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

I remind members to ensure their mobile phones are switched off. This is important because it can cause serious problems for broadcasting, editorial and sound staff. For the purposes of the Official Report, I have been requested to identify members when they are called to speak. Members are requested to remove their face coverings when speaking to ensure their contributions are recorded adequately before replacing their face coverings.

I welcome to our meeting this morning members and viewers who may be watching the proceedings on Oireachtas TV. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.

The Dáil has ordered that the Revised Estimates for the public services in respect of the following Vote be referred to this select committee for consideration: Vote 37 - Social Protection. On behalf of the select committee, I welcome the Minister for Social Protection and for Rural and Community Development, Deputy Heather Humphreys, an tAire Stáit, Deputy Joe O'Brien, and their officials to this meeting. Members have received the briefing documentation provided by the Department and supplementary briefings from the secretariat, which have been circulated in advance.

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Revised Estimate and the performance information regarding the outputs and impacts of the programme expenditure. The programme-based structure of the Estimates should allow the committee to focus on what the Department has committed to achieving in terms of actual outputs and outcomes, to consider whether the performance targets included in the Estimate are a sufficiently complete description of the services provided by the Department, whether those targets strike the right balance in terms of the needs of our society, whether the information provided by the Department makes clear how the moneys available are allocated between services, and whether these allocations are the most appropriate in the circumstances. The gross allocation for Vote 37 in 2022 will now be €23.35 billion. The Further Revised Estimate for 2022, published in December 2021, shows a reduction of €6.9 billion on the 2021 provision outturn, which was €30.3 billion.

I now call the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, to make her opening statement.

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

I thank the Chairman and members of the committee for their invitation to attend here today to discuss the 2022 Revised Estimates for the Department of Social Protection. As we face into 2022, we must be conscious of how far we have travelled in overcoming the challenges that Covid-19 presented both for society and the economy, as well as for our people. We have experienced and dealt with waves of lockdowns and easing of public health restrictions since March 2020, which impacted all of us. We did this by developing and delivering innovative approaches to mitigate as far as possible the impact of Covid on people's lives. My Department played a critical role in supporting workers and their employers who were severely affected by Covid-19. The roll-out of the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, for workers whose jobs were in cold storage during lockdown and the provision of funding to the Revenue Commissioners to support employers through the employment wage subsidy scheme ensured individuals, businesses and the economy generally could withstand the impact of restrictions.

In recognition of the need to ease the financial impact of Covid on the most vulnerable, measures such as flexibility in rent supplement and the Covid illness benefit were also introduced. The Government's announcement on 21 January 2022 of the lifting of most public health restrictions, allowing virtually all elements of society to reopen, is an indication we have moved into a new phase. The Revised Estimates, which the committee is to consider today, reflects the start of this new phase as we emerge from almost two years of a very dynamic and volatile environment into what we hope will be a more stable base for continuing to develop our social protection system.

Projected spending for the Department in 2022 is €23.3 billion, compared with an estimated outturn for 2021 of €30.3 billion. It should be borne in mind that spending in 2021 includes €8.5 billion directly related to Covid, comprising €4 billion for the PUP and €4.5 billion for the employment wage subsidy scheme. The provision of Covid measures in the 2022 Estimate is approximately €700 million, reflecting the fact that in 2022, my Department will return to focusing more on its traditional schemes and services.

As members know, the work of the Department is broad in scope, supporting people throughout the life cycle, from the payment of child benefit to the provision of income support when people reach pension age. The Department's expenditure, at €23.3 billion for 2022, is still one of the largest of any Department, representing more than one third of gross current Government expenditure. With this level of expenditure, we must ensure our social protection system is properly structured and provides support when people need it most. As demonstrated by our response to the Covid-19 pandemic, we also strive to ensure the system is flexible enough to deal with changes in the economy and society so that we can respond to challenges when they emerge.

The projected 2022 expenditure of €23.3 billion represents a normalisation of the pattern of social protection spending, but it is a new normal and a higher level of expenditure, incorporating budget day measures valued at €600 million on a full-year basis. This was the largest social welfare budget package in 14 years and included across the board increases for all welfare recipients at the same time as continuing the practice of recent years of implementing targeted measures to help the most vulnerable in our communities. Those measures include increases in the living alone allowance, qualified child payments and the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance; the expansion of the hot school meals programme; improvements in income disregard for carers; and increases in the wage subsidy scheme for people with disabilities, to name just a few. These measures are reflected in the expenditure subheads presented today.

The biggest single block of expenditure in 2022 will be on pensions, which will amount to more than €9.1 billion or 39% of overall expenditure. Thankfully, people are living longer lives but that, of course, means an increasing proportion of the Department's expenditure is now providing income support for people in their older years. Expenditure on illness, disability and carer's payment amounts to €4.9 billion in 2022, representing 21% of expenditure.

With the phasing out in 2022 of the PUP, we will see a reduction in expenditure on working-age income support schemes. Working-age income supports will account for nearly 16% of expenditure in 2022, at €3.65 billion. This includes payments for jobseekers, one-parent families, maternity and paternity payments, and supplementary welfare allowance. Expenditure on employment supports continues to make a provision for the employment wage subsidy scheme, albeit at a significantly lower level. It also includes community employment, back-to-education allowance, Tús, the rural social scheme and the various employment and activation programmes. Employment supports expenditure amounts to €1.5 billion this year or 6.3% of my Department's spending.

Expenditure on children and families will account for over 11% of expenditure, or €2.6 billion, of which over €2 billion will be spent on child benefit and €350 million on the working family payment. Expenditure on supplementary payments like rent supplement and the fuel allowance is €907 million, or nearly 4%, of 2022 expenditure.

The live register at the end of January 2022 stood at just under 163,000, taking account of over 80,000 who received a pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, in that week. The total number of workers in receipt of unemployment-related payments stood at 243,000. My Department will continue to work in 2022 to encourage the movement from unemployment to employment through our activation services and employment programmes, and meeting our commitments under the Pathways to Work initiative.

The broad overview I have presented of social protection expenditure is developed in detail in the briefing material provided to the committee. I am sure the committee will agree it is a very comprehensive analysis of 2022 expenditure on one of the largest and most complex Estimates of expenditure. There is little doubt that 2022 will bring challenges for social protection spending, including evaluating how changes in the economy are impacting those most at risk of poverty. My Department has demonstrated its ability and flexibility to effectively support the most vulnerable, as evidenced in the last few years in particular, without which we would have seen a society where poverty and social exclusion increased. Due to the measures we have taken, incomes were protected, the risk-of-poverty rates fell and inequality reduced.

The recent Government announcement of the €500 million package of measures to mitigate the increasing cost of living is a further indication of our commitment to respond immediately to the needs of our citizens. As part of that package, an additional €125 lump sum will be paid to fuel allowance recipients next month and the Government also agreed to the earlier introduction of the €10 increase in working family thresholds. Both measures combined represent additional social protection spending of €53 million in 2022. The combination of the other cost of living measures and the significant improvements introduced in budget 2022 will provide further support to many vulnerable households faced with higher costs this year. The measures taken in response to Covid and increased living costs show our determination to protect and continue the progress we have made in the face of challenges, and the Estimates presented to date reflect this determination.

I look forward to hearing the committee's views and welcome any questions members have for myself or for the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien.

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

I thank the Minister for her opening statement. We will now consider the Vote, programme by programme, as per the briefing documents that have been circulated to members. The first programme is administration. On that, I know the Government has set a target, and the Minister has set a target within her Department, of ensuring that one fifth of staff can work remotely. She might give us an update on whether her Department achieved that target by the end of 2021, given it was the target set out by the Government. She might also clarify if those who are working remotely are doing so now on a permanent basis or is this still a temporary measure under Covid-19.

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

My Department has been doing a blend of remote working and in-presence work during Covid. About 50% of the staff were working from home and the other 50% were in the offices because, obviously, the nature of the service we provide meant people had to come in. The HR department continues to engage with staff because there is a policy and we want to find the solution that works both for the Department and the staff. There are ongoing discussions. As the Chairman can appreciate, this takes a bit of time but we are working on it.

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

The Minister might come back to us with the actual figures in regard to the staff who are working remotely at this point in time and circulate that to the committee.

The next programme is pensions. As no colleagues have questions on the pensions programme, we will move on to the working age income supports.

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

Does that include the local employment services?

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

That would come under employment supports, which is next. On working age income supports, I call Deputy Kerrane.

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

I thank the Minister for her opening statement and her Department officials for all of the briefing documentation that was provided. With regard to the move from the pandemic unemployment payment to jobseeker's payment, which is set for the end of March, can the Minister explain what that will mean for those on PUP when they move onto the jobseeker's payment? Will they be engaged with as regards job activation or have they been engaged with already? Do we know why PUP numbers remain fairly high? Has there been any level of engagement with participants?

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

We have been engaging with all of the PUP recipients, particularly those who went onto PUP prior to it being reopened in December of last year. We have contacted every single one of them and offered them our services. Some of them at the time were waiting for their sectors to reopen and some were waiting because their jobs had not come back. We have engaged with them and we continue to do that. Every week, the number on the PUP continues to reduce, and it went down a further 7,000 this week. That means the economy is now opening and people are getting back to work. We are continually engaging with them and giving them all the supports we can to help them get back into employment.

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

To build from Deputy Kerrane’s question, I want to raise a question that I have asked at previous meetings of the committee. Have we information on who remains on the pandemic unemployment payment and what sectors are most affected? If we have that information, do we have a specific plan? For example, if we know it concerns people within hospitality or the arts, do we have specifics as to how we are going to move people off that?

I will trust the Chair to steer me back if I stray into the wrong programme, so he can get his cattle prod ready. I want to ask about the large increase in basic supplementary welfare allowance payments, given some 30% is listed. I want to ask that more general question of whether we are seeing the rise in the cost of living feeding through into people looking for supplementary allowance welfare payments, and whether we have a plan for that going forward or whether we think the package that was announced last week is sufficient.

There is a welcome increase in paternity and parent's benefit. Do we believe we are successful in the take-up of that payment? I know, anecdotally, that it has been culturally more difficult for men to take paternity leave, which they absolutely should as it is an incredibly important thing to do. Are we being successful in that, in the Minister's opinion?

In terms of redundancy and insolvency payments, I have a feeling this will be a big issue. Many businesses were kept on a lifeline over the course of Covid. Are we seeing a large number of insolvencies coming through in a bunched way? We would have expected, over the last two years, that a certain number of insolvencies would pass through the system but many of those were put on hold because of the supports that were put in place for Covid. Do we expect a large number of those to come into the system over the next couple of months? Are we prepared for that and do we have a plan for dealing with it?

