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

I remind members, officials and those in the Gallery to please ensure their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting as they interfere with the broadcasting equipment. This meeting has been convened to consider the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 37 of €755 million for the Department of Social Protection, which was referred to this committee by Dáil Éireann. I welcome an Aire, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Heather Humphreys, and her officials to this meeting. I also welcome an Aire Stáit, the Minster of State at the Department of Social Protection, with responsibility for community development and charities, Deputy Joe O'Brien. I thank the Minister and her officials for the briefing document which they provided for this meeting. As the Minister is present, officials should not speak in public session.

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

To commence our discussion, I now invite the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, to make her opening presentation.

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

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members for the invitation to attend today to present the 2022 Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Protection. I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate of €722 million for 2022 and the purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to address a shortfall in funding for my Department, which is required because of three main drivers of additional expenditure on Vote 37 in 2022. These include a range of once-off cost-of-living measures announced as part of budget 2023, including the Christmas bonus, additional expenditure related to supports responding to the Covid-19 pandemic and additional funding to provide much needed support to refugees fleeing the war in Ukraine under the temporary protection directive. I was pleased to announce, as part of the record social welfare budget package worth €2.2 billion, a range of cost-of-living measures worth almost €1.2 billion to be provided early out of 2022 funds to provide support for people as soon as possible. I am deeply conscious of the cost-of-living challenges many people are facing right now. Energy prices have risen sharply and the cost of the weekly shop has gone up considerably also. Government wants to help and that is why the additional payments in October, November and December will put money into the pockets of older people, working families, carers, and people with disabilities. This wide range of lump sum payments will help to ease the burden on our most vulnerable over the winter months as an integral part of the comprehensive budget package to provide assistance to households in dealing with the rising cost of living. In framing the budget, our aim was to ensure the support being given would be delivered in a timely manner, would benefit households throughout the State and would be progressive in nature by targeting supports towards those on lower incomes in particular.

I believe the overall package of support represents a robust response to the substantial bills and expenses that households are currently facing. These supports are estimated to cost approximately €1.3 billion overall, of which €789 million is for Vote-funded schemes. The cost-of-living supports that are paid to people in receipt of payments from voted schemes is met entirely by the Exchequer. As members will be aware, there is a current-year surplus on the Social Insurance Fund, SIF. This means that the cost-of-living supports paid to those on social insurance schemes have been funded from the SIF, without recourse to funds from the Exchequer. As the cost-of-living supports were not included in the original Estimates for the Department, and unless equivalent savings on other schemes meet the entire cost, a Supplementary Estimate is required in order to ensure these essential supports can be paid. In the brief provided to the committee, we have separately included the additional expense of the cost-of-living supports, including the Christmas bonus to be paid for each scheme, showing the effect of these supports on the requirement for a Supplementary Estimate. This table also provides the outturn position on the various schemes prior to the payment of the cost-of-living supports, which eases comparison between the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate. I hope the committee finds this approach useful.

The balance of the Supplementary Estimate is required to meet a net overspend on the schemes and services delivered by my Department. In February 2022, a Revised Estimate of €23.35 billion was considered by the committee for projected 2022 social protection spending. This Estimate was based on Government decisions that had been made at the time. Although it was anticipated that Covid-19 impacts were receding, there was no indication that a few short weeks later, the war in Ukraine would start. This led to very significant additional Department spending both directly, through a range of income supports to refugees, and indirectly through its significant and ongoing contribution to the global cost-of-living crisis, which ultimately resulted in the cost-of-living package measures I have already set out. I will go through the key issues behind that in a little more detail now.

Additional voted expenditure of €199 million arises on the employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS, in 2022 due to the impact of the Omicron variant. Covid-19 restrictions were reimposed in December 2021 and January 2022 for certain sectors, resulting in a surge of expenditure in January 2022 and the ultimate extension of the EWSS to the end of May 2022.

I have provided the committee with full details of all schemes, where the projected end of year Vote expenditure deviates from that projected in February 2022.

Government has provided a very significant response to support social protection recipients in the face of the cost-of-living pressures which manifested during 2022. Additional payments totalling €1.3 billion have and will be made, including: €116 million in measures earlier in the year, including fuel allowance and back to school clothing and footwear allowance; and almost €1.2 billion for the autumn cost-of-living double week and additional lump sum payments.

Critical supports estimated to cost €244 million on voted schemes will be provided to directly support the 65,000 refugees who have sought shelter in Ireland, fleeing the war in Ukraine under the protection of the EU’s temporary protection directive. I have provided the committee with full details of all schemes, where the projected end of year Vote expenditure deviates from that projected in February 2022 due to the impact of the expenditure on payments for people fleeing the war.

On a positive note, the position of the Social Insurance Fund in 2022 has changed significantly from the one which required an Exchequer subvention this time last year. Social Insurance Fund PRSI income to the end of 2022 is projected at approximately €14.1 billion. This is one very welcome result of the exceptionally strong labour market recovery in 2022. This is almost €1.5 billion or 12% more than was estimated in February. Fund expenditure is now projected to be just over €12 billion, which is €715 million or 6% more than had been projected. This means that no Social Insurance Fund, SIF, subvention is required from the Exchequer in 2022, and the Social Insurance Fund will carry over a surplus currently estimated at €2.06 billion into 2023 – a fact which is hugely welcome.

Taking account of the altered pattern of spending I have highlighted, it is now projected that overall Social Protection spending in 2022 will be €24.79 billion. This is a difference of €1.44 billion over the February 2022 Revised Estimate. Not all of this €1.44 billion is being funded through the Supplementary Estimate - there is €715 million in additional PRSI income over that previously estimated, leading to a surplus of over €2 billion which funds the social insurance scheme additional requirements. Taking account of this, the total Supplementary Estimate required to meet the shortfall on voted schemes is €722 million.

This €722 million comprises: an additional €710.9 million for schemes and services funded from Vote 37; and an additional €21.6 million on administration. Combined, this amounts to €732.5 million, of which €10.5 million is offset by additional appropriations-in-aid receipts.

Looking at key areas of expenditure: €788.9 million is required to fund a range of once-off cost-of-living measures to people receiving payments funded from Vote 37; €244 million is required to fund additional expenditure on a range of schemes to provide essential support to people fleeing war in Ukraine under the temporary protection directive; and €198.8 million is required to fund additional Covid-related spend on the employment wage subsidy scheme and part-time job incentive following the Omicron variant earlier in 2022. In total, this additional expenditure amounts to €1,231.7 million.

However, we also estimate savings totalling €509.8 million on a range of schemes funded from Vote 37, mainly due to a strong labour market and lower live register. The net amount sought therefore is, as I stated, €722 million.

Before I finish, as we approach the end of yet another extraordinary year, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the staff of the Department of Social Protection. In 2020 and in 2021, the staff went above and beyond to ensure people were supported through the worst of the pandemic. I strongly believe in the fullness of time, we will look back on the swift and effective delivery of the pandemic unemployment payment as one of the single most important actions to ensure that we had social solidarity in Ireland during those dark periods when widespread restrictions were in place across our country.

