Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will use the short time available to have a quick back-and-forth exchange with the Minister. In respect of the taxation of the PUP, the paper on this issue by the Free Legal Advice Centres and the arguments made in it are very compelling. It is important for us to pursue the point in regard to taxation that is applied retrospectively. Prior to the enactment of the Social Welfare (Covid-19) (Amendment) Act 2020 last August, claimants could only be expected to have relied on the official information published by the Department of Social Protection in order to ascertain whether the PUP would be subject to tax. However, neither the application form for the PUP nor the relevant web page on gov.ieoffered any guidance in this regard.

There appear to be inconsistencies between the official statements released by the Department and the political statements released by the Minister for Finance regarding the original legal basis of the PUP and the implications it had for the potential taxation of the payment. In May 2020, the PUP was described as a social welfare payment that is taxable as income. That was in response to a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance. In August 2020, however, the PUP was categorised as a social assistance payment. Such payments are not normally subject to tax. The original Covid PUP scheme was described as having been paid pursuant to section 202 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act. I foresee that this will, potentially and ultimately, become a matter for the courts. The Minister states that the taxation of the payment is constitutional but the issue of fairness applies in the question of whether anybody who made the application for PUP could reasonably have expected, when he or she applied for it, that it would be taxed. I know the Minister will come back to me on that.

The second point I would like to make relates to persons who have contacted our offices in respect of loved ones who have passed away. There are, within the system, many sections of the Department and the Department of Heath that people have to go through to put in order the affairs of persons who have received payments, in terms of notifications and whatnot. I ask that the Minister sit down with her officials with a view to creating a one-stop shop for bereaved persons in order that when their loved ones pass away, there is as seamless a process as possible. If there is a one-stop shop, it would help a lot of grieving families, particularly at this point in time when many people are losing loved ones. I acknowledge the sympathetic and empathetic manner in which social welfare officials deal with people in that situation. In my experience, the engagement has been extremely positive and I want to acknowledge the officials' role.

My third point is in regard to community employment, CE, schemes. I welcome the statement by the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, in respect of the extension of the timeframe. What consideration is being give to CE supervisors' pension request? Where stands that process at the moment? I understood from the Minister's predecessor that there was a legitimate expectation on the part of CE supervisors that there would be a protocol or something put in place that would acknowledge their roles and provide for pension entitlements or some sort of acknowledgment of the work they have done, many of them over decades. I ask the Minister or Minister of State to indicate whether or not there is a realistic expectation on the part of CE supervisors that they will receive a pension or some sort of payment for the exceptional work they have done in our communities. We would all support such a proposal if it were to bear fruit as soon as possible.

See this speech in context