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

I have some figures on the basic supplementary allowance. My apologies; the first question was on the PUP so I will begin with that. The amount paid in PUP this week was €15.2 million. I can provide the committee with a full sheet giving a detailed breakdown of who is on the payment from the different sectors. The main sector is accommodation and food services, in which the number of payments is 12,326. That is followed by wholesale and retail, with 9,647 payments. Payments in administrative and support service activities stand at 6,776. That gives an idea of the different sectors in which people are unemployed and still on the PUP.

On the exceptional needs or supplementary welfare allowance, the Government announced a package last week to help people experiencing difficulties with the cost of living. As members know, the Department agreed to pay a €125 payment to those in receipt of the fuel allowance. The supplementary welfare allowance is available for those who need support. I take this opportunity to encourage everybody who is experiencing difficulty and needs help to contact his or her community welfare officer. People can do that by phone or they can arrange for an officer to call to their house or meet them face to face. If people are having problems, they should contact their community welfare officer. We have put community welfare officers on notice to inform people who may call to them that those supports are available.

The Deputy asked about the essential needs payments. There has been a steady decline in the number of essential needs payments paid to customers each month in the period from November 2019 to date. In December 2019, 7,935 essential needs payments were paid. In January 2022, the number of such payments was 3,596. The anticipated increase in demand for essential needs payments did not materialise. Arising from the cost-of-living increases, officers administering the scheme have been advised that for individuals and households dependent on income support payments from the Department or those working on low incomes, or both, the increased cost of living due to inflation and rising energy costs may present a significant financial challenge and it is likely many may seek additional financial support under the supplementary welfare allowance schemes to assist in meeting the increased costs of daily life. Our community welfare officers are on notice and are there to help.

The Deputy also asked about parent's benefit. Policy in respect of that benefit and parent's leave resides in the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. We increased that by a further two weeks in the budget. On the take-up of parent's benefit, we reckon that about 30,000 people are benefiting. We have increased its duration from five to seven weeks for parents of children under two years of age.

The Deputy mentioned companies that have been on business supports and may not survive and asked what we are doing in that regard. We provide the pathways to work programme and many different supports to help people get back to other work. We have been working in conjunction with the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, on upskilling and retraining. All those supports are available to help people get back into the workplace.

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

I thank the Minister. I gave Deputy Ó Cathasaigh a little latitude. I ask members to go through the Estimates programme by programme because we are anxious to get through everything. Deputy Carey wishes to discuss the working age income supports.

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

On this programme, I welcome the Minister's announcement that jobseeker's payments will be returning to the post office network. This is hugely significant for the network. I understand initially it will apply to new jobseekers followed by others. Will the Minister give an overview and update on how that is going?

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

I was pleased to announce a few weeks ago that jobseeker's payments will return to the post offices in line with the easing of the Covid-19 restrictions. The changes will apply initially to all new jobseeker applications before being extended to other jobseekers over the coming months. When the public health restrictions were introduced in 2020 people in receipt of social welfare were given the option of being paid into a bank account. This was an exceptional measure to help reduce the spread of the virus and ensure people could comply with social distancing guidelines. I and my officials have been in discussions with An Post and the Irish Postmasters' Union. This move will have benefits for both my Department and the post office network because we will have more people going into post offices.

We are all aware of the challenges facing post offices. I recognise the wonderful work they did during the pandemic because their doors were open all the time. Many postmistresses and postmasters went beyond the call of duty in delivering food and groceries to families and older people who were not able to come into shops for whatever reason. I acknowledge the role they played in their communities. All members have been asking how we can support our post offices and we have discussed the matter at length on many occasions. I was delighted, therefore, that we were able to introduce this measure. I also thank members for the support they have given in helping me to do that.

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

Deputy Joan Collins is next.

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

I thank the Minister for her introduction. I want to home in on exceptional and urgent needs.

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

We will wait until we reach that section, if the Deputy does not mind.

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

Is this not part of income supports?

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It falls under "Working Age Income Supports".

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

I am sorry. Fire ahead, Deputy.

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

I do not believe the increases introduced to deal with the cost of living were enough. Many people in low-paid jobs and on fixed incomes, including social welfare payments, are going really feel the pinch. Community welfare officers used to be based in the HSE and in the community. They were then moved into the Department of Social Protection and Intreo offices, so they are a fair distance from the community now. Many people do not even know they can approach community officers if they are really stuck with a bill or whatever. I would like to hear the Minister's insight into that. Is there a specific amount of money allocated to the community welfare offices to deal with exceptional needs or are they still dealt with on a case-by-case basis? Are community welfare officers restricted in what they can allocate moneys for? Given the situation we are in, should those officers not be closer to the community, perhaps based in the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, or a similar body, to improve access to exceptional needs payments? My experience from my constituency office is that many people are trying to get through to the Intreo offices and finding it impossible to do so.

The telephone repeatedly rings out. One person was an hour on the telephone and gave up. This particular area could play a crucial role in supporting people who are really stuck with regard to paying bills and paying for food, medical needs and the like. I hope I will hear from the Minister about setting up an emergency fund, which I believe the Government was talking about at one stage but did not come through with. Hardship and emergency funds should be delivered by community welfare officers in the community so people can access them more easily. What is the Minister's opinion on that?

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

The supplementary welfare allowance is the fund or the safety net within the overall social welfare system in that it provides assistance to eligible people in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their needs and those of their dependants. It is a demand-led scheme so there is no limit on it. People get it as they need it. It provides once-off and regular support to those on low incomes having difficulty meeting household costs. In 2021, the Department paid €42.7 million in urgent and exceptional needs payments in respect of 55,000 claims. Approximately 92,200 payments were made in 2019 and 67,600 payments were made in 2020. It is there and it is available. I also commend the work of the community welfare officers. We all know them well in our constituencies. They provide an excellent service. They help people when they need it and they are only a telephone call away.

I am sorry there was a bad experience where somebody could not get through to the community welfare office, but if people call into the local Intreo office or email them they will be able to make contact with them. There are three ways to do it. The telephone is probably the easiest way. There is also the in-person way and the officers will do house visits if necessary. I know they were in the HSE and that they moved to the Department of Social Protection. We want to support that service because it is essential. It is important that it continues and that it is there to provide help to people.

In terms of the details, we gave an additional lump sum payment of €125. That will be paid to all households in receipt of the fuel allowance. It is expected that this additional lump sum will be paid in early March, at an estimated cost of €49 million. The lump sum payment, in addition to the measures announced in budget 2022, will mean that low-income households will get an increase of 41% this fuel allowance season compared to the previous season. A further measure to help with energy costs is the energy credit of €200 to be applied to electricity accounts for all householders. The introduction of the €10 increase to the weekly income threshold of the working family payment will be brought forward to early April this year. It was supposed to apply in June so we have brought it forward. For those on low wages in receipt of more than a minimum payment on the working family payment the €10 increase in all earnings thresholds will result in an increased payment of €6. All these measures are in addition to the wide-sweeping measures in budget 2022, which was the largest social welfare budget in 14 years. Not only did we do an across-the-board increase of €5, we also did the targeted measures in the fuel allowance, the living alone allowance and the qualified child payments among a number of other payments.

We would always like to do more. We make these decisions and the pot of funds is limited. We do not have an endless pot. However, we continue to try to target it at those most vulnerable and most in need.

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

The Minister is ruling out bringing the community welfare officers closer to the community, where they would have been. When they were with the HSE many of the community welfare officers knew the people in the area and people knew who to go to if they were in difficulty. That has been pulled back to the Intreo offices. It is another step in that direction. I hope they will not be pulled even further out of the community in the future, and I hope that is not on the agenda. If the Minister is not going to do that aspect of it, can she run an advertisement campaign on the radio or the like to inform people that if they are really in need there is somewhere they can go, and give the information on how to do that? Many people are facing situations where they do not see a way out and they need that support.

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

We have started a campaign on social media to say that this is available, that if people need help, we are here to help them, and that the first place to go is the community welfare officer and they can go to the local Intreo offices as well. We do not want to take anybody out of the community. It is a case of people using services in a different way now, so we have to try to respond to the needs of the customers who use the service. There is a telephone line and much of the time one can get what one needs over the telephone, and the assessment and the payment can be made. It can be done electronically. Those who do not want to use that can go to the Intreo offices. I am not sure if this is across the country but I know that community welfare officers go to some clinics. Again, we want to make sure that people get help when they need it. That is the most important thing. We will be running an awareness campaign. I encourage the members of the committee to join me in making people aware that those supports are available. We want to make sure that those who are in need of help get the help they want.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the report. Regarding the exceptional needs payment, does she have a statistic for the number of people who have been rejected by the community welfare officer for a payment? What proportion of people are successful in getting an exceptional needs payment and what proportion have been rejected? Second, why is there no appeals process directly to the community welfare officer on a rejection? One has to go to another department to appeal it. It appears to be the only payment that does not have an appeals process.

The second issue is the return to signing on at post offices. I am looking at a newspaper headline that I find extremely objectionable, "Return to 'signing on' at post offices to reduce welfare fraud". The article quotes the Minister in this regard, saying that one of reasons was to increase footfall in the post offices and the other was to reduce fraud. Are there any other circumstances where people are getting payments from the State where the reason the payments have been brought back to a physical premises is on the basis of fraud?

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

I will refer to the issue of the post office. What we are doing is returning to the system that was in place prior to Covid-19. It has always been the case that jobseekers, prior to Covid-19, collected their payments in the post office. This is about supporting the post office network, which is an integral part of the community throughout the country. It is not just post offices in rural areas, but also post offices in the inner city. I spoke to a postmaster in the inner city and he outlined the need to support the post offices and increase the footfall to make sure they continue to be viable into the future. I met with the Irish Postmasters' Union and An Post and they were very clear that the loss of footfall for these payments was having a severe impact on post offices, both rural and urban. Deputies on all sides of the House have called on the Government to put more services into the post offices. Here is an example of that happening.

As I said before, the postmasters and the postmistresses do great work the length and breadth of this country. As Minister for Social Protection and as Minister for Rural and Community Development, I want to support them. I know the Minister of State, Deputy Naughton is working to look at what other services can be provided via the post office network. I am happy to work with her on that. We know from the past, and the Deputy knows it himself, that if you do not use the services, you lose them. This was an opportunity to put some services into the post offices. I believe it was the right thing to do. If there are some people out there who, for whatever particular reason, cannot attend the post office they should contact their local Intreo office. We will deal with them individually.

I have outlined what is available under the essential needs payment. We pay 4,000 to 5,000 essential needs payments per month across a range of categories, including heating, clothing, housing and funeral bills. The level of essential needs payments was lower than usual during the pandemic. It is usually closer to 8,000 per month. Therefore, it has been lower. However, it is available. While we do not have the numbers of rejections, it is fair to say that most community welfare officers do a very good job. They understand the needs of the people who come into them. There is a review mechanism built into the system. There is another higher grade officer who deals with any reviews or any appeals people might have. We have a process in place whereby a decision can be reviewed if people are not happy with the outcome.