Sadly no sooner had the threat of Covid begun to recede, when we had the break out of war in Europe earlier this year. Ireland stands with Ukraine and the staff in the Department of Social Protection have acted with speed and efficiency to provide PPS numbers and payments to the tens of thousands of families, mainly women and children, arriving in Ireland from Ukraine.

The war, of course, has also precipitated a cost-of-living crisis, the likes of which we have not seen for decades. Energy prices have risen dramatically, and the cost of the weekly shop has gone up. We all know people are feeling the pinch. As members of the committee will be well aware, it has traditionally been the case that social protection measures announced in the budget would normally take effect in January at the earliest and, indeed, in some cases it could be spring. This allows time for the Department to carry out the necessary IT development work and system changes. I have learned since coming into the Department that when one is dealing with millions of people’s payments, it is not just a case of flicking a switch to make a change – there is a lot more complex work to it than that. I recognise the extraordinary efforts of the Department's IT teams to ensure that as we sit here today, six lump-sum payments have already been paid out to more than 1.5 million people and the seventh, the €500 carer's support grant, will issue to 115,000 carers this week. Sometimes we can take it for granted that all of this will happen on time and on schedule and the money will automatically be in people's bank accounts or post offices. That is not the case – it takes a huge amount of work by an awful lot of people. What the staff of the Department of Social Protection have done in the past few years in the face of the pandemic, a war and a cost-of-living crisis is the definition of what public service is all about. The fact that they have managed to do all of that and keep on top of their normal day-to-day workload of processing payments for pensioners, carers, job-seekers and everything else they do is all the more remarkable. Therefore, I take today as an opportunity to record my thanks to the staff of the Department of Social Protection in the local offices all across the country. We all deal with them through our constituency offices and while, no more than ourselves, they cannot solve every problem, they always do their best to help. I want to recognise their efforts today.

I thank the Chair for allowing me the opportunity. I am happy now to take any questions from the committee on the Supplementary Estimate.

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

I thank the Minister. At the outset, I echo the Minister's last comments in relation to the work of the Department of Social Protection. It has been a challenging two-and-half-to-three years for staff within the Department. We will all raise issues and we will all be frustrated with various elements of the operation of some of these schemes but, all-in-all, across all of the Departments that we deal with, it is the one Department where officials are always proactive, helpful and willing to provide advice and solutions. I acknowledge that.

I now invite questions from the members to the Minister and Minister of State in relation to the Supplementary Estimate. The first member who indicated is Deputy Carey.

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

I welcome the Minister. I want to record my thanks to the staff and officials in the Department of Social Protection. They have gone beyond the call of duty in trying to process claims and give payments to the most vulnerable in society, not only throughout the pandemic but now in a cost-of-living crisis. I want to recognise the staff in County Clare and, indeed, throughout the country.

On the fuel allowance, the Minister's intention is to extend the allowance for the over 70s. She might take us through what that will mean to those people over 70 who may not previously have qualified for that payment. The cost of energy is soaring and it is important that Government responds.

The carer's support grant of €500 is to be paid this week. How many carers will benefit from that payment?

In respect of the Government's cost-of-living response and the payments that have been and will be made in October, November and December, will the Minister confirm that the payments scheduled for October have been paid? Are we on track to pay all the November payments too?

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

I thank the Deputy. Budget 2023 expanded the fuel allowance to the over 70s. That was something I was keen to address because the last thing we want to see is old people who are more vulnerable to the cold afraid to turn on the heating. We wanted to increase the number of people who benefited from the fuel allowance. A single person over 70 who earns up to €500 and a couple who earns up to €1,000 are now eligible, if they qualify. That means test has been broadened considerably. People who meet that test should qualify for the fuel allowance. As it is means tested, we have to take savings into account. I am also going to increase the capital disregard on the fuel allowance for the over 70s up to €50,000 because, let us face it, €20,000 is not an awful lot these days. I wanted to do that. I increased the capital allowance to €50,000 for carers last year. It is in line with some of the other payments. We are hoping that measure will bring another 81,000 people into the net by allowing them to access the fuel allowance. I am also arranging it so that people do not have to be in receipt of a social welfare payment to qualify for the fuel allowance. That will be a welcome measure. Many retired civil servants who were not on enormous incomes were unable to apply for the fuel allowance because they were not receiving social welfare payments. They will be able to benefit now. I wanted to mirror the more relaxed criteria that apply for the medical card. A person who is older is more liable to be sick. As far as I am concerned, a person who is older is also liable to be cold. I wanted to target this measure and I was keen for us to do that. It is a part of the budget. I will be announcing the application system at the beginning of December and once application forms have been submitted, payments will come into effect from 1 January. We must give the IT people time to develop the programme to extend the fuel allowance and that is why the payment will not kick in until 1 January. People can apply early and have their applications processed. If they qualify for the payment, it will be backdated to 1 January, once their applications are received.

The carer's support grant will see 115,000 carers benefit this week. The payment will issue tomorrow, which will be welcome news for carers. The Deputy previously raised at committee the issue of support for carers. Last year, I increased the income limits. I also increased the capital disregard on savings. Carers will get the €12 increase on 1 January, like everybody else. I am also conscious that carers have increased costs associated with the wonderful work they do. They are going to get €500 this week.

We have scheduled payments totalling €1.2 billion to be allocated before Christmas. Only the Christmas bonus remains to be paid. We have paid out the fuel allowance lump sum payment of €400, the living alone allowance of €200, the disability support grant of €500 and the working family payment of €500. The double childcare payment has issued and the autumn bonus has also been paid. All of those payments have been made and only the Christmas bonus remains to issue before Christmas.

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

I welcome the change the Minister has made to the fuel allowance. It will make a real difference in many households from January onwards. That is a welcome move. The change to the means test will allow "a married couple", as it is phrased online, to receive the fuel allowance once their income is not more than €1,000 per week. Does that include situations where, for example, a mother and son are living together?

It is good that more money than was estimated to be spent has been spent on the additional needs payment. That shows the demand. It is important. Where people are getting it, that support is welcome. It is important that the support is there in emergency situations in particular. We are coming into the Christmas period and the wintertime proper and demand for that payment will only grow. That is why it is so important that the staff and resources are in place to enable that payment to be processed in a timely manner. I presume the Department is still collating the data on those applications that have been approved and refused? In respect of the exceptional and urgent needs payments, that was not happening initially. All that was being collected was the number of applications paid out and the money associated. It is important for the data in respect of the additional needs payment to be available. Can the Minister provide an update on the processing times? Approximately five weeks ago, I asked for the updated current processing times for the payment. I have followed up three times since then and received a response without an answer. I would like to know. I have been made aware by a person in my constituency office that the current waiting time, in some cases, is ten to 12 weeks. That would worry me and we need clarification in that regard.

The Minister said a couple of weeks ago that 80 additional staff were approved through the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. Will the Minister give an update on that? It is important that we get that information.

The Minister also mentioned the €500 disability payment, which is welcome, as are all the lump sum payments. I did not realise that partial capacity benefit recipients are not included in that lump sum payment. Can the Minister clarify the position? People typically avail of the partial capacity benefit for up to three years. I was surprised when a recipient contacted me to say they were not included. I want to ask the Minister about that.

