain open and continue to trade.

At the same time we have the Government openly advising people not to go into these businesses, not to trade with them, and to stay away from the businesses. On the one hand, the doors remain open and we are not closing them, but we are issuing advice to them to minimise the engagement with those particular businesses. What alternative supports are being put in place for those specific businesses where the Chief Medical Office and the Government are advising people to stay away from them while keeping the doors open? It is putting a huge financial strain on those businesses.

Has consideration been given to including the Christmas bonus in the ordinary Estimates for the Department rather than going through this charade every year where we bring in the Christmas bonus on the run into Christmas? It would lead to more transparent Estimates and provide reassurance to the public in the early part of the year, rather than having to wait for the bonus to come on the eve of Christmas.

On the Social Insurance Fund requirements, will the Minister give the committee an indication of what the Department has anticipated for the running in the near future of the fund, based on where we are with Covid-19 and the projections that she has on that? The past 18 months have proven the volatility that can be there in the fund, especially with working age payments. As the Minister will be aware, the pensions commission has made a recommendation that the State pension element of the Social Insurance Fund should be accounted for separately. The Minister will know that it is far more predictable in terms of the demands it has put on the pension element of the fund, and to provide that element of transparency, and that the pension element of fund should be accounted for separately. Are measures are being taken in the Department to implement that in the short term?

Finally, there is an issue that I know we will return to in the new year. As we are dealing with the Estimates, I want to raise the issue of departmental performance targets. Those targets are set by the management board of the Department. We as a committee feel that we should have a role in engaging with the management board on those particular targets. For example, instead of control measures measuring the target savings and the percentage of repayments that are made, that should be about the number of reviews that are being performed, which would negate the need to recover money in the first instance. It should not be about recovering money; it should be about minimising the overpayments, which is far cheaper for the Department and creates far less hardship for recipients. The target measurements for appeals and Pathways to Work had been removed from those performance measurements. We believe that this should be reintroduced and that there should be a mechanism to measure those gaining in sustainable employment within the performance targets set by the Department. This would negate the need for the Department to provide top-up payments such as the working family payment. Tweaking some of the performance targets could bring about far better deliverables for the Department, and provide a greater level of transparency for the public, especially when this Department is spending in excess of €1 in every €4 that is being allocated by the Government. I thank the Minister.

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman. I get regular reports on the timelines of appeals. The timeline has been coming down. I will bring through provisions, as part of the Social Welfare Bill, to appoint a deputy appeals officer to assist. In the way the legislation was set up, only one person could do this work. I am hoping to change that. I will bring it through with the Social Welfare Bill so that I will be able to appoint a deputy officer. That will speed up the process also for appeals.

The Christmas bonus is not included in the Department's Estimates. It is a discretionary decision made by the Government in the context of budget process and available resources. The level of payment can vary annually. It was not paid at all in the period 2009 to 2013. It is a discretionary payment. The decision to pay the bonus at budget time each year takes into consideration the overall fiscal position and the achievement of our overall fiscal targets. That is the way it has been and, hopefully, we will be in a position to keep paying it. That is the reason behind it.

Reference was made to the CE schemes and vacancies. With the labour market, where there are shortages of labour it is more difficult to fill these vacancies. We can see that the numbers on the PUP and on the live register are coming down. That is good news because it means that more people are getting back to work. As the Chairman has said, we need to continue to examine the barriers with regard to people remaining on the live register. This is why we have Pathways to Work, which we launched last year. We are completing the consultation on an early engagement roadmap for young people and for people with disabilities, and implementing this report. There are a lot of things happening in trying to help people to get back to work, whether it is upskilling or reskilling. We have also have the work placement programme and a number of different incentives to get people off the live register. We continue to work hard at that. The best way to take people out of poverty is to help them to get a job. That is the most important thing.

Reference was made to the tax and PRSI. That has been changed in the budget. I was glad that we were able to make some changes to the tax bands. It is important that work pays, and we want to make sure that it does so that when people go out to work they are better off doing that. We want to make sure that they are rewarded for it.

The issue of housing income thresholds is for the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The problem with bands is that if a person goes over it, then he or she has gone over it. Where is the cut-off point? As a Deputy, I have seen this where students may have lost out on their SUSI grant because they were €4, €5 or €10 over the limit. It is very frustrating, but at the same time there must be some cut-off point. The Chairman will understand that.

On the EWSS support, the Minister for Finance has said that he will keep that under review and he will monitor it closely in the weeks ahead. Within my Department, there is the short-term working payment were people can work three days and collect the payment for the other two days. I am a big supporter of the wage subsidy scheme. I believe that is the way to go. I was in business. I believe that the right way to do it is to try to keep that connection between the employer and the employee. The EWSS remains open, albeit at a reduced rate. It has been a very successful support to businesses. Many businesses have said to me that without the EWSS their doors would have been closed.

We expect the Social Insurance Fund to return to surplus next year. The pensions commission examined the issue of a separate fund for pensions. I understand that the Commission on Taxation and Welfare is also examining this issue. It will engage with the Department on that.

I believe that I have covered most of the questions asked by the Chairman.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her time today. There is one final point I wish to make. Today, the EWSS is being reduced. All this week, Ministers and the health advisers to the Government have been publicly discouraging people from engaging with some of these businesses. There is a contradiction there that needs to be acknowledged. We need to look carefully at ensuring that we can try to keep as many people as possible in direct employment and retain that connection with the employer. I will leave that with the Minister. I thank her-----

Heather Humphreys (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, Chairman. We are not discouraging people; we are telling people to try to reduce their social contacts. We are asking them to be aware and exercise self-responsibility. I know that there have been some cancellations, but generally, there is no reason it is unsafe for people to eat in restaurants if they abide by the guidelines, be careful and are aware.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will have this debate again, but I can tell the Minister that I know of quite a few hospitality businesses that spent substantial time last week dealing with phone calls and people ringing up and cancelling bookings. This week, the supports for those businesses are being reduced. That is the point I am making. We will debate the issue again.

I thank the Minister for her time today. That concludes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimates for Vote 37. In accordance with Standing Order 101, a message to that effect will be sent to the Clerk of the Dáil. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire arís as a bheith linn. I thank the Minister for being here today and for the assistance that both she and her officials have provided to the committee.