Paul Donnelly (Dublin West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would appreciate if the Minister could answer the first question first. I did not ask about the post offices. I asked about the specific reference the Minister made relating to the two reasons. I did not ask about the post office one; I asked about the fraud one. Are there any other circumstances where a social welfare payment or any other payment that is made is included in a press release, which in this case states that one of the two reasons signing on at the post office was brought back related to fraud. It demonises people who are on social welfare payments. One of the two specific reasons given for bringing back signing on in the post office was to increase footfall in post offices, which I have no problem with, but that is not the one I asked. The specific question was around fraud and the use of language in the context of bringing people back into post offices, where it specifically quotes the Minister in relation to those two reasons, one of which is fraud.

Will the Minister provide us with the statistics of the rejection of claims for the essential needs payment? Is that statistic or figure available? Again, there is no appeals system directly to the essential needs department. A rejection has to be appealed to another department.

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

No, we do not have any numbers on rejections. As I said, a person can appeal to another department if he or she is not happy with the outcome. Rather than going back to the same person, he or she can appeal to another higher grade officer who deals with that.

I will go back to the issue of the post offices. Just to be very clear here, we have a control system within the Department of Social Protection. I am sure the Deputy is well aware there were some very high-profile cases where people had been claiming social welfare while not living in the country. If a person has to present at the post office, that means he or she has to be in the country. The vast majority of people who get social welfare payments deserve them. That is a fact. There are those, and we saw a case in the news only last night, who claim social welfare to which they are not entitled or who claim it on behalf of others when they should not be doing so. We have a control unit and we crack down on that because this is taxpayers’ money. We have to be conscious of that. I would say once again that the vast majority of people, and there are many of them, who receive social payments are well entitled to them and deserve every penny that they get. I just wish to be clear on that and I will leave it at that.

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

On the essential needs payment, one of the challenges, in my experience of how it has changed over the years, is that the welfare officers, as they used to be called, used to have huge discretion to help a person if there was poverty, and it was not on the basis of a means test. That meant they could a family who had income coming into the house, which may have been a reasonably good income, but where there were serious addiction problems that meant partners and children were losing out greatly and were absolutely stuck for cash.

I was there when the change took place. It was always funded by social welfare, but the administration used the HSE. When it came into the Department, I was assured that would not change and the local community welfare officers would be left as they were. For example, in our case in Connemara, we had somebody who was based in An Cheathrú Rua, An Clochán, and in north Connemara. The reality was it was all retreated into the main social welfare offices. It meant people had to go 30 or 40 miles, in some cases, to access it.

The second thing is, the community welfare officers used to go around and do clinics in local health centres. I know the world has changed, but for the most vulnerable it has not changed as much as it might have for some of us, and we have to take this into account.

My experience of essential needs payments at the moment is twofold. One is that a person gets an essential needs payment on a means-tested basis if he or she is waiting for a payment to come through. If he or she is waiting for invalidity pension, disability allowance or jobseeker’s allowance to come through, that person can apply for an essential needs payment. In that case, of course, when he or she gets the payment, they claw back the amount that had been paid on the supplementary welfare system. It is therefore very hard to see what were the discretionary extra payments because of severe hardship.

Second, will the Minister confirm that people have to fill a form, which I think is eight pages in length - basically a means test like would have to be done for any social welfare scheme - to get the essential needs payments now? I do not think it is the way it used to be. It is very hard to drill into the figures, because when you ask for figures from the Department, it mixes various things. We are told it does not have the heading of the old-fashioned essential needs payment, that is, somebody who may have an income but has a circumstance that means he or she literally has no money. It was a great safety net to prevent poverty. I think the Department thought it was a little bit expensive; I do not think it was. That is my first question.

A second, bigger and wider question in terms of big policy, the other one being a change that could be made quite simply by going back to the people to make sure there is a safety net there that, irrespective of circumstance, just measures up the circumstances and makes a payment, is whether there is any work ongoing on a policy basis to change radically the supports for working-age recipients? I understood ten or fifteen years ago this work was ongoing and they were looking at introducing a uniform, universal working-age payment. Then there was the debate, for which I have great sympathy, about a universal basic payment and integrating the social welfare system with the tax system so that there would be a clear, coherent interface and not two systems working at odds with each other.

The situation at the moment is there are many crinkles in the system. There are a lot of anomalies. More importantly, there are massive disincentives to work. The Minister knows my hang-up on this. If you are self-employed, it is a 100% disincentive to work. If you are a farmer, it is 70%. Let us take another case that is quite common, where one person in a couple is in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance. If the partner has get up and go and gets part-time work, there is a penalty, effectively a tax. Let us call it tax, although if I called it a tax, there would be uproar, but when it is only a social welfare clawback, it does not seem to hurt the State's thinking quite as much.

When it is only a social welfare clawback, it does not seem to hurt the State's thinking quite as much. It is amazing. It is the old Victorian attitude. Our social welfare system was a hotchpotch created over 100 years.

I will give a few examples. For a couple on jobseeker's allowance where the dependent adult takes up work and gets €150 per week, the jobseeker's payment is reduced by €54, effectively a 33% penalty or tax on the jobseeker's allowance or family income. If the income goes to €200, the clawback becomes €84, which is effectively a 42% tax, not to mind that at this stage one runs into USC costs. If the income goes to €300, the clawback or tax becomes 48% or €144. People talk about incentives to work and encouraging people. We all know that if someone on a basic income, which jobseeker's allowance should be, could raise the family income by €300, it would do an awful lot to eliminate poverty and create great incentive. At the present rate, one is taxed at 48%, higher than the highest rate of tax in this country, and is also subject on that income to USC, because 50 times 300 is over 13,000 so there is no exemption. There is no tax rate in the country that is 48%, except this tax in these circumstances.

It is time we thought it all out again, rather than just tinkering with it, going through the Estimates and looking at how many euro are here and there. Is there high level work or did they suspend the work that was going on many years ago to look at the issue so there would be an interface between tax and the social welfare system that would be coherent and mean that people were not running into poverty traps that hit many of them as they try to get out of poverty and improve themselves?

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

I thank the Deputy. The issue of the incentive to work in relation to tax and the social welfare system is something the Deputy has great knowledge of and keen interest in. I have met him concerning a number of suggestions he has put forward. My officials are working on those, particularly in relation to the means test. I was delighted to be able to make some changes to the means test, particularly for carers, in the last budget. It is in the programme for Government that we are committed to a universal working age payment. My officials are working on that.

I agree with the Deputy that we should have a system wherein people are incentivised to go back to work if for no other reasons than going to work is good for mental health and helps bring people out of poverty. The more we can do to get people back into work the better for our society. We have huge demand in the labour market at the minute. Pathways to Work will help us in all the different ways we have in that strategy of getting people back into the workforce and giving them the confidence to go back. For those who have been out of it for some time, it can be daunting. The Department wants to help people there.

The Deputy mentioned the first €100 of the spouse's income from employment being disregarded. The Department has committed to preparing a paper on options to modify the jobseeker's allowance payment by using Revenue real-time earnings data to adjust payment levels in line with the person's weekly earning to guarantee a basic income floor and ensure that, in all cases, a person's income increases when he or she works. We can do that and have that real-time contact with Revenue.

The Deputy mentioned the essential needs payment. The community welfare officers continue to look at the circumstances of each case. Every case is different and those officers use their discretion when making payments to people in need. They are not confined and have that discretion. We have told them to expect people to come in because they are faced with higher fuel costs and such bills. We encourage people to visit the community welfare officer if they have problems in that area. On essential needs applications, we are reviewing all the supplementary welfare allowance applications forms and trying to make them more customer-friendly, and rightly so. I thank the Deputy for his questions.

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

I have two queries. One is on exceptional needs, which has been discussed. That is a more important payment now, given that it is being relied on around high energy costs. I have raised it with the Minister before. I cannot understand why we cannot collect the data. I am not accusing, saying community welfare officers are not doing their job or that there are any issues there, but it would be important to collect the data on the number of people seeking payments under exceptional needs and the numbers that are and are not getting them. We collect data across the Department of Social Protection on almost everything and I ask the Minister to reconsider that.

Typically, those in full-time work over 30 hours per week cannot access exceptional needs payment. There is an issue there, particularly when it comes to energy costs. Those who receive the fuel allowance will see a gain in early March, which is welcome. All others, particularly workers, will not be able to access that support. Aside from the €200 electricity credit, those workers have no assistance when it comes to heating and do not have assistance through the exceptional needs payment. Will there be flexibility regarding that element of exceptional needs?

I did not realise this came under it and it is not something I have dealt with before but an issue has been raised with me on the deserted wife's benefit and access to fuel allowance. I know deserted wife's benefit is a closed scheme but someone on that is allowed to earn €120 on top of it and receive the fuel allowance; someone on the State pension can also earn €120 and access the fuel allowance. There is a difference because someone on the State pension is on a higher amount. If you are on deserted wife's benefit at about €213, when you earn that €120, it is a lesser amount than those on the State pension who can earn €120. I have emailed the Minister on the matter. I know it is not straightforward but I ask that she look at that. Those on deserted wife's benefit should be able to earn the same amount as those on the State pension and access fuel allowance. It is an important payment for them and their households. I thank the Minister.

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

I thank the Deputy. I will look at the deserted wife's benefit that she has raised. On the fuel allowance, two pensioners over age 66 can receive up to €600 per week and qualify for that allowance; a couple under 66 can receive an income of €542 per week and qualify for it. I take the Deputy's point on deserted wife's benefit. The scheme has been closed and it is a smaller number of people. I will look at that.

Going back to the urgent needs payments, it can be made.

My officials here have told community welfare officers to look at this. We can provide flexibility because if there are exceptional or urgent needs payments, nobody wants to see anybody going without. That is the bottom line. We are here to help people and are doing that across the length and breadth of the country. If there is any particular case where it is felt that somebody did not get what he or she was entitled to, if it is brought to my attention I will be happy to look into it. We will certainly do everything we can because I know there are challenges out there.

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

I do not believe that in principle there is a reluctance in the Department to facilitate supplementary welfare supports. I know the Minister is committed to ensuring this is as flexible as possible but the reality on the ground is different. The first thing I would ask her to do as a matter of urgency is to have a remote meeting with every community welfare officer in the country to relay to each and every one of them that they need to be as flexible as possible regarding financial supports for families that are struggling. The difficulty is that we as Members of the Oireachtas are finding individual cases where people are being denied supports and there is no measure to reflect that in the statistics provided by the Department. The fact is that if any community welfare officer deviates from the means-tested support, that has to be accounted for separately within the Department. We are asking for this information to be directly collated and provided to the Oireachtas. The Minister needs to relay to each community welfare officer in the country that this is being measured.