One can see from the Supplementary Estimates that spending on disability allowance has increased considerably. Illness and disability payments require a high level of spending by the Department. Can the Minister give us any information on the strawman proposal around the cost of disability and as part of that review, the work that is being undertaken in relation to long-term disability and invalidity, and how all those payments may work, going forward?

The child maintenance review group report was published last week, which was welcome. It contains a couple of recommendations that can be brought forward in the Social Welfare Bill. I understand the Minister is not going to do that and will instead bring forward separate legislation next year. Can the Minister give us a timeline in that regard?

I previously raised the issue of Ms Tracy McGinnis, who lost her son, Brendan Bjorn, earlier this year. He was a young adult who was in receipt of disability allowance and on his death, that payment ceased immediately. That is not the case with the disability care allowance. It continues to be paid, I understand, for up to three months. This is something I understand officials in the Department were examining. Is there any possibility that the Minister could give an update on that issue? It is a small measure and will only be in place for a small number of people but it is important that we do it. Brendan passed away in May. It is important for a measure like that to be introduced on compassionate grounds. As I said, it would not cost a lot of money, not that money should come into it.

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

I thank the Deputy for raising those important issues. The fuel allowance for the over 70s is designed for a couple.

Issues around the community welfare service have been raised and I will update the committee in that regard.

The additional needs payment is the overarching term used to refer to exceptional and urgent needs. The purpose of these payments is to assist people with essential, once off, and exceptional expenditure, which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of their weekly income. Applications received for the additional needs payment have been in respect of food, heating, fuel, household bills, and household furniture. There is a load of different supports we can provide. In the case of an urgent or immediate need, with a request for items such as food or heating, every effort is made to ensure that assistance is provided on the same day. For the rest of the additional needs payments, applications of almost 70% are finalised within four weeks. Delays are generally due to additional information being required from the person to support their application. They might be asked to bring in that information and sometimes it just does not come in or it could take a while for them to come in with the information. My Department introduced a national community welfare service freephone line in June so that clients do not have to attend an office in person to make a claim. Where it appears that the customer's need is urgent, the query is referred to local community welfare services for immediate progression on the ground. In addition, an online claiming system is in development and should be available and in the first quarter of next year. The Deputy has raised with me whether we can put this online or on a phone app.

With regard to staffing, the are 412 people across all grades in the community welfare service. This includes staff in the community welfare service management support team, the support hub, the national rents team, the national community welfare service decisions team, as well as the 323 community welfare officers throughout the country. The Department has maintained staffing levels in the community welfare service nationwide in recent years during times when demand decreased, which is reflective of the commitment to continue to support the delivery of locally-based services to customers. The committee will be aware that we have advertised the service extensively because we want people to avail of this support service when they need it, but in light of the increased level of applications agreement has been reached with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for approximately 74 additional staff to be assigned to the community welfare service. Recruitment has commenced for these staff and it is expected that the additional staff will be in place by the first quarter of 2023. In the interim, until the staff have been recruited, 30 social welfare inspectors have been temporarily reassigned to the community welfare service from this month, November, until February 2023 to assist with the claims process. We are redeploying resources into this area. Since 24 January 2022 community welfare officers have been physically on-site in all 51 Intreo centres across business hours. In other locations, and in non-Intreo locations where a community welfare officer is not on-site, one can be available to attend within one hour of an emergency presenting. As I have said, we have redeployed resources and we have extra staff for that particular area.

On the partial capacity benefit, the reason these people do not qualify for the disability support grant we paid is that they are working, but they will get the autumn bonus and they will get the Christmas bonus. They were not included in the that particular tranche. Also, it is a PRSI-based payment, as I understand it.

I was actually in contact with Ms Tracy McGinnis. I think of her as it comes to Christmas. It is not easy for her as she has lost her son. We are looking at that. Officials are looking at the options available there. They have still not come back to me. It was a difficult situation that she found herself in and we did not resolve it at the time but it is something we are examining.

I believe I have covered all of the questions there.

Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent)
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 welcomed the increase last year in the capital disregard for carers. I also welcomed the fuel allowance this year. As the Minister is aware, the capital disregard for the allowance for carers is causing havoc in the whole system of assessing capital. I have raised a number of these issues with the Minister previously. For example, consider the situation of the disability allowance. I will grant that it is €50,000, if I am correct, but the problem is the €4 per €1,000 in all of these schemes, once the person gets €20,000 above the threshold. That is 20% interest and it penalises people who are thrifty. In the case of the disability allowance, it also penalises people who have inherited money from their parents, or where parents have very carefully put aside a small pension policy or put aside capital to give to the person. Time and again I have highlighted this issue with the Minister. A very disabled person will never ever have a chance of working as maybe he or she cannot walk or talk. When the parents die, which is in the normal course of the life cycle, they will leave their worldly goods to their three children, for example. Perhaps it will amount to a modest €600,000 if a house is taken into account and so on. The two children who are able-bodied are working and will have €200,000 apiece. They would pay no death duties because the inheritances are under the limit. However, the person who is born with a severe disability will get the €200,000 but suddenly finds that the disability allowance has disappeared and has gone. It has gone with the wind. In all justice, this issue needs to be tackled radically, and not touched at the fringes.

I have also mentioned another issue to the Minister. This is where a lack of knowledge of the system comes into play. Many such families are now coming to pension age. Consider the single income family, where one of the couple worked, which is very common, and the other spouse worked maybe even harder still to rear the family. This other spouse reared the family and made a home and was maybe involved in a lot of the committees in the community. These are all of the things that people should do. In that situation what happens? If they are knowledgeable of the social welfare system, they will do the wrong thing, in my view, which is to keep the money and any savings that thrifty people have in the primary earner's bank account, and they will not share it. However, if they are very thrifty and if they have a good job and they share it in a joint bank account, or worse still if they put it into the non-working spouse's bank account, which is totally counter-sensible and runs against everything we say about those situations and what people should do, then what happens when they come to the criteria for the increase for a qualified adult? They will find that if they have €150,000 imputed to the spouse or the partner in the one income situation, that will be imputed as an income of €470 per week.

Suddenly, that person does not get the increase for a qualified adult, whereas a person who either knew the system or was a scrounger or selfish and put it in his or her bank account would find that the increase was intact. I had hoped we would see radical reform and simple changes this year. It does not take a commission or rocket science to make some of these changes.

I suggested, as did the committee, that we should increase the threshold to €50,000. Let us change it for all schemes to €50,000, which would not cost that much, and impute no more than €2 per €1,000 on the higher end of the savings. Now, €2 per €1,000 is still an equivalent of 10% interest. I do not know of any high street bank that is paying 10% interest. I do not know anywhere that people could invest and be guaranteed 10% unless they are property moguls or something. These people are not like that.

The Minister might say that €150,000 is a lot of savings but it is worth remembering that somebody might get a lump sum on leaving employment. Supposing somebody has risen to a middle rank in the Civil Service and left with a lump sum, which he or she puts it into a joint bank account. People may have other savings through their lives if they have been working for 40 years. We would hope they would have savings and people can be very careful. However, they are being penalised for being careful and being good citizens.

