Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, after line 29, to insert the following: “Report on provision and cost of community welfare officers

4.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the currently prevailing levels of provision of, and accessibility to, community welfare officers and on the additional recruitment and other costs that would be entailed in ensuring that a community welfare officer was available for consultation by members of the public in all social welfare offices during ordinary hours of business.”.

I tabled this amendment because I wish to raise again the issue of community welfare officer service in the context of ensuring that people who need face-to-face meetings with community welfare officers will have that option available to them. I appreciate that last night the Minister categorically stated that such a service exists whereby if somebody wants to make an appointment, he or she can do so. We all recognise the vital service that community welfare officers provide. There is a sense, however, from my perspective as a typical constituency Deputy, that there are places throughout this State where this service existed once upon a time but where it no longer exists. In those areas, the service is moving away from the customer.

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme is extremely important. The figures up to the end of September 2022 show that there is a range of services provided, including: support with bills; child-related payments; support with clothing; support with funerals; support with general housing needs; illness expenses; and urgent needs payments. Up to the end of September 2022, nearly €40 million was paid out.

It is a vital service of which we are all very protective, including the Minister, because it gets money to people who need it the most: those who are at a risk of poverty. It is such a flexible way in which to resource people who so badly need resources across a plethora of payments. The discretionary element of it is so vital that it must be protected.

The basis of the amendment is to ask that the Minister would lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the current prevailing levels of provision of and accessibility to community welfare officers, CWOs, and on the additional recruitment and other costs that would be entailed in ensuring a community welfare officer is available for consultation by members of the public in all social welfare offices during ordinary hours of business.

The Minister may tell us that people have access to Intreo offices. We can take as a given the fact that most people have transport now, but not everybody does. I have witnessed scenarios where people do not have access to either public or private transport, who rely on taxis. For them to move away from the clinic type arrangement that once existed to now having to go to their nearest town, which could be 20 km or 30 km away, to avail of an Intreo service puts the service that bit farther away from them. All I am calling for in this amendment is that we would at least have some degree of an assessment of how the service is working and recognise the importance of it.

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

I thank Deputy Sherlock for raising this matter again. I would prefer not to put amendments on reports into legislation. That is my first point. When I say I will do a report, I will do it. Deputy Kerrane will agree with that. If I say I will do a report, I will do it, and I did do it last year.

Like many Deputy across the House, I realise the important service provided by community welfare officers. Members will be aware from last night that a full-time community welfare office is located in all Intreo offices nationwide from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday to Friday, and in addition, community welfare officers remain available to attend clinics. They can talk to people over the phone and, where needed, they can also arrange to visit a person's house by appointment. We are genuinely doing everything we can to facilitate and help people. A client does not have to attend the office in person to make a claim or to make an inquiry about a claim. If it is more convenient for them, a client can call the community welfare service freefone line. A case can also be escalated if urgent local action is required, such as an immediate cheque payment. Where it is clear that a person has an immediate need, every effort is made to ensure he or she receives the payment on the same day. The delivery of a locally based community welfare service will continue to remain a key aspect of the service. That will not change. I am happy to do the report.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious of timings.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure if there is a time limit on this Stage. There is an overall limit of 90 minutes, so perhaps Deputy Sherlock would not take the full 90 minutes.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be guided by your good self, Acting Chair. I welcome the Minister's response. I know her to be a fair-minded person. If she says she will do this report, I know she will do it.

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

I will.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to labour the point too much, except to say that I and the Labour Party would be quite protective of the scheme. When we hear of unconfirmed reports about the creation of hubs within the Department itself on decision-making procedures, dare I say that we naturally become paranoid and suspicious. Paranoia in politics is no bad thing, as long as it is in small micro doses. We all have very good relationships with individual officers right across the system. It is an excellent Department that delivers so much for citizens. The supplementary welfare allowance legislation goes back to Frank Cluskey. The Minister will appreciate where the Labour Party stands in terms of protecting the supplementary allowance scheme and the role of the community welfare officer. I welcome the Minister's response and on that basis I shall not press the amendment. I am quite happy to withdraw it on the basis of the commitment I have been given.

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

I welcome that the Minister has agreed to look at this. It is very important. A number of Members in the Opposition have raised concerns, as have Government backbenchers, about community welfare officers and accessing them. As well as those of us in the Opposition, organisations like the Society of St. Vincent de Paul have raised concerns about accessing community welfare officers. We have been raising the issue for some time, so this really needs to be done. CWOs are going to be under huge pressure, as are people seeking their support in the days and weeks ahead. It is a pity this work has not been done by now.

I am aware of two cases. They are not from my constituency but they were brought to my attention by colleagues. In one case a lady's fridge was broken and in another the cooker was broken. They relate to two separate areas of the State. They were both told they needed to get an engineer into the house to do a report to say the cooker and fridge were broken. In one case it was a very elderly lady. If she did not contact the local Deputy, she would probably have just done without. I do not know how many community welfare officers are raising this with people but I have heard of two cases. That is alarming. The committee suggested to the Minister she would have a ten-minute online meeting with all CWOs. That is very much needed if some CWOs are suggesting to people they must get an engineer to come in, look at the fridge and say it is broken. That is frightening.