There should be adequate income going into every household. That is the objective behind the social welfare system. We can talk all day about whether that is adequate or about anomalies. The reality, as Deputy Ó Cuív has noted, is that there are addiction issues in households where there is allegedly sufficient income going into that household. We have all come across cases of coercive control where there is sufficient income going into the house but the mother and children are not the ones receiving that money. We see it with regard to domestic abuse. If the Government is clearly stating that it wants to take a different approach to gender-based violence, it must start with flexibility regarding this payment. It is not just about a different approach being taken by community welfare officers. I can give the Minister examples of the very worthwhile system she has put in place regarding the rent allowance scheme for victims of domestic violence where that has been denied by community welfare officers because they were not aware of the scheme. If they are not aware of the something very basic like that, my concern is that some of them will not be aware of the comments the Minister is making about the flexible approach that should be taken with exceptional needs payments.

We need community welfare officers to go back out into local communities. It is pointless to expect a family with no access to money to do a round trip of between 50 and 80 miles to get to a community welfare officer - they do not have the money to put petrol in the car to get there in the first place. If there are issues relating to coercive control, a person will not have access to the information to fill out the six-page form. That person may not have access to a phone to make that call in the first place. Community welfare officers need to take a far more flexible approach. I ask the Minister to have a remote meeting with every community welfare officer in the country before the end of this month and clearly convey to them her priority and that of Government and every Member of the Oireachtas.

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

Can I be very clear here? All community welfare officers have been notified that more people may not be able to meet their costs and that decisions need to take all circumstances into account. This has been relayed. As the Chairman well knows, my job as Minister involves setting policy. It is the job of the Executive and staff to implement that policy. I have been very clear today that community welfare officers are there to support people in administering the supplementary welfare allowance and exceptional needs payments. That is their job. We are here to help people when they need it. There will always be specific cases where somebody is not happy with the outcome. There is a system whereby it can be reviewed and I give Deputies a commitment that if they have specific cases, they should bring them to my attention and I will speak to them about them. I am very clear here today that all community welfare officers have been notified and that decisions need to take account of all circumstances. I do not know of any but there may be some out there. The vast majority of community welfare officers are doing a good job on the ground. I know they are in contact with MABS. If they pick up the phone, MABS can get in contact with them. I do not think I have yet found a case where a community welfare officer did not take on board the recommendation of MABS. I have been dealing with MABS through the credit union and with community welfare officers for a very long time. All officials with whom I have been in contact have been officials of the highest integrity who are there to help people. I want that to continue.

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

We will now move on to the programme of working age employment supports. We have invited the Minister to appear before the joint committee next week to deal with local employment services. Could she or her office come back to us on that invitation?

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

The Minister knows about this committee's interest in local employment services. Could she outline the status of the request for tender for local employment services? Is she concerned by the apparent involvement of multinationals in bidding for local employment services? Could she give some reassurance that the new model that is being proposed will not lead to a loss of that community connection that is so important in these services?

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

The committee is aware that there is a live procurement process for the new local area employment service. I am, therefore, unable to answer specific questions about any matters pertaining to the procurement process. The deadline for tenders is 21 March. My Department has amended phase 2 to take into account many of the issues raised following phase 1. Changes have been made to the evaluation criteria with more marks awarded to social value. Other changes include increased minimum referrals, up-front payments and a reduction in reference contracts and turnover requirements. As we all know, the legal advice is clear. I have advised the committee and the Dáil. I have no choice but to have an open and competitive procurement process for employment services and my Department must comply with its legal obligations. We are procuring a new local area employment service in two distinct phases. Phase 1 is the process for procuring new employment services and involves seven counties in the midlands and the north west without a local employment service. Contracts were signed last December and services are in the process of being mobilised. Phase 2 has commenced. We published the request for tender in December. It involves 17 lots covering 19 counties. The closing date for tenders is 21 March.

That provides additional time for organisations to work collaboratively together. Services for this phase are due to begin in July 2022. The evaluation of bids for both phases is based on the quality of service offered and an organisation's ability to work with a range of local partners and stakeholder networks in the best interest of their clients.

I am aware of media reports referring to the potential involvement of certain multinational companies. Obviously, I cannot comment on potential bids in what is a live procurement process. However, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that 80% of the award criteria marks in the local employment service requests for tender are dependent on the quality of the service, community linkages, and impact on social value. I am confident community-based providers who work collaboratively and submit high-quality competitive bids will be in a strong competitive position to secure a contract under phase 2. This "quality first" approach will ensure that, as we expand employment services throughout the State, we retain a focus on providing the best possible service to the long-term unemployed. Our priority is to provide the service to the customer.

I know some people are concerned that there will be a loss of community focus. That is not my intention nor my Department's intention. I instructed my officials that these employment services must have a strong local focus, and this will be evaluated as part of the tender evaluation process. I am pleased the RFT reflected these instructions. I wanted to make sure that community focus was there. I have responsibility for all communities across the State. Currently, there are no local employment services in 14 counties and only partial coverage in some of the other counties, such as Galway and Wicklow. By summertime, I expect all 26 counties to have an appropriate service for the long-term unemployed. I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. I hope I answered all the Deputy's questions.

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

I refer to the community employment scheme, the rural social scheme and Tús. It is, of course, welcome to see increases in expenditure for 2022 across the board. They are very important. A commitment was made late last year when the changes to the community employment scheme, CES, and rural social scheme, RSS, were announced, one of which was a significant increase in referrals. I understand the Department will look at how it can ramp up referrals across those three important schemes, which are particularly important in rural areas for rural services. I understand a review of the rural social scheme is to take place this year. I would like an update on that because it is very important.

I appreciate the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, has been out on the ground and has met with people - I have seen that myself online - and that is important. Many of the tweaks and changes that are needed particularly in regard to the RSS and Tús could be made by simply engaging with the co-ordinators and the supervisors without a long drawn-out review. I appreciate the RSS will be reviewed. That needs to be done in a timely manner. I ask that an update be given on that.

I raised the issue of the referrals many times. The last time I raised this, there were 1,900 community employment scheme vacancies online. I am looking at the details online now and they state there are 2,967 community employment scheme places available. This referrals issue is at crisis point when there nearly 3,000 CE vacancies. This needs to be looked at. Further to what was announced on referrals, will the Minister give an update on how that will work and how they will be significantly raised, because this is urgent? She knows the jobs that are advertised for the community employment scheme and how important they are to services, in particular, in our communities.

As to the six-year rule, the impact of that has not been seen yet, but there will be an impact. I know this issue has also been raised with the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, by those on the ground. It is an issue that needs to be looked at.

My position on local employment services and jobs clubs is well known. I want to make the following point because the Minister and others have repeatedly said the legal advice leaves them with no choice. That is fine. If we take that as being read, that is fine. But there was no legal advice on changing the model, and that is the problem. I do not care about how it is procured or that it was necessary. The model was a community-based not-for-profit model. If there were issues in some local employment services or jobs clubs, and they were not meeting the targets they should have been meeting, that could have been looked at. They could have been spoken to and changes could have been made.

There was a commitment in the programme for Government to extend the job activation, including local employment services, and that could have been done without totally changing the model. We have seen what happens when profit is involved and private companies come in. We have seen it with JobPath, with a success rate of 6.8% as regards people gaining employment that lasts for one year. That has been at a massive cost, more than €250 million of taxpayers' money, for a success rate of 6.8%. It makes no sense. I know companies like JobPath are and will be procuring for these new services, and I would love to see their community linkages. As I said before, what is happening is a big mistake. I believe we will look back on it and wish we had done it differently.

I refer to redundancy for people in jobs clubs and local employment services who do not want to move to the private for-profit model. Some of them have given 20 to 25 years of service and they deserve better than the redundancy available through the State. I ask the Minister to look at this. These people have given so much to their communities over many years and they deserve better as regards redundancy if they decide to leave.

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

I will ask the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, to deal with the CES, Tús and RSS. As to JobPath, some 324,000 customers have engaged with the service. The average cost per participant is €873, excluding VAT. A total of 69,000 people found full-time employment. The fees are paid when an individual gains and sustains employment. The local employment service request for tender is a completely different contract. It is totally different to JobPath.

I know some people do not like the JobPath model. I have spoken to our advisors on the Labour Market Advisory Council and they have said that JobPath works. In a recent report by the OECD, in January 2022, it reiterated the point that JobPath led to a higher employment and earning outcomes for those who engaged with the service. We are not going to agree on everything. This is one area in which we believe we get results. It is important to help people get back into the workplace, more so now than ever.

The Department has undertaken extensive reviews of the JobPath service. It has been the subject of independent customer reviews, and econometric reviews and analysis by the OECD and the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it was consistently found to perform at a high level. However, I continue to review all our employment service provisions, including JobPath. As the Deputy knows, JobPath services finish at the end of June.

The legal advice was clear in that we had to put the local employment services out to tender through public procurement. I did not have a choice; I had to do that. We have engaged extensively with stakeholders during that period. The request for tenders has been made at this stage, therefore, I cannot say any more on that. I will hand over to the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, who will speak about the community employment schemes and Tús.

Joe O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Kerrane for her questions. On the initial question on community employment scheme vacancies and referrals, it is probably worth reiterating the changes that were made just before Christmas because they have made a very significant impact. The CE baseline year was increased from 2007 to 2014. That baseline will be maintained at seven years behind the current year into the future. That will have a significant impact on people’s ability to stay on CE schemes if they so wish.

The service support stream has also been expanded significantly. When people turn 60 rather than 62, they can continue on a CE scheme until State pension age. There was previously a cap on that number which we have also removed. These two changes will certainly remove the worry of many regarding CE schemes nationally. In addition, for a transitionary period, we have provided that in exceptional circumstances, where a CE vacancy is on the horizon and it is proving difficult to find a replacement, and for a temporary period the person can stay on the placement if he or she so wishes. That is particularly important for key essential services in which CE schemes are involved.

The Deputy referred to a number of vacancies. It is important to keep in the mix that if we compare the current number of CE participants with the number in pre-Covid times, they are very similar. Many of the vacancy numbers the Deputy cited are connected to the fact that we introduced 3,000 additional places as part of the July jobs stimulus package. Some of these have been filled. On referral rates, the activation service ramped up significantly in the autumn of last year. Referral rates shot up in September and October. The number of CE referrals at the end of January was 2,896, which is significant, although obviously not all of them are accepted. We would like to see a higher level of acceptance among the CE referrals we make as part of the changes, acknowledging also that they need to be appropriate referrals.

While the position has stabilised now in respect of CE numbers, it should be noted that there will be a large number of exits in the 12-month period from April this year until May next year.

The rural social scheme is a fantastic scheme. I have visited a number of projects on the ground in the past number of weeks. It has great potential. I was in the Mayo area last week looking at how the scheme can also actually play a significant role in the Government’s commitments on the protection of biodiversity, climate action and environmental protection. There were some significant changes in that regard in the budget. To qualify for the rural social scheme, applicants need to be on the farm assist payment. We have opened up a range of other agri-environment schemes that will allow for a greater income disregard in the qualifications for the farm assist payment. If, for example, farmers are interested or involved in the agri-forestry scheme, the ash dieback scheme or other approved schemes, and a range of other schemes, the income disregard will be increased if they apply for the farm assist payment. That should open up the scheme.