I ask the Minister to at least look at giving us a costing for this. I reckon the reason I never get a costing is that it would not cost anything substantial. This is catching and tripping up people who are vulnerable, albeit not in massive numbers, in a very unfair way. Would it be possible to at least get a costing? The Minister might consider providing for this in a Social Welfare Bill, although it is too late to do it in this Bill. Would it be possible to give us a speedy costing as to what would happen if all of the basic thresholds were raised to provided for a €50,000 disregard? A rate of €1 per €1,000 would then apply to the next €10,000 and for all the remaining thousands, it would be set at €2 per €1,000. Will she give us a costing across all schemes if that minor adjustment was made? What would it be?

This is worth noting when we talk about these costings. It is something I am sure the Minister is totally mesmerised by between trying to deal with a budget of €400 million in one Department and €24 billion in another. When we talk about costings in social welfare, what looks big in one Department is not big in another. The Minister blithely told us we did really well because we are only €700 million over budget. Is that figure correct? I also had a culture shock when I was in that Department when I found that €20 million here and €10 million there was very small money. Unforeseen factors could have a much bigger effect, such as welfare going up or down. When I say "welfare", I mean the number of those out of work going up or down would have a much bigger effect. Will the Minister come back with the costing? Will she consider making that simple change in the spring?

A couple in a house may have somebody living with them who is, say, on carer's allowance. That is fair enough if that person is only on carer's allowance, but he or she might also be working up to 18.5 hours per week. Is the threshold €1,000 above the basic social welfare, including the basic carer's allowance, for the couple? The arrangement I described is a very common one nowadays and it keeps people in their own homes. If it is a single person with a carer living in the house who, again, might be working, is the threshold €500? How will this work? We could trip up people in a caring situation here. Rather than putting people into nursing homes, we should be facilitating carers in every way we can in the system because caring at home, where possible, is better, although there are many circumstances in which it is not possible. Surely we learned this from the pandemic that the first choice has to be that the person is cared for at home.

I will very briefly ask the Minister a question about the partial capacity benefit, which is for those who are self-employed and employed. A person can only get this benefit if he or she has a moderate or severe or profound disability, which is measured at 50%, 75% and 100%. Many of these people can only work intermittently because sometimes they are well and sometimes they are not. Furthermore, I know of a particular case, which is fantastic and typical of what is possible, of somebody with quite advanced multiple sclerosis who was able to do translation from home on a self-employed basis. In some weeks and months, this person made some money, which is not badly paid when it can be done properly. However, there were many weeks and months in which no money was earned.

There are not many people on the partial capacity benefit because the threshold is relatively high. How much would it cost to give people the disability benefit? By definition, their disability must be moderate, severe or profound. Not all the people on invalidity payments are eligible for the partial capacity benefit. People who have mild or very limited disabilities do not get the partial capacity benefit. Can the Minister tell us the number of people on partial capacity benefit? What would it cost to be that little bit more generous? I often find that the system can be penny-pinching. When we add up the sums, the cost would be immaterial. I bet even the cost of paying this extra disability payment would be a tiny fraction of it. This decision should be amended and the payment should be made.

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

I thank Deputy Ó Cuív for raising a number of issues. Regarding the capital disregards, as the Deputy knows, I made some changes in respect of carers and over-70s for the fuel allowance. I have made a good few changes over the last couple of budgets. I would love to do everything but I cannot do that in one budget.

I agree with the Deputy in terms of people who are profoundly disabled. Their parents are worried about what will happen to them when they pass on. They want to leave money in trust for them or leave it so they have access to that wee bit extra they deserve to have, which is part of their inheritance as well. The Deputy made the point that if people get an inheritance, their disability payment is removed if it is means-tested. I take the Deputy's point on that. It is particularly difficult for those with a profound disability. We know many elderly parents are very concerned about the future of their disabled children whenever they pass on. I have discussed this with my officials and I will commit to review all the means-tested payments we have in terms of the capital allowance. A number of members brought this up, including the Chairman, particularly in respect of carer's payments. I will do that this year.

I asked the officials to look at the cost and they told me it would cost approximately €50 million. It would, therefore, cost a considerable amount to change everything. I will give a commitment to examine this matter to see how we can improve it. I know that €20,000 is not much now.

I will not even go back over what €20,000 used to do but it does not do an awful lot now. I was going to say it would buy a good car but it would not do so now. I am very conscious of this issue and commit to looking at whether there is anything we can do in that regard this year.

We have the cost of disability report which is before a committee chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte. What I am looking at in that regard is how we can make a payment that is commensurate. Whether a disability is profound or mild, there is a difference in disabilities. One flat rate is currently paid across the board. There is no doubt that the costs for people with profound disabilities are higher. The report says that. We are looking at that and hope to move on it in the coming year.

I take the Deputy's point about a couple with a joint bank account. I have seen many cases where women, mainly, have not worked. They have been at home caring all their lives and when they look for the qualified adult payment, they discover that because there is a few bob in a bank account they cannot get anything. It is as simple as that. I will look at that as part of this review. I am also considering, in response to the Pensions Commission report, how we can provide pensions for people who have been caring for 20 years or more. This committee made a recommendation on that and I very much wish to move on it. There are people, again mainly women, who have given up a large part of their lives to look after a loved one and come to pension age to find they have nothing. We are moving on this.

With regard to the fuel allowance, the €1,000 figure for a couple includes the social welfare payment for the over-70s. The €1,000 means is for a couple and the figure for a single person is €500. The household composition still applies to the fuel allowance but under-70s are allowed, as part of the means test, €200 plus the contributory pension. Under-70s are allowed to have €200 over the contributory pension rate, which would mean they have €465. I have increased that in the budget for 2023. It means someone under 75 could earn up to €465 before it would impact on the fuel allowance. It is an improvement in that area. I included the €12 increase in the pension from January.

With regard to the fuel and carer's allowances, I also introduced a disregard for half-rate carer's allowance on the fuel allowance scheme. I listen to Deputies, as I said last night, and take on board the matters they raise. We are all in this to try to support people. That is what social protection is about and it will always be about trying to help people when they need help. However, when I am coming up with schemes, I have to look at whether they will have unintended consequences in other areas. A scheme might sound a good idea to the Deputies and me, but sometimes when we look at it in a broader context, it can have unintended consequences.

The other issue the Deputy raised concerned partial capacity benefit. I know what the Deputy is saying and we can look at it in the context of the review the Minister for Social Protection will do next year. I cannot say whether I will still be in this role next year. I would love to be. In any event, it is all part of what we are looking at.

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

Before Deputy Donnelly comes back in, I will put on record that the Minister has been prepared to listen, actively engage and respond to issues that members of this committee, in particular, have raised with her. Deputy Ó Cuív, one of the Minister's predecessors, used the same strategy when he was in her seat. That does not happen too often and it is very positive.

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

I will go back to the exceptional needs payment because I think there is a blockage somewhere, especially in communication. People who apply for the payment or any other social protection payment are in need. It is the only reason they would apply for a payment. I found one case especially disturbing. It involved a person who applied for a social protection payment in early October and has had very little, if any, information back. Nothing has come back from the Department in the past three or four weeks. I have also made contact with the Department on two occasions, as recently as yesterday, and have received nothing back. This person is in dire need. After I leave this meeting, I will make some phone calls to try to find out exactly what the reason is. It relates to an exceptional needs payment and also a disability payment, which was cut off for this person.

I believe there is a difficulty here. I heard the Minister talk about extra staff and I understand a considerable amount of pressure has been put on the system, obviously with Ukrainian refugees. However, people are in need and they need support when they ask for it or within a reasonable timeframe. Nobody is asking for a request to be dealt with the following day or even within three or four days. Five days is reasonable if the Department is under pressure and says it will deal with the case as quickly as it can. However, we are talking the guts of a month with regard to the case I raised. Contact could at least have been made. Messages are coming back to say the case is in review. The same message is coming back to the person in question. A bit more information is needed or someone needs to pick up the phone and say the Department is close to dealing with the application or even that it is being accepted but further information is needed.

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

If Deputy Donnelly provides me or my officials with the details of the case, I will be happy to follow it up. When I get hard evidence I can go back and say exactly what is happening. It is not as easy to make a case with anecdotal evidence. I ask the Deputy to give me the details of the case and we will follow it up. We will make sure to get answer. As the Deputy said, an answer is needed one way or the other. Whether the person can get the payment or not, the application should be dealt with. I am happy to follow up on the case and the same applies to any of the Deputies. If they have particular cases that are causing problems for people, we do not want that. I ask Deputies to give the details to me and we will follow up on them.

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

I thank the Minister.

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

A process such as this in interesting. As the Minister mentioned in her opening statement, we thought Covid was sorted last February and asked what else could possibly put in on us. It is a testament to the Department how ably it dealt with Covid and how it is responding to the influx of Ukrainians. I echo the Minister's comments praising the hard work of the Department.

How quickly are the Ukrainians coming here accessing their PPS numbers and payment? Does the Department have any information, facts or figures on how quickly they are entering employment? I know a large number of Ukrainians arriving here are very quickly going into employment thereafter. I am interested in finding out a little about that.

Looking through the Supplementary Estimate, a number of issues jumped out. On the very small beans end is the school meals programme. I see there is an underspend within that. I know the Minister is very fond of a meal in the middle of the day for the children involved. If there is an underspend, will the Minister explain it? I know it is a very small line in the context of this budget but I am still interested in having a look at it, if possible.

I understand the reason behind the working age employment supports is that we have had an extraordinary rebound in the economy. We were expecting considerable scarring on the economy with regard to people's entry into employment.

The opposite has happened. We are racing ahead in terms of employment. However, there is a big drop in expenditure on all those things - the community employment programme, the rural social scheme, Tús, the back-to-education allowance. My concern is twofold. Are we preserving the structures? The economy is in good times with employment. We know we will not always be in this situation. Are we doing enough to ensure we preserve the infrastructure? If we have breathing space within those systems at the moment, can we find a way to begin to deploy and refocus those resources into places we know perennially have been employment black spots? There is a number of them in Waterford, for example. As we have breathing space, is this an opportunity to redirect those resources in a very specific way to see if we can tackle some of those more difficult areas?

Subheads B7 and B8 relate to receipts from the European Social Fund and receipts from the National Training Fund. On page 28 of the briefing document, the Minister has outlined the reasons for that. However, what is the knock-on for that? If we are not seeing as much money flowing into the National Training Fund, where does that put us? Does the Minister envisage a problem in 12, 18 or 24 months from now? Should we be taking steps now to safeguard against that?

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

I thank the Deputy for his questions. I will give him the figures for the Ukrainians. As of 7 November, PPS numbers had been issued to 62,741 people from Ukraine. Income supports are being paid in respect of 45,817 people including 2,171 adult dependants and 15,194 child dependants. Child benefit is now also being paid in respect of 16,000 children and the total social protection expenditure is €182 million. As of 1 November, 10,590 people were employed. Many of the Ukrainians are mothers and children. It is difficult for them to take up employment. They certainly have the support of our job activation measures and the public employment services. We are working with them and we are doing everything to help them get into work. However, the biggest barrier for them is generally language. Many language courses are being rolled out through ETBs and other groups coming together to provide that service. I know of a social enterprise in Monaghan that is introducing language supports and training for Ukrainians.

Schools need to come forward for the school meals programme. I have put in a budget line for them. I am absolutely committed to the school meals programme. I have visited schools and I have seen how beneficial the hot meal in the middle of the day is for children. It is up to the schools to apply and schools then need to decide what they are capable of offering. The money is there and perhaps the demand was not quite as high as we expected.

Our employment services continue. There is underspend in that area this year because of the tight labour market and there are many jobs available out there. We have the public employment services in place so that we can ramp them up very quickly if we need to. The economy rebounded much quicker than had been initially expected. We had the structures and resources in place. We are investing in helping people to either reskill or upskill. We put considerable work into jobs fairs and were very successful in getting people matched with the right employer and right job. Again, because of the tight labour market we did not need as much. However, it is there and ready to ramp up if we need to do that.

The National Training Fund is in surplus at the moment. The Department of Social Protection draws money from that for the community employment scheme, the workplace employment programme and the training support grant. The numbers for these are also down. The National Training Fund, of course, is managed by the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I would be happy to check out any particular case the Deputy wants me to.

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

The feedback I have been getting on the school meals programme is that the funding available is inadequate to meet the cost of producing the food because we have seen costs increase. As a result, a number of providers have pulled out of it because it does not make financial sense for them. That could be part of the reason for the drop-off in the school meals programme, which we all agree is a vital programme. It needs to be enhanced and expanded. I ask the Minister to investigate that aspect of it. I have raised the issue through parliamentary questions to her.

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

I echo the Chair's comments on the school meals programme. We have a major problem with the small number of suppliers. I believe something between €2 and €2.50 is the amount provided for a hot dinner, which is not an awful lot of money. We are not being overcharged here in Leinster House and yet a hot plate costs more than that. This programme is for growing youngsters who should be eating you out of house and home.

I wish to return to the partial capacity benefit. I ask the Minister to provide the numbers for those in receipt of full-rate and half-rate partial capacity benefit, in other words the full-rate invalidity pension and allowed to work and the various grades down. I do not think it is a huge number. When we consider that these people have at least a moderate disability, it would be better to give it. In many cases, work is intermittent.

I am aware of a person who was refused invalidity pension. If they had been on invalidity pension, there would have been no problem and they would have got partial capacity benefit. This person has multiple sclerosis. I thought this was an extraordinary decision on the part of the Department. They were getting paid for interacting with the university by telling the university how the multiple sclerosis was progressing and the effect it was having on them. They were getting a stipend for doing this. That was liable to PAYE and they were considered to be working. I thought that was harsh. We had to advise the person to stop the work, apply for invalidity pension and then apply for partial capacity benefit. Particularly given the circumstances whereby the advanced stage of the illness was the reason they were of research interest, I thought that was very difficult. I understand that it is not possible to make rules for hard cases, but I thought it was a bit black-and-white for that person and anyone in an equivalent situation.