With that in mind, we have allocated an additional budget for a potential increase in the number of applications for farm assist payments. Consequently, as I have said, these changes will not come into force until June. We will not initiate a review process until we see what the impact of those changes will be. From my point of view, I am considering what a review might look like. I will also look at the opportunities for rural social schemes as they a play key role, particularly in some of the rural counties.

We have regular operational reform meetings which the Minister and I attend to get feedback from the ground on issues with community employment schemes, Tús and the RSS. The next meeting will be held in the coming weeks. We keep abreast of the issues that regularly arise in the programmes on the ground and also make on-site visits.

I believe I have addressed the majority of the Deputy’s questions. If not, I ask her to let me know.

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

I am not going to labour the point on employment services. It has been well made by Deputies Carey and Kerrane and I broadly agree with them. I have the same concern that we are marketising social services. I fully accept and take the Minister at her word on the legal advice she received but this is a concern for the future. It is welcome that this committee has taken an ongoing watching brief in that regard.

Deputy Kerrane beat me to the RSS issue as well. One thing that jumped out at me, which the Minister of State mentioned, is the ecological services the scheme can provide. One of the other measures listed is energy conservation work for older people and those at risk of poverty. That especially jumped out at me given the retrofitting announcement made during the week, in particular, with regard to smaller interventions that are now 80% grant-aided. These include measures such as attic insulation, which might not require the same level of qualification as is required to do a full deep retrofit. I know that sourcing contractors for that kind of small-scale work will be one of the challenges facing the retrofitting scheme. It jumped out at me, therefore, that this is an opportunity. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy O’Brien, will comment.

On the back to education allowance, it is very welcome that funding is close to doubling. Will the Minister provide more detail on where the people availing of the allowance are going? What courses are they attending and what is the planned outcome from those courses? Are we taking an active role in directing people towards specific courses or are we taking the view that all back to education is good? There is probably a middle ground to be found in that respect. We know there are skills shortages in particular areas. It would be interesting to see the Department directing people towards courses where we know those skills shortages are.

I ask the Minister to comment briefly on the work placement experience programme, which was announced as part of the July jobs stimulus package. It is a very welcome move. Is it receiving the level of employer interest we need to ensure take-up of the programme? Have safeguards been put in place to ensure we do not undercut the pay and conditions of other staff through the workplace experience programme? Do we have the necessary safeguarding in place? I will leave it at that for the moment.

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

I thank Deputy Ó Cathasaigh for his questions. I will give some further reassurances on the local area employment services. I hear the Deputies comments and I am taking them on board. We have been down this road a few times and the legal advice from the Attorney General is very clear. These services have to go to tender. In the first phase, community organisations won out in two of the three areas i which they submitted bids. That shows clearly that community organisations can win these contracts. As the Deputies will know, the requests for tenders for phase 2 were published in December. Following feedback from the sector, a number of changes were made in the requests for tender, including increasing the marks awarded for quality to 80% and reducing the cost to 20% from 25% in phase 1. There is also a minimum cost component in the request for tender below which no bids are accepted. This dilutes the significance of the cost element in the request for tender. We have now done that.

The tender for phase 2 also contains significant increases in the minimum annual referral numbers. These are all issues that members have raised with me. The requirements for reference contracts and minimum turnover have also been reduced. The number of lots has been increased under phase 2 based on feedback. Between phase 1 and phase 2, the total number of lots is now 21. The lots and the geographic areas are now much smaller, with many of them mirroring Dáil constituencies or the areas covered by education and training boards, ETBs. For example, we have Cavan-Monaghan, Louth-Meath and Carlow-Kilkenny.

It is no longer a regional service, which is why it is now called the local area employment service.

The Department has also extended the period for parties to make a submission to the request for tender. The deadline is 29 March. This was done at was at the request of stakeholders to give them additional time to work collaboratively on submitting joint bids. Many in the sector have welcomed these changes. In my opinion, the existing providers are in an excellent position to bid successfully for the new local area employment service. As I said, 80% of evaluation marks will be awarded based on quality community linkages and social value. I know there are concerns and I reassure Deputies that I have taken them on board and incorporated many of them in phase 2.

There was a question on the workplace experience programme. Covid meant the take-up of the programme was not as great as we had expected. Obviously, many sectors were just trying to keep going during Covid and did not take up the offer. I had intended to hold road shows around the country to create awareness so that employers and people looking for work could be connected. We anticipate that participation in the programme will continue to increase over the coming months. Public sector bodies will be invited to support the programme.

The Department commenced a public information campaign designed to inform employers, business owners and jobseekers about the work placement experience programme. I intend to go around the country and I would be happy for Deputies to join me at any of the events we will hold, if I am in their area, to raise awareness. We want to connect people who are looking for work with those who want workers. There are different incentives both to employers and those who are currently on jobseeker's payments who will get extra money for availing of these programmes. I would like to think there will be a keen interest in that in the coming months. I think I have covered all the questions. I will pass over to the Minister of State.

Joe O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will pick up on Deputy Ó Cathasaigh's point about the rural social scheme and retrofitting. There is certainly potential for the RSS to be involved in community-based retrofitting projects. It needs that community-based link. However, the big potential in retrofitting could be in community employment because it has a training element whereas RSS does not. There were to be four ETB centres of excellence in retrofitting around the country. I think they are all established now. Some of the retrofitting proposed in the Government's plan published last week is shallow retrofitting. People can be trained in that in relatively short courses. There is potential for community employment participants to take retrofitting courses that can be undertaken in a relatively short period and ultimately go into employment, which is a big aim of community employment schemes.

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

I did not answer the question on the back to education scheme, so I will do so now if I may. The back to education allowance scheme is a second chance education support for jobseekers and people currently in receipt of the qualifying social welfare payments to undertake full-time second or third level education courses and retain access to the welfare payment. The scheme's main objective is to raise the education and skill levels of the unemployed individuals to help them to progress from unemployment to employment. The qualifying period for the second level option is three months and the qualifying period for third level courses is nine months prior to the date of the commencement of the course. We have waived that period for those in receipt of the PUP who can avail of the back to education scheme to commence a new course of education. Unlike existing social welfare recipients, no qualifying period is required. They can go straight in and apply for a back to education payment.

The Department had a provision of €96.5 million for 2021. That has been increased to €105.4 million for 2022. This represents a considerable investment in supporting participants to acquire the necessary education and skills to re-enter the labour market. The total number of scheme recipients, as at 31 December 2021, was 5,545. The recipients are broken down into 4,300 on jobseeker's allowance, 450 on jobseeker's benefit and 800 based on other qualifying Department of Social Protection payments. Currently, 86% of total recipients had been on jobseeker's supports previously. As part of the Government's pathways to work strategy, there is a commitment to increase participation and funding under the scheme to 7,000 people.

The back to education scheme was originally intended for people who might not have completed secondary education and wanted to get back to work. I do not know what sectors the participants are going into. I do not have that information. I hope that information is helpful.

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

There has been a useful debate on the local employment service but there are bigger issues involved here, specifically the internationalisation of bids for basic services in this country, which I believe is being driven by European agendas for some time. The other issue is the privatisation of fundamental services. I have serious concerns about that trend over the last 20 or 30 years.

I have been on a hobby horse for a long time. I still find we are up against the same reluctance to change based on old attitudes and for no rational reason. I really welcome the changes in community employment and the easing of conditions around staying on the schemes. However, I still cannot get my head around how, on a big policy issue, the State believes it has to ration the right of people who are unemployed and getting a payment to make a contribution to the State through the provision of services.

Let us start with the RSS. Only about 5,000 farmers are on RSS. I cannot understand why all those who wish to go on the RSS cannot be accommodated. We could not get a tsunami of applications. That would not happen because some farmers are on farm assist and will not go on the RSS for whatever reason. Instead, we went backwards. At least, when people went on the scheme previously, they could stay on it because it is not an activation scheme. Now there is a six-year cap, which I know was introduced before the Minister's time.

I have no doubt that if we were to create useful occupation for everybody who is eligible - I am obviously talking about eligible people - the advantages would outweigh any cost. The cost is the difference between people being on the scheme and getting a little extra in wage and supervision costs etc. and paying them out money on the basis that they do not actively engage in part-time employment, on penalty of very serious means tests. That is the cost. It is quite modest. I think the cost was calculated for Tús, which is a cheaper scheme than community employment, at about €5,000 per participant per annum. What is the upside? Let us look first at the health service.

It is well recognised in the Department - very good evidence is available on the matter - that people who are forcibly unemployed suffer much higher morbidity and mortality, go to the doctor more often and take more medicines. More importantly, however, there is also evidence that when people get employment there is a 99% improvement in the medical conditions they have that are caused by forced idleness. We all know the social cost of forced idleness to the Department, but the problem lies probably in the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, where there is a deeply inset mindset that it would be just too radical by half to suggest that it would be much better if everybody on jobseeker's allowance long term, that is, for over a year, in other words those eligible for a scheme, were able to engage for a very modest amount of money, if they so wished, in providing services in their communities. It is a matter of measuring up the invisible costs in health, well-being and family issues. For example, we know that people who are unemployed smoke more cigarettes. That is a health issue. Then there are all the other issues when people are cooped up with no money. It is a matter of weighing all those invisible costs, which are nonetheless huge costs on society. We are also damaging people's well-being, all because we somehow cannot find the money, even though there are useful things that could be done in the community to improve community life. I do not believe it would cost any money in net terms if those things were done.

We need to start thinking big, breaking down the walls that have been there for a long time. One of the reasons the rural social scheme got transferred into the Department with responsibility for social welfare is a syndrome the Minister of State is probably aware of. He knows what happens when one Department goes for money. The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform will look at the cost to that Department. However, when schemes come under two different Departments, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform never looks at the saving to be made to the other Department. Then there is bailiwicking between the Departments. Therefore, the reason all these schemes got transferred into one Department in 2010 was that at least there is a stop to the internecine strife between Departments, as if they were defending some great empire they had protected against another empire, that being another Department, when that was all meant to be subject to one Government. The Minister of State knows this and has seen the system fight like tigers to preserve what little they have to preserve.

There is a reason the rural social scheme comes under one Department. Previously, there was not that problem because there was only a transfer between two subheads. In the case of the Minister of State's Department, all that would happen if enough scheme places were created for those who wanted them - I am not talking about workfare; I am talking about those who want places on the scheme - would be that the Department would have to take some money out of its jobseeker's allowance budget, put it into the community schemes budget, which is what we are debating now, and come up with a little extra money. That would save on health costs, well-being costs and social welfare costs under other headings.

Joe O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In response to the Deputy's questions and commentary, I wish to explain first that there are 2,959 RSS placements at the moment. We have almost 400 vacancies on the scheme. We will look at the six-year cap as part of the review. The RSS is an optional scheme. It is important to say again that we have more places than we can fill at the moment. I am interested in seeing how we can broaden out the scheme and get more people involved because, from my knowledge of it to date, it is an income support measure as well as very much a social inclusion and community development measure. It has real, positive impacts on people's lives, particularly in isolated rural communities. They have the opportunity to get involved in group work and community work in the community and engage with communities where social isolation is a big problem. My understanding of the rural social scheme is that if one is part-time farming, that is, underemployed in farming, the scheme will facilitate community work as well. I do not necessarily see this as being penalised for doing additional part-time work because my understanding is that most participants will have some part-time work on the farm and then will do other part-time work in the community under the rural social scheme. However, I take the Deputy's broader points about the health, well-being and family issues on which engagement in schemes like this can have a positive impact. We will think broadly about the review of the rural social scheme later this year.

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

I will make one brief point. I am not surprised the Department is finding it hard to get people onto the rural social scheme at the moment. A change was made when the six-year cap was brought in. That cap, judging from what the Minister of State says, is now totally unnecessary because the Department does not have an over-demand for places, which was the argument in favour of the cap, that is, to create churn. However, it also created uncertainty for people in their lives.

The reason there is no demand for the scheme is quite simple. Initially, when one went on the scheme, as long as one qualified one got the payment because one was doing 19 and a half hours' work. One got the full basic rate for oneself, for one's partner if one had a partner and if he or she was a dependent adult, and for the children. Then the Department changed the scheme. This affects people with partners; it does not affect single people.

The Department told people they would get the basic rate of €203. If, however, one has a dependent adult or a dependent child, the only benefit of going on the scheme is the top-up of payment of something over €20 a week. So people on the scheme do 19 and a half hours' work for a €20 payment. When they take up employment, even on this scheme, the Department claws the whole thing back off them. If they earn €100 a week on their farm, which is not a huge farm income, the Department effectively takes €80 off the payment. That is all it pays them, net.

Who is going to work 19 and a half hours a week for €20? There was a huge demand for the scheme before that because these are farmers who, no matter what they do with their land, will never be independent of some other off-farm income. That is just a fact. Before that, once people qualified, they got the full payment for the 19 and a half hours and got free of the means test that bedevilled them under the farm assist in respect of the claw-back of 70%. I suggest that the Minister gets out the rules as they were originally written and the changes that were made and looks at them. I think that was in 2016. I will sit down with him anytime and go through that with him - because the first rules did not happen by coincidence or chance - and I think he will see that it is totally unattractive to go onto the RSS if one has a partner or dependent children.

Joe O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an opportune time to make these points. There will be further incentives come June with the income disregards in respect of the other agri-environment schemes. We will see what impact that will have. However, incentivisation has to be part of the mix when we are looking at this in the broader review later this year. I would be glad to sit down with the Deputy and to discuss his perspectives in more detail.

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

I appreciate that, but changing the farm assist means test improves being on farm assist but does not change the differential between being on farm assist and being on the scheme, which was crucial to its success in the early years. We will leave it there, however. I look forward to meeting the Minister of State to go through the detail and to give him real-life cases of how this thing works as just a total switch-off for people. Nobody is going to work 19 and half hours for €22.

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

We now move on to the next programme, which is illness, disability and carers. With the discretion of the committee, I will come in before other members because I have to go into the Dáil in a few minutes to speak about people with disabilities.

I wish to raise two issues with the Minister. The first is one I raised during the passage of the social protection legislation before Christmas and relates to the half-rate carer's allowance, specifically people who are in receipt of the State contributory pension and who receive the half-rate carer's allowance.

They are denied access to the fuel allowance scheme.

There is an anomaly within the social welfare code that discriminates against that cohort of people. If that person was in receipt of a non-contributory State pension, along with the half-rate carer's allowance, he or she would receive the fuel allowance. Even though these people's only income is from the State, since it happens to be a State contributory pension, they are denied access to the fuel allowance because the half-rate carer's allowance is, bizarrely, considered additional income. The Minister gave a commitment in December that she would look at this anomaly. Will she provide an update to the committee on that?

I flagged the issue of long Covid with the Minister's officials in advance. We are talking about the enhanced illness benefit payment for people who are diagnosed with Covid. The Oireachtas Library & Research Service produced a paper, which I commissioned, that has indicated there are 114,500 people in Ireland today with long Covid and rising. This has a huge potential cost to the Minister's Department with regard to illness benefit and disability allowance claims, as well as an impact on workforce participation.

Long Covid has a disproportionate impact on women and people in their middle age. We know, historically, that it is much harder to integrate people from those cohorts back in to the workforce after prolonged periods of absence from employment. Based on figures the Minister's Department provided to me through a reply to parliamentary question, in September 2021, 767 people who had Covid for in excess of ten weeks, that is, people who had Covid symptoms for a considerable period of time, were in receipt of the enhanced illness benefit payment for an extended period.

Those figures have gone up, in the five months from September until now, to 4,314 receiving that payment on a long-term basis. In the space of five months, the people who have been receiving the enhanced illness benefit payment for an extended period has gone up 562%. That is before we have seen the impact of the Omicron variant, which will have a further significant impact on those claim numbers. We face an avalanche of claims due to long Covid, even based on the Minister's statistics.

What measures are being taken by the Department to try to manage this to work with that cohort or people and assist them by providing supports and it is hoped, getting them back into work, either on a part-time or full-time basis, as quickly as possible? If the Minister could address those two issues, I would appreciate it.

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

The reason we introduced the enhanced illness benefit was to prevent transmission. We wanted people to stay at home and isolate, rather than go into work. For that reason, we gave them an enhanced payment, which meant they had financial supports while they were not at work. That was the primary reason for bringing in the enhanced illness benefit. In terms of those who are ill beyond ten weeks, the standard illness benefit may be paid for an extended period based on the person's continued eligibility. This is the primary income support payment for people who are unable to attend work due to illness of any type.

It would be very difficult to pluck out Covid and I understand those who are suffering from it, but there are others who have other illnesses that last beyond ten weeks. How can one say that Covid is having more of an impact on them than any other illness they may, unfortunately, get? Some 1% of the enhanced illness benefit claims have reached the ten-week threshold. We have paid out a significant amount on that and it was right and proper that we did so. However, just 1% of the claims have reached the ten-week threshold.

There are numbers there, but to isolate them and treat them differently to other people who have other long-term illnesses would create an inequity. That is the position. Most people who are still recovering from Covid after ten weeks will transfer to the standard illness benefit. If they do not meet the contribution criteria for this payment, they can apply for disability allowance, subject to a means test. Some will not be eligible as the usual qualifying conditions were relaxed due to public health concerns. People with a serious level of ill health where it can be expected to be permanent or to last a long time can apply for invalidity pension, subject to the contribution requirements.

I will move on to the half-rate carer's and fuel allowances. I meet carers all the time, both in my constituency and through the carer organisations. One of my priorities since becoming the Minister for Social Protection is to do whatever I can to support our carers. The Deputy and I know well the huge work they do. In budget 2021, as the Deputy is aware, I increased the carer's support grant to €1,850. It is at its highest level ever. This year, I increased the weekly carer's allowance payment by €5.

Most importantly, I brought in significant changes to the means test. The Cathaoirleach raised that with me on a number of occasions. He made some very valid points and I was delighted to be the first Minister in 14 years to do anything about the means test for carer's allowance. It was something I was very passionate about. That change means that all carers currently on reduced rate of payment will see their payment increase from next June. It will also mean that tens of thousands of carers who did not qualify up to this point, due to the income thresholds, will now qualify for the payment.

The increase in the income disregard for a couple was also raised with me by the Cathaoirleach. I wanted to improve on it because I was aware of many cases where a partner, usually a mother, might have to give her job up to care for a sick child. However, because the husband was working or they had some savings, they did not qualify. As a result of these changes I am making, a couple can earn up to €750 per week and the first €50,000 in savings will not be counted in the means test. The family carers have welcomed that.

The Cathaoirleach asked about the half-rate carer's allowance and the fuel allowance. We are working on a report on those. As soon as we get that finished, we will publish it and lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is important to note that since 2013, the payment of half-rate carer's allowance does not automatically preclude a person from qualifying for fuel allowance. If a person is in receipt of a qualifying, non-contributory social welfare payment and a half-rate carer's allowance, they are deemed to satisfy the means test and the fuel allowance is payable, subject to all remaining criteria being satisfied.

If a person is in receipt of a qualifying contributory social welfare payment and a half-rate carer's allowance, the value of the half-rate carer's allowance will be assessed in the means test for fuel allowance. Half-rate carer's allowance, which is the same as €131 for anybody aged 66 or over, is paid in addition to many social welfare payments at a rate significantly more than the weekly rate of the fuel allowance, which is payable at €33. However, I am committed to looking at this. A report is being drawn up on it and when I get that report, it will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas.

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

I thank the Minister for her response and while I will not dwell on the other issue, I will make the point again.

In the past five months, there has been a 562% increase in long-term claimants as a result of long Covid. That is before we have had the impact of the Omicron variant, which is going to drive these figures significantly in excess of that level. The point I make is that, as a country, we cannot ignore what we are about to experience. We cannot ignore people with a disability, but this is something that is coming at us like a juggernaut. We are getting a heads-up in relation to it, and we cannot be seen to sit on our hands regarding it.

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

I have a couple of questions for the Minister in respect of illness benefit. She spoke about Covid demonstrating how flexible the social protection system can be. I wish to raise one issue concerning those on illness benefit accessing the fuel allowance. We know it is not a qualifying payment. I will give an example of a gentleman who was in touch with me, who has a terminal illness. He is on illness benefit. I know he can go on to a longer term payment and then qualify for the fuel allowance, but rather than putting that on him, I am wondering about flexibility within the system. I know that for a lot of these payments it is very black and white, but is it possible for sections within the Department to consider giving the fuel allowance to recipients of illness benefit where they are terminally ill? I know it is difficult to pick between one illness and another for people who are on illness benefit because it varies so much but where the illness is terminal, would recipients be able to access the fuel allowance? Is there any flexibility in regard to that or could it be looked at?

I also wish to raise the issue of accessing illness benefit for people who are in receipt of a widow's pension and are working. They are working and paying PRSI. I have two cases of women - it is typically women - with children who got Covid, and they could not get the Covid illness benefit payment, or any illness benefit. They are widows and they are entitled to their widow's pension given the circumstances, but they are working and paying PRSI, and I do not think they should be locked out of illness benefit, which is a short-term payment. There are not many such cases, but in a case I had where a woman with young children got sick with Covid, she could not get the payment. I have raised this with the Minister previously, but I ask her again. They have an entitlement to a widow's pension, which is right and proper, but they should not be locked out of something like illness benefit. I do not think it would cost a lot of money as it would only arise in certain cases. I want to raise that with the Minister again.