I would like to find out how many people are in receipt of partial capacity benefit because I believe it is very small. If that number is as small as I think it is, given that they all have moderate or profound disabilities, they should get the disability allowance of €400 and we should not be arguing about it.

I welcome the Minister's commitment on means testing which is a major breakthrough.

There are other issues with means testing on which I will get back to the Minister. She knows about those issues. We will park them for a day. When you are ahead, quit. I accept that.

The Minister said that this has been costed at €50 million. What was costed? I want the detail. In other words, which changes would cost €50 million? The detail would be very helpful because it is no good saying something will cost €50 million. A car could cost €100,000 or €30,000, depending on the car being bought, so I would appreciate it if we could hear or maybe have sent to the committee the details of what would cost €50 million.

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

When I am doing this review I will look at the detailed costings. The figure I have at the minute is €50 million, but I think when we-----

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

That is €50 million for what?

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

It is €50 million for the means assessment of capital for the first €50,000 to be exempt. Breaking it down, €20,000 should be assessed at €10 a week, €10,000 and the balance at €20 per week. The Department looked at that using that formula for calculating capital means. A disability allowance applicant with €150,000 in savings and no dependants would be assessed as having €350 in weekly means. The €50 million is a broad figure. I accept that. What I am saying to the Deputy is that when we get into the detail of looking at the different means tests, which I think we should change, by the way, and I am on the same page as him on this, we will be able to get a better and maybe a more detailed look at what exactly it will cost.

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

Normally, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform loves things that decrease over time. Is that not right? It hates things that increase exponentially over time. In this case, over the next 20 to 30 years, the number of dependent adults, for example, will decrease because more people will have pension rights in their own right, particularly taking caring years into account. More of them will have worked to get the ten years' paid contributions. The number of other applicants will also decrease over time, so I do not think anybody could make the allegation that this will be an increasing cost over time. That €50 million, even if it is costed, will probably drop over time, looking at the schemes affected.

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

I agree with the Deputy on that because more people are in the workforce now than ever before.

On the partial capacity benefit, the cost of the lump sum payment of €500 would be €1.6 million, and there are about 3,200 people on the scheme.

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

It is very hard to get one's head around these billions and billions of euro.

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

They all add up. That is my problem.

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

I know and I accept that, but I used always to reckon that €1 million out of a budget of €24 billion is the equivalent of saving €1 per annum on a yearly salary of €24,000. It is only when this is put into those contexts that you see how trivial it is. I used always to make the case, when we were trying to save money because times were hard, that saving €1 million was the equivalent of the kid during a family crisis, with the parents sitting around the table explaining that their income had gone down, they had lost their jobs, etc., saying, "I will give €1 pocket money for a year - that is my contribution." The parents would be grateful but would say that it would not really change the sums. The €1 million, even the €1.6 million to which the Minister referred, will not really cost anything. It is one of these sums that is just a little on the mean side. I am not blaming the Minister; I think this has not been thought out right.

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

I think the Minister has committed to looking at this in the context of the cost of disability, so we look forward to a report back on that.

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

May I come back in on the school lunches?

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

Yes.

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

I am very committed to that programme, as Deputy Ó Cuív will know. It has been expanded, and 270,000 or maybe more children avail of the school meals programme now. I want to ramp up the hot school meals programme. I am also conscious that the cost of food has gone up. The suppliers get €2.90 per hot meal. That is the rate at the minute. There is an evaluation, however, because I had a number of people on to me saying they could not deliver dinners at that price. I want to make sure children get decent dinners. There is no doubt about that. The children deserve it. I have commissioned an evaluation of the school meals programme whereby all elements of the programme will be considered. That will include the rates payable under the scheme and whether there is anything better we can do in respect of the future direction of the scheme. As far as I am concerned, we should be increasing it all the time. My aim has always been that every child in the country, regardless of his or her background, including socioeconomic background or anything else, should get that dinner in the middle of the day. We should do that and just get on with it. I cannot just do it all at once but I will look at the evaluation and will have that by the end of the year. I do not want people saying they want to stop providing the school meals, but I just have to finish that evaluation. We can look at the rates at that stage as part of that.

Deputy Ó Cuív mentioned the particular case of a person who has MS. If he gives us the details of that case, we will be happy to look at it.

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

It has been resolved by doing what I said.

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

If it is resolved, it is resolved, but if the Deputy still wants to give me the details-----

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

We had to go a long way around the mountain, signing off and so on.

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

Then you wonder why you should have to go around the mountain. If the Deputy wants to give me the details, I am happy to look at the case so maybe we can make some tweaks to some things. That said, if you make a tweak for one thing, you can have a whole platter of stuff on your plate you did not realise was coming.

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

I apologise - I had meant earlier to ask the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, or the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, about the rural social scheme, Tús and community employment, CE. I notice that all are down in the Supplementary Estimates, in that the amount estimated was not actually spent, particularly in respect of CE. I know that changes have been made, and I appreciate that a lot of work has been done on this. It is really welcome and will make a difference. However, now that those changes are coming in, and it will take a little time to see the outworkings of them, a really close eye needs to be kept on all three schemes. We need to see vacancies and the high level of vacancies, particularly in respect of CE, come down. I welcome the additional access that will be there now, particularly to CE with the changes made in the Social Welfare Bill. All of that is welcome.

I do not think anyone disagrees that Tús for a one-year scheme is just not enough. Maybe it would be worthwhile looking at the figures for the number of people who come off Tús and go back onto a jobseeker's payment rather than leaving them on it for an extra year. If you are looking for a job and you have six months' experience on Tús, you might not even get a job, particularly if you are on other work experience. A year is just so little time for people. Rather than seeing them go back onto jobseeker's allowance, why not allow them to do another year, build up maybe another year's experience and then try to get a job? I do not know how many people go back from Tús onto jobseeker's, but it would be worth looking at. Those three schemes are really important and we need to keep a close eye on them.

Lastly, in respect of family carers, I welcome what the Minister said about the means test. I find this to be a particular issue in rural areas, where couples own land or have farms. I had a lady in with me this week. She is just about to come off carer's benefit. She has had her two years. She had to leave her job to care for her husband. It was not the plan, but that is what she had to do. Things happened and things changed. Her carer's benefit will be up in January. She will not be able to get carer's allowance. I have filled in the form with her and she will apply anyway, but they have land, they have a farm, and it will be passed to the son eventually, probably sooner than was planned now in order to see if they can get the carer's allowance. She has a little bit of an occupational pension, as does he. They have worked from their teens, yet she will have to care for him 24-7 now. She will do it but she will not get any income support through carer's allowance because of the little pensions they have, and they have worked. That is the issue with the carer's allowance in some cases. She will provide that 24-7 care but it will not be recognised because they have worked and they have a few euro from that work. Those are the issues. We have land at home. It is not worth anything. If it is sold, it might be. A farmer may have such land but it may not be worth anything and he or she may not be getting any money from it unless it is being rented out.

All of that needs to be looked at in terms of the carers allowance, particularly when it comes to farmland. That is it.