I previously raised the new basic income pilot scheme for artists with the Minister. I appreciate that it is a matter for the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport, Gaeltacht and Media, Deputy Catherine Martin, but the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, has an input in terms of those artists who are in receipt of a disability allowance or the blind pension. If they choose to move on to the income support, they should not lose their disability allowance or blind pension. However, we are going to put them in a very difficult position if they cannot sign up to the new pilot scheme, as artists, because they are afraid of losing their disability allowance or blind pension. This needs to be worked out while the scheme is being developed rather than having it arise when the scheme is up and running and people with disabilities are locked out of it. That would not be fair or proper. In fact, it would be discriminatory. It is being put the to the Minister now and I have raised it with her previously. I am sure others have also raised it. We must make sure that the new pilot scheme for artists is open to those artists in receipt of disability allowance and that they do not lose the likes of a medical card, a place on a social housing list or a disability allowance or blind pension, in the case of the payments for which the Minister is responsible. We must make sure that is in place for the pilot scheme before it is rolled out.

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

The Deputy raised a number of issues. Work is ongoing on the disability allowance, the blind pension and the basic income for artists. There is a principle in social protection, and this applies to the widow's pension and illness benefit. The principle is that a person gets one payment. Our job in the Department is always to keep people out of poverty and to provide supports when they need it. We do not pay two supports. During the pandemic, retired people who were receiving a pension could not get the PUP, even though they were working. The principle on which that is based is that we do not give two social welfare payments.

Deputy Kerrane raised the case of a person who is terminally ill seeking the fuel allowance. I will look at that if she sends me the details of the case.

The principle of not getting two payments applies to illness benefit in the same way as the widow's pension, but if a person is in hardship the case will be considered. Deputy Kerrane should send the details of the case to me.

I will ask the officials to look at the issues the Deputy raises on the pilot scheme for artists. It is being worked on currently and there is consultation between the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport, Gaeltacht and Media and my Department. The Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, is driving the initiative. I did try to introduce something for artists when I was Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. It was art assist and it was based on the same principle as the farm assist payment. We made up the difference when a person was not working. The scheme the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Sport, Gaeltacht and Media is examining now is an enhanced one and my Department is happy to work with her to see how we can help artists that contribute significantly to society and to our culture and identity. It is important to do that, as we missed live performance and all the wonderful entertainment we receive in this country so much during Covid. I am happy to look at that. I hope that is okay.

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

I thank the Minister.

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

I listened with interest to the Minister outlining the social welfare principle. It reminds me of the day I asked someone about somebody that we knew. He said: "The kind of guy he is, if you were down in a hole, he would pull you out, but if you went up a ladder, you were getting above yourself and he would pull you down." The Department of Social Protection seems to work on that principle. There is no question that if you are down in a hole, it will pull you out, but if you start climbing the ladder, it will pull you down pretty fast as well. There is that type of attitude there and we must move on from it. Despite what some people believe, people who are dependent on social welfare have very constrained lives generally. If you are totally dependent on social welfare, you live under a lot of rules and it is fairly constrained income.

I have a question on disability. I am trying to focus today on high-level questions because it is important that we start thinking deeply about the architecture of the system we have. The Minister is familiar with the partial capacity scheme. That introduced a new idea; that we differentiate between people with a profound disability, a severe disability, a moderate disability and a mild disability. The idea was that we would be a bit more generous to those at the profound end of the scale. In that case, it relates to invalidity pension and disability allowance, and a person can go to work and keep the payment. One of the big challenges we face is that the cost of disability is never taken into account. For people with profound or severe disabilities, or what the Department would term moderate disabilities, there is an increasing scale of costs as we go up the ladder. I know there were tentative ideas in the Department at one stage about creating a tiered scale of disability and invalidity payments that would pay more to people in the profound band and slightly less to those in the subsequent bands, and that those in the mild band would get the basic income that is currently available. A person would get more for a moderate disability, more again for a severe disability and more again for a profound disability.

This would be a very humane response to disability. It would stop the issue that worries the Department whereby if it increases the disability rate much above the unemployment payments, there might be migration. They would not get that extra bit over and above what is available now unless they had a moderate, severe or profound disability. Is there high-level policy debate in the Department looking at this issue and thinking about it?

This morning I received an email from somebody who makes a valid point. It was from somebody who has a child with multiple disabilities. This case involves a husband who is working and a wife who is a full-time carer getting carer's allowance. At present there are enormous energy costs involved with all the equipment the child is on constantly. The family is over the threshold. This means no matter how severe the disability is and how much it costs to care for the child, the family receives the standard rate of payment. The family has too high an income to receive an essential payment for increased energy costs. I do not know how much the husband earns at present but let us say it is €50,000 or €60,000. For people who must pay a mortgage such an income means they are still in fairly constrained circumstances. We need to look at the situation of the cost of disability on a graded basis. Are there high-level talks about reform of this system rather than just tinkering at the edges?

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

I agree with the Deputy. On 7 December we published a report on the cost of disability carried out by Indecon. I brought the report to Cabinet. We have referred it to the national disability inclusion strategy steering group, which is chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. This group is responsible for monitoring the key framework for policy and action to address the needs of people with disabilities in Ireland. The group will consider the actions and what the Government needs to do. This needs to be across government. We also need to look at other issues such as housing, health, education and transport costs. There are a number of areas. It is clear we have to find the right response to all of the issues. The report that Indecon has prepared is very comprehensive. It looked at all of the aspects of disability.

The Deputy is right when he says that at present there is a flat-rate disability payment of €280 regardless of whether people have a mild, moderate or profound disability. From a social protection perspective, one of the recommendations in the report is a payment linked to disability. Some people with a mild disability could do some work. Other people who have a profound disability cannot work. We need to look at issues such as whether the payment should be graduated.

Good work is being done on trying to help people with disabilities to get into the workforce. We have the Ability programme, which is EU funded. It was due to end last year. I met those involved in the programme and heard first-hand from them the very good work they do on the ground in helping younger and older people have an opportunity to make a contribution to society in many different ways and get back into work in whatever form or career they want to pursue. We were able to allocate money from the Dormant Accounts Fund to keep the programme going. It really is a good programme. We also have EmployAbility in the Department. It helps people with one-to-one contact and connection between an employer and employee. It works very well.

I take the Deputy's point. I am on the same page as him. The Government and the Cabinet are committed to dealing with this issue to improve the situation of those with disabilities. This is particularly with regard to cases such as the one the Deputy spoke about, where parents have children with profound disabilities. It is a very difficult place for people to find themselves. I thank the Deputy for the question.

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

As there are no further questions on this programme, I will turn to chapter 6 and the programme dealing with children. As there are no questions on this I will turn to chapter 7 and the programme dealing with supplementary payments, agencies and miscellaneous services. Do Deputies wish to pose questions to the Minister on this? As there are no questions we will move on to chapter 8 dealing with the financial position of the Social Insurance Fund.

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

I wish to make a comment on this. It is estimated the Social Insurance Fund will be back in surplus this year. In the debate on pensions we have to take several things into account. No doubt the Commission on Pensions report was raised. The issue is a financial one. We already put a lot of Exchequer funds into welfare and quite rightly. The idea that straight Exchequer funds and non-PRSI funds would not go into welfare is unthinkable. The whole system would collapse tomorrow morning if that happened.

Auto-enrolment is due to be introduced. Will this be taken out of the Social Insurance Fund or will it be Exchequer funding? I keep asking questions but nobody seems to want to know. This has a huge bearing on the choices we will make about putting money into caring for the elderly. Do we put it in a private scheme where the biggest contribution will go to those who are better off or do we put it into keeping the pension age as it is? Can we get some sense of this? I understand one third of the money for auto-enrolment is to come from the Exchequer. Will this come from the Social Insurance Fund or Exchequer funding? How much is it likely to be? We know how much it will cost per annum to keep the pension age at 66. I have asked parliamentary questions and we do not seem to get any answer on an estimate of how much auto-enrolment will cost in various scenarios. The Department has this information.

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

Would the Minister like to respond to this?

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

I thank the Deputy for raising this. The issue of auto-enrolment is at an advanced stage. I have brought proposals to a Cabinet subcommittee and I intend to bring final proposals to the Government very shortly. As the Deputy knows, the programme for Government commits to introducing a pension automatic enrolment system. It is a priority for me. I want to see this introduced. Only 35% of private sector employees have a pension. The fear is that when they reach retirement they will have a reduction in living standards. I will bring proposals to the Government or Cabinet very shortly to finalise the design of the auto-enrolment.

I can give some information on it. We will seek to gradually deliver an auto-enrolment system based on following principles: a phased roll-out over a decade of the contributions made by workers and employers; matching contributions by both workers and employers; and the State to top up these contributions. It will not come from the Social Insurance Fund because that is the fund into which workers make PRSI contributions. There will be an opt-out provision for those who choose to opt out. Workers will have a range of retirement savings products to choose from and a charges cap will be imposed on pension providers.

My Department has finalised a proposal for Government on the overall design of the scheme and, as I said, I intend to bring that for approval very soon. Once the final design is agreed, it is intended that the necessary legislative organisation and process structures for implementation will follow over the course of this year and next year. They were set out in the economic recovery plan in 2021. That is the plan on the auto-enrolment. There is no doubt that Covid has delayed it but it is my intention to bring it forward very soon.

We committed in the programme for Government that we would establish an independent expert Commission on Pensions, which is what we did. It was chaired by Ms Josephine Feehily. The commission worked very hard for six months, as the Deputy knows. Its countless meetings produced for Government a very detailed and in-depth report and recommendations. It was based on a lot of data. There were economists, academics, pension experts, union representatives, youth representatives and representatives of older people. I took that report to Government last October. The joint committee has published its report on the future of pensions. The Commission on Taxation and Welfare is due to come back with its views by the end of February.

We will then look at all of this in the round and, through the Cabinet committee on economy recovery and investment, the Ministers for Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance, the three party leaders and I will plot a way forward. The intention is that we will bring a full response and implementation plan to the Commission on Pension's recommendations to Government for approval by the end of March. The Deputy will appreciate that there are some very difficult decisions to be made and this Government needs to make those decisions. We need to push on with auto-enrolment and make decisions on the sustainability of the pension system. The social welfare code is the bedrock of the pension system and we need to look at it. There are four and a half people working at the minute for every pensioner. By 2050, there will only be two people working for every one pensioner. Therefore, the system we have is not sustainable and there is no getting away from that. It is not a problem unique to Ireland. Countries all over the world are grappling with the same issue. As I said, there are some difficult decisions to be made and, as a Government, we will do that. At the end of the day, the interest of our citizens is our priority in making those decisions and ensuring they are to their benefit.

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

One of the problems that the commission faced was that the interface between auto-enrolment and the age that some could access the pension were not interlinked. I would look at this simplistically enough. The State has only a finite amount of money. I am one of those people who actually believes that it is finite. In the longer term, the Government can only spend what it brings in.