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

I assure the Deputy I keep very close eye on the flow-in and the flow-out of CE, Tús and the rural social scheme, RSS. CE and Tús are in a bit of a different space and we are still kind of in a recovery phase from Covid as well. CE is in a better place. We got to a kind of steady-state position in the past month or two in terms of referrals and people leaving. It is important to say as well that extensions are possible on CE. If CE vacancies are being advertised and no one is taking them up, a six-month extension can still be given. We are also trying to increase referrals to our local offices. The pool shrank - I suppose because of the good context of the labour market conditions. On the other side of that, we expanded the eligibility criteria. We will have a pilot scheme for qualified adults next year, which could bring up to 9,000 people into eligibility for CE. That will help. As I said, we are trying to increase the number of referrals. A potential one on the horizon next year is that 3,000-plus Ukrainians could eligible as well. There are about 3,500 at the moment who have been on a jobseeker's payment since February or March. Come next spring, there is potentially more eligibility in that regard.

The RSS is a bit different. That scheme operates in the context of the pressure on small farms and the number of people on farm assist as well. I am eager to do sort of a root-and-branch examination of the RSS. In the past week, we wrote to Departments and other stakeholders to invite them to be part of a review group. I will be meeting the chair of that group next week. We want to look at going back to basics and the initial logic relating to the RSS, which was to keep small farmers on the land but also to keep them engaged with the community. We want to see if there are other ways we can do that. We will get that process started, hopefully, before the end of this year. However, the work on it will largely be done next year.

Tús comes up quite a bit. Tús is straight work experience - there is no educational or training element to it. Obviously, someone is getting something valuable out of it in terms of the work experience and the sponsoring organisation is getting something out of it as well. However, it is different to CE in that the person is not getting an extra bonus. What happens to a fair extent as well is that the follow on from Tús can be CE and a person can have a broader experience on CE with the educational and training element to it as well. Tús has not recovered in the same way that CE numbers have. Particularly in the situation that we are in at the moment, where we are trying to get numbers back up on both these, we are keeping all options open. When we make a change, we see what the impact is, assess and see whether we need to make other changes as well. I am very aware the community services around the country are quite dependent on Tús, RSS and CE as well. We keep a close eye on it. We will keep our options open.

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

The carer's allowance is part of the supports that provide payments on the basis of income need. The means test plays a critical role in determining whether an income need arises as a consequence of a particular contingency, be that illness, disability, employment or caring. The disregards relating to the means test for carer's allowance are among the highest in the social protection system. I will look at the means test for carers in the context of all the other reviews. If there is an income from land, the income is taken into account in the means test. If there is no income from the land and it is just sort of there - but there would have to be a rate on the land, I would say - and if it is not being put to use, then it is assessed as capital. If it is not being used and was even rented for a small amount of money, that is the income coming from it. That is the way matters stand.

I can never pay carers for the work they do; that is the truth of it. What we do in the Department of Social Protection is provide carer's allowance payments on the basis of income need. Therein lies the problem. We have tried to improve what we have done for carers over the years, and we improved it last year. We increased the income limit up to €750 for a couple and we increased the capital and savings disregard. It is probably a bigger conversation. I have said here before that we should look at how carers are playing a major in terms of taking pressure off the health service. Let us be straight about it. Perhaps that is a conversation that needs to be had down the road. Carers are providing a vital service. There is no doubt about that.

Deputy Kerrane asked about the child maintenance review that I published last week. I forgot to answer her question. There are changes to the social protection system. I am committed to doing those. A change in legislation will be required. I am committed to bringing that through as soon as I can. The officials are looking at where it is in many different places in the social welfare legislation. We have to go through it in detail to make sure that when I make the changes, I have covered off everything and do not leave any loopholes. I will be bringing that legislation through as quickly as possible. I want to make sure that this matter is dealt with quickly. The Deputy raised it with me last night. I will do that as quickly as I can.

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

On Tús, CE and the RSS, will the pension rate that is now applied to CE apply to Tús and RSS supervisors? It would be totally anomalous if not.

It was stated that there are vacancies in the context of the RSS. Is there any data as to the number of people on the RSS before and after 2014, by family formation? Before 2014, a person got the full payment, irrespective of the type of farm they owned, as long they were qualified to go on the scheme. In other words, a person would have had to be eligible for some farm assist, but once a person was on it, as long as their income did not suddenly expand, they got the full payment. After 2014, that changed. A person got the basic single-rate payment, or where there were a couple with dependent children, they then took from the amount of payment above that from the farm income. What that meant was that for single people going on the RSS, it was as attractive as ever. They got the full €230 or whatever per week. However, for a couple with children with a farm income, they potentially only got the top-up, that is, the €20-odd top-up per week. If the figures are examined, it will be found that after 2014, the people who joined were, in the main, were single. It became totally unattractive for people who had partners, dependent children or dependents to go on the scheme. If the Government wants to make the scheme attractive and return it to its original roots, the simple thing to do would be to reverse the means test meanness of 2014 that undermined the whole principle of the scheme. The principle of the scheme and the European policy at the time were to keep families on the land. This was how there could be full-time farmers who were nearly on the scheme full-time. Most farmers - either themselves or their spouses - can give 19 hours a week.

It would be interesting to go back and get the figures. If an analysis could be done of the make-up of the people who joined after 2014, would it be disproportionately single people with no dependants? Did a different mix apply pre-2014? I think 2014 was the year the rules were changed.

I welcome the idea of reviewing Tús and RSS. The Ministers said they were going to talk to stakeholders. There are two points I would like to make. First, we should have a special consultation, as a committee, before the report is written. I do not think we should have to go into the public consultation. It is a terrible thing when we get the final report and then the Department has a consultation with us but we do not really have an input at that stage. The collective wisdom of the people who are doing the clinics is often more valuable than vested interest stakeholder groups. I am not saying anything against them but they are coming from a particular objective. I often find that recommendations coming from groups like that miss what we are picking up on the ground, the day-to-day realities of how these things work out on the ground.

I also suggest flipping CE and Tús. If a long-term unemployed person were to go on a community scheme, it would first be seen as an activation scheme. They would get all these opportunities of education and whatever and in some cases they get activated and get a job. However, the practising politicians here know there is a fair number of people who will do quite good work on a CE or Tús scheme but who will never be commercially employed. There is a massive difference between the two. I had experience before politics in employing people in both schemes simultaneously in the community work I was doing. The idea of Tús was that it was for people who were not likely to jump out by activation but were still capable of making a contribution to society and keeping all these communities going. That is what these people are doing, at a very small extra expense to the State, by jumping from there into Tús. It was the Department of Finance that flipped it and put the one-year cap on it. It therefore keeps people engaged who are very unlikely to get employment. Anybody who tells me there are not people you could train and educate forever who are unlikely to ever hold a commercial job, they might as well have told me that if I got enough lessons I would be able to play music. I cannot. I wish I could. There are lots of things people cannot do and there is nothing wrong with them.

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

It might entertain us if Deputy Ó Cuív were to play music.

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

It would be very entertaining. Unfortunately, I did all the music lessons but I never learned to play music.