It seems that something that has not been taken into account is that, on one hand, the Minister is saying that people, many of whom will not be fit to work after the age of 66, will come to the age and hit a wall because they will only be in receipt of the working age payment up to age 68, while on the other, the State will be able to fund in the same year money into an auto-enrolment system which, by its nature, will benefit those with a higher income more than those with a lower income, straight out of the Exchequer, as the Minister just said.

If she gave me a choice of what to do with the money, the first thing I would do is pay the people aged between 66 and 68 and put a caveat on that. Then if there was money still in the pot, which has had a finite amount paid into it, it should be put into auto-enrolment.

There is one caveat, but the commission disregarded it completely. There was the principle of the transition pension. Perhaps there is an argument for saying that if a person comes to the age of 66 and still earns a lot of money and continues to work after their 66th birthday, he or she could not claim the contributory pension, as he or she could not with the transition pension long ago. If a person is earning a few hundred euro per week, let him or her off. However, if a person is on €50,000, €60,000, €70,000, €80,000, €100,000 or €200,000, he or she could not claim and I would have no problem with that. However, funny enough, the commission totally banged that one on the head. If the Minister came back with a hybrid, I would say that is fair enough. However, many people will not be able to work after 66 because of mental health issues, burnout issues or physical issues.

These debates are not detached from each other. As the Minister always reminds us, there is a finite amount of money, and choices have to be made. We seem to be saying that we giveth 20 years hence with one hand but we taketh with the other hand, and I just do not get it. That is just my view and I wanted to put that view on the record of the House because there has been some rather ill-informed commentary in some of the media where people have not read what the committee did or why it did it. We were able to take a wider lens than the commission. The commission's terms of reference were totally constrained and I accept that it was not within its remit to take some of these issues into account. However, it is within the remit of Government and the Oireachtas.

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

I thank the Deputy for his comments again. I am not in a position to say what recommendations the Government will accept or otherwise. This will be a whole-of-government decision. There will be many discussions and, at the end of the day, we have to make the decisions that are fair and make sure the State pension, which is the bedrock of the system at the minute, continues. I always say that when I retire, the person who retires 30 or 40 years after me should get the same benefits I get. It is about how when the young people of today have reached retirement age, we have not pulled that ladder up after us and left nothing for them. The Deputy used the analogy of the ladder earlier on. There are difficult decisions but we will work our way through this and, hopefully, we reach the right decisions at the end of the day.

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

That concludes chapter 8. We will turn to chapter 9, which is the programme dealing with administration. Is it agreed? Agreed Next is performance outputs and targets. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Does the Minister wish to make any closing remarks?

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

I thank the members of the committee for their contributions. This has been a good debate. I am glad that I have been able to outline the Department's position. I have also been able to hear members' views and take them on board.

I thank the members for their co-operation and support in dealing with this Revised Estimate. Perhaps the Minister of State wishes to say a few words.

Joe O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No; I know that members have their eyes on the clock.

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

Before we conclude, I wish to raise the issue of the Department's performance. I accept and know how performance targets are established by the management board to measure performance within the Department, but, as a committee, we have a responsibility to monitor the ongoing spending within the Department on an annual basis. The most effective tool for us to do that is through the departmental performance targets. As the Minister is aware, we set out, in our pre-budget submission, issues relating to departmental performance and the need to modernise and update those performance targets. I accept that the performance targets have been pretty much historic targets from year to year in terms of the number of payments issued, and so forth. However, the difficulty is that we, as a committee, believe that they do not effectively drive the type of change that we believe is needed in terms of the delivery within the Department. That is not taking from that fact that we all find, in our day-to-day dealings with the Department, that it is very responsive to the needs to individuals, but I think more can be done to try and improve the processing time for applications. The difficulty is that when payments are delayed for people, it causes financial hardship.

We spoke earlier about the exceptional needs payment. That is available to some people. It is not available to others for various reasons. Nevertheless, it does cause financial hardship for people. There are mechanisms that can be used to speed up these applications within the confines of the challenges that are there in terms of making sure that there is proper scrutiny of every application. I will provide the example of the time, previously, when there were ongoing issues with the domiciliary care allowance. Deputy Ó Cuív was the Minister in charge at the time. That application form was radically transformed to facilitate parents of children who were on the autism spectrum. That made a significant difference in the volume of applications that went for review and subsequently went for appeal at the time. The committee has highlighted specifically one area in its report, namely, common errors that are made in application forms. As public representatives, we all know that one of the biggest mistakes that many people make is they fail to sign the application form. If the Department was to make the public aware of where particular applications fall down on a regular basis in order that they could be addressed by people in advance of submitting their applications, it would help to speed that up. Again, in terms of when applications are granted on review, there are commonalities in terms of why they are granted on review. If they were compiled and made available, it would help to streamline the application process.

The committee feels that the targets that are there at the moment need to be modernised and updated. We would like an update from the Minister on that. If not today, she might come back to us at a later date. We are also anxious to have a meeting with the senior officials to go through this particular aspect of the programme. We feel that it can help to improve the operation of the Department and the oversight by senior management of the Department, as well as bringing an extra layer of accountability that is required by this committee and the Oireachtas because of the size of the budget that we are dealing with on a day-to-day basis.

It is important that we look at ways of how we can have measurables that drive the type of dynamic change that we need to see happening across the Department of Social Protection. The committee made reference, for example, to the working family payment. Earlier today, the committee spoke about the exceptional needs payment. Again, if the outcomes of applications for non-means-tested exceptional needs payment were compiled, including those that were granted and those that were refused, that would give the committee sight of what is happening with that, and perhaps endorse the approach that has been taken and articulated by the Minister today and address any inadequacies that we, as individual public representatives and Members of the Oireachtas, are identifying across our constituencies. If the Minister is unable to respond, perhaps she will reflect on the points I have raised. It is an issue that the committee would like to deal with in more detail with the officials in the near future.

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

My Department has already implemented a review process whereby performance metrics are formally reviewed on an annual basis and amended as appropriate. We review our performance on a monthly basis when I meet with the management team. If there are any issues that Deputies have brought to my attention or I have seen in my own constituency, I certainly raise them. I have seen many cases where there have perhaps been longer delays or backlogs have developed for whatever reason, and we have redeployed resources as necessary. I must say that I am very proud to head up a department of social protection that is agile and flexible. When it comes to redeploying resources in certain areas in order to resolve problems that may arise, they do it quickly. It is not always the case across Government that there is that level of agility and responding so quickly to the demands of the customers. Ours is a very customer-based Department, where the needs of our clients and people come first.

The Chairman mentioned the issue of appeals. We recently appointed two deputy chief appeals officers. I passed legislation to do that. We have the chief appeals officer and two deputies now. The legislation is such that the chief appeals officer determines the decision if the appeal goes up the line. The chief appeals officer had to do a great deal of work, so we have two new deputy appeals officers in place to help speed that up.

The Chairman suggested that the Department highlight the mistakes made in applications. I know that it does not suit everybody, but if you make your application online, there is less chance that you will make some of those mistakes and the process is probably more streamlined. In the case of applications for benefits with a medical component, sometimes the information required is not provided in the first application. We know, from our own offices, that it may be that a person is applying for a benefit that is related to medical condition, and a letter is sent off with the application that is very vague and does not give the details needed. We send the applicant back to the doctor to get a more detailed letter because when they tell you what is wrong with them, we tell them that it is not included in the letter and a decision cannot be made on the basis of the information included in the letter. The applicant is asked to supply further information and in the majority of cases, the application is processed. The Chairman is right that these are the sort of things that we need to tell people. We must tell them to supply the right information in the first place to speed up the application.

The committee has recommended that all social welfare appeals be processed within a 12-week timeframe. We have that down to a 12.9-week timeframe. Sometimes things happen. That is the current average. Where we find that there are issues that lead to delays, we redeploy resources very quickly. I think I have covered most of the Chairman's points. If there is anything else, I am happy to come back to the committee.

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

I thank the Minister for her response.

I have no doubt we would all agree that the Department of Social Protection has been exemplary in terms of its flexibility and management where issues have arisen, not only during the pandemic but prior to it. In fairness, as correctly stated by the Minister, when issues are brought to the Department's attention it is very customer-focused in trying to address them. She is also correct in saying that many of the issues brought forward by Members of the Oireachtas are customer-focused issues. The difficulty is that we have a responsibility to monitor the spend and to ensure that the targets in terms of policy are delivered. We cannot do that in terms of the measurables we have visibility of today. Information on the number of people who are paid a benefit on a weekly or monthly basis provides very little indepth information to us about what is actually going on in the Department in terms of meeting overall policy objectives. For example, an issue for Government in terms of policy is that of former carers transitioning back into the workforce when they are no longer in receipt of carer's benefit or carer's allowance. That is a policy objective of Government but there is no measurable there of the number of former carers who are coming off jobseeker's allowance payments. We all accept that one of the largest cohorts of people in receipt of social welfare payments in terms of poverty is the one-parent family yet there is no measurable in the performance indicators on that.

An issue that has been brought up consistently by members in committee is the use of employment services to get people back into long-term sustainable employment. A lot of the criticism of the employment services has been around whether the tender will provide long-term sustainable employment for people. Again, there is no measurable in that regard. The point being made by the committee is that we need a broader look in terms of the performance indicators within the Department. The Minister and Minister of State are answering members' questions today, but the reality is the performance indicators are developed by management. They are presented here as a key part of our consideration of the Revised Estimate, but it is impossible for us to make a determination based on what is in this performance indicators. That is why the committee has made its recommendation. We have asked for direct engagement with the Department on the design of a set of performance indicators that meet the Department's need but also meet the need of this committee and the Oireachtas in terms of scrutiny. Ultimately, we all want the same thing. None of us want to see this particular Vote being discussed at the Committee of Public Accounts following a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. That ultimately is our primary objective in relation to this.

I ask that the Minister would reflect on the comments we have made here today. We will be asking the officials to come in to engage with us further on this. The Minister might give consideration to the issues raised in advance of a meeting.

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

I take on board all of the suggestions made and I value them. I have made changes in the Department based on suggestions that have come from the committee. At the end of the day, we all want to make sure that citizens are looked after and that the purpose of all of the payments in regard to all of the supports we provide are to help people.

I am happy to consider what was proposed by the Chairman in regard to the performance indicators. I am very keen that we meet those targets. I am sure my officials will have no problem meeting with the committee to go into them in more detail.

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

I thank the Minister. I would also remind the Minister of the outstanding request for next week in regard to the employment services.

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

On that matter, I am very restricted in what I can say on the local employment services, the tender for which is subject to a live procurement process. I have outlined very clearly today the Department's position on that and I have given all of the information I can give based on the fact that it is a live process. Perhaps, the committee could appreciate that.

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

I thank the Minister, the Minister of State and their officials for their time.