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

There were a few things there. On the pension issue, I assume the Deputy is referring to the gratuity for CE supervisors. To my knowledge, the WRC decision was specifically in relation to-----

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

Will they now have to take another WRC case and go through the loop or is the Government just going to cough up?

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

The legislation is in the budget-----

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

The gratuity for CE supervisors is ready to go.

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

I know that but is the Department going to follow that? Will we have to say to all the RSS and Tús people to go into the WRC and win the case on the precedent that what is good for the goose is good for the gander?

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

We are constrained by the WRC decision at the moment.

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

You are not constrained. Generosity is never constrained, it is only-----

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

That is a fair point.

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

Will the Minister of State be opposed if it is brought to him?

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

It has not been brought to us at the moment. We are discussing-----

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

I will make sure it is brought to him tomorrow. They are bringing it to us.

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

The Minister of State might come back on that issue.

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

On the RSS side of things, I would be very interested in the committee's input, and that of Deputy Ó Cuív and the other Deputies, as to how we look at it. We do not have data to hand on family formation pre-2014. My experience of meeting RSS participants is, as the Deputy described, that they tend to be single male farmers. That has been the case 80% of the time when I have met them out and about. This review is just for RSS, not Tús as well. It is worth digging into the family formation structure pre-2014. There were much higher financial incentives back then as well. I am aware of that.

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

There were not, except the means test. That was the only difference.

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

The Deputy should let the Minister of State respond.

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

I will try to touch on the other points that were made. There is a broad range of people who are on CE schemes at the moment. I take the Deputy's point on that. The broad qualifying criteria for most of them is the jobseeker's allowance. That is where the call is made as to whether someone could theoretically be eligible for employment. It is at that stage the call is made. I would be very slow to say to anyone that they will never be able to get a job in the real labour market. We have to be very careful about doing that. Notwithstanding the point the Deputy made, there are a lot of people who are very distant from it but it is when the application is made for jobseeker's allowances that that key decision is made. It is worth saying as well that there are flows in both directions between CE and Tús. It can work well for people going in both directions. Those are just some initial comments. We would be wise to take the wisdom of the broadest group of stakeholders we can when looking at RSS because I want to go back to basics and see what we can do to keep small farmers on the land.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I might address the Chairman's last question first. He made a good point and I would like to see more investment and faster movement on the warm homes scheme in particular. Training is happening on the apprenticeship side in the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science. I believe there are five ETBs specialising in retrofitting training. Some CE scheme participants have been doing courses in this area as part of their education and training. The RSS is different, in that it does not have a training element, but as committee members know, its participants are multiskilled, so it would not be a great leap for them to be involved in retrofitting. The difficulty lies in matching up contractors with participants. We will take the Chairman's idea with us. It is a sound one in principle, but I am unsure about how to do it in practice. CE participants are moving into this space and have been getting employment in it. The main constraint is not necessarily funding. As is the case with many measures at the moment, the main constraint is finding people with the skills to do the work. How we can marry the two together is worth exploring further.

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

I accept that there is a retrofitting skills deficit that has to be met, but I am referring to low-skilled work, for example, rolling out insulation in an attic and putting a lagging jacket on a copper cylinder. These are basic measures, but they could have a dramatic impact on energy consumption in homes this winter. We have the staff. Those participants are willing to do this work and the supervisors are willing to work with them. This minimal level of retrofitting will have a dramatic impact on fuel consumption. The homes in question are the low-hanging fruit in this regard and we should not wait for a gold-plated solution when we can take small steps today that make a real difference. I will leave the matter with the Minister of State.

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

Of the administration overspend, €11.5 million is going on pay, which covers the cost of increases in 2022 due under the Building Momentum public service agreement. There also has been an increase in the use of overtime to meet the additional demands on the Department's community welfare service arising from the cost-of-living crisis and the Ukraine crisis and to deal with significant volumes of other work, including PPS numbers, public service cards and SAFE registrations for same.

The primary reason for the administration overspend is an overspend of €20 million on medical certificates, which was primarily offset by the underspend of €9 million on IT external service provision under subhead A2(V) - office equipment and external IT services. We have seen a significant increase in medical certificate submissions in 2022. This can be attributed to surges in illness benefit cases due to Omicron and other variants of Covid-19. From April 2022, certificates were also required for Covid where previously HSE evidence had been accepted, which led to a further increase in submissions.

It is expected that seasonal illnesses such as flu, in addition to Covid-19, will lead to further increases for the remainder of the year.

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

Just to clarify, the bulk of the €16.8 million additional cost on the social insurance fund is made up by medical certificates for Covid-19.

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

Yes. There is a lot of it made up of that.

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

It is a lot of money.

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

Yes. I might come back to the Chair. The administration expenses on the SIF are apportioned between the Vote and the SIF schemes. PUP is a SIF scheme but the numbers on the scheme were much higher than envisaged in the original Estimate. There are also much higher numbers of the Covid illness benefit. That is part of the reason for the overspend on the administration side. Am I making sense?

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

No, it is not.

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

I am not making sense. To which subhead is the Chair referring?

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

Under the SIF, there is a €16 million increase on administration under the SIF. It is on page 5 of the supplementary documentation the Minister provided. It is the first subhead under "Social Insurance Fund" and refers to a 7% increase. While I accept the 4% increase in administration costs across the Department and the additional demands, I cannot understand the 7% increase in the SIF. I think the Minister is saying in evidence here that it is because of the additional medical certificates associated with Covid-19.

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

Yes, and the PUP. Some of the PUP payments were out of the SIF so there was increased administration there. They were much higher than the original Estimate. The PUP was paid for much longer because of the new variant at the time. Those are the reasons. Is that okay?

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

Yes.

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

The Chair mentioned my earlier statement on the PUP. It is not just the PUP, but also the employment wage subsidy scheme, EWSS, and the other supports. The Chair is right there. I came under pressure at the time and it was said that people were not going to work because they were getting the PUP. The truth is that when jobs were available and the economy opened up again, people went straight back and we are at the lowest unemployment figures for a long time. There are more people working than ever before. I know there were concerns out there. I spoke to people who said they could not get staff because they were on the PUP but when the jobs came and the economy opened up, they went off it quickly. Most people want to work.

On the additional needs payment, the Chair mentioned getting one form and then having to fill in another form. I do not want to hear that and that should not be happening. It is disappointing. There is no deliberate attempt, I believe, to not give people their payments. We did an extensive campaign on the radio telling people what they were entitled to. This is the State's safety net to support people who find themselves in difficult circumstances. To get two sets of forms out for a blind person, it is hard to understand that. If the Chair wants to give me the details, I am happy to follow up that because that should not be happening. I will get the details from the Chair.

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

I accept that at Oireachtas level across the board we all know what we want to do but it is important that delivery is reflected on the ground.

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

It should be.

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

The feedback we are getting is mixed in relation to it and this is something the committee is monitoring quite closely.

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

I am aware of it too and we want to iron out any difficulties in the system. There is no doubt about that.

We will get the long Covid statistics for the Chair.

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

Thank you.

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

I think that is it. I think I have answered the questions.

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

That is it. Thank you, Minister.