In terms of access to CWOs, in County Roscommon, for example, the Intreo office is in Roscommon town. One cannot get there from the likes of Ballaghadereen, where we have Ukrainians, Syrians and Afghanis, who all need support at different stages. The family resource centre is crying out for supports on their behalf. There is no CWO in the public health centre, which there had been previously.

Does the Minister know how many people are available to take calls on the freefone line? I know she will not be happy to hear about requests for engineer's reports. Neither am I, but I am just making the point that it is important this is looked at. I would be very worried if elderly and vulnerable people were to be given messages like that by CWOs, especially at this time of year.

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

I am familiar with the case Deputy Kerrane raises. I have asked my officials to look into it. I was surprised when I saw it. Having said that, community welfare officers are compassionate people who do their best. We do not know all the details in the particular case, but I am having it checked as we speak. We will get to the bottom of it.

I thank Deputy Sherlock for not pressing his amendment. I am happy to do the report, which will be done very promptly. The fund for community welfare officers is an open-ended one. There is no limit or cap on the money that is available. It is demand-led. That is the State's safety net. We all appreciate there must be some checks and balances in terms of how the money is paid out, but there is a safety net to help people who find themselves in difficult and emergency situations. We are here to help people at the end of the day.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I compliment the Minister and her colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy McGrath, on a very comprehensive social welfare budget to tackle the high cost of living. I know from dealing with constituents that they very much welcome the increases that have been announced, which have already been paid out. It was right and proper the Government was in a position to do that.

I share the concerns of other speakers about CWOs, not that they are insufficiently flexible or compassionate but that they are simply snowed under with the volume of work they must do with the new people who have moved to Ireland and the increased pressures on residents locally.

They are not even able to process some of the applications in a timely fashion, but the purpose of being able to present to the CWO relates to being able to get access to those funds in a timely fashion.

The Minister will be aware I raised a specific case with her office regarding a family who require an exceptional needs payment. They work part time and are subsidised by the working family payment. Their eldest son is 22 years of age, and because of the cut-off, they cannot get an adult dependant on the payment any longer despite the son going into his fifth year of studying medicine. He is still in full-time education and the family still have the same costs associated with that, but they are down €2,500 per annum. They have been unable to get a social welfare payment or an exceptional needs payment.

I might share with the Minister an extract from a text message I received from the son's mother the other evening. It states:

I don’t feel the social welfare will grant me exceptional needs payment and at this stage I need to know as the stress over the last number of weeks has been awful on us as a family wondering from day to day is my son staying or leaving college. I had a chat last nite where I just broke down and cried uncontrollably for what seemed a long time. My 22 year old son held me and told me it was ok [because] he knows I do everything in my power to keep him in college but the system is flawed - at aged 22 no longer considered a dependant. That needs to change for others in the future. I am a broken woman but my son is my best reward and we have both now accepted he won’t become the doctor he dreamed of being. I can’t go through this for another 2 years; I just can’t. What a waste of almost 4 years of college, and a waste of the government money too.

She went on to thank me for my intervention.

We need people to deal compassionately and flexibly with these kinds of issues. I understand the cut-off of 22 years because most college places last for four years rather than five or six years, but someone studying, say, medicine, dentistry or veterinary medicine will have to attend college beyond the age of 22 years. We need to respond to a case such as this when it is raised with us. We need to consider extending the age bracket beyond 22 years if the applicant is in full-time education and is not repeating a year. If that is not permissible, we need to intervene and give some financial support for the likes of this young man, who has, against the odds, come from a lower socioeconomic background, studied exceptionally hard, achieved an exceptional leaving certificate, was admitted to study to medicine, has passed the first four years of his course and is now potentially going to drop out because we cannot make the necessary intervention. If we cannot do that, we are failing this family and I do not want to see that happen. I do not want to undo all the exceptional good work the Minister did in the lead-up to this budget and in previous years, and I ask her to take a personal interest in this file and to ensure this young man will get to realise his ambition and become a doctor.

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

The Deputy has raised this matter with me previously. The text message he received is very emotive, and we all deal with cases of people in difficult positions. There is a cut-off age here. I acknowledge the Deputy tabled an amendment but it was ruled out of order because, if I am to change the rules in the way it sought to do, that would have considerable budgetary consequences. Twenty-two is the cut-off age, and if I changed it to 23 or 24, that would involve a massive call on resources. I would say to that family that there a number of supports, through the Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, such as the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, grant. Additional resources and money have been provided for that and there has been a reduction in the fees.

I do not know what else I can say. There are supports and that is what we are doing. We are trying to help people but I cannot change the rules for one specific person, as I hope the Deputy will appreciate. The cut-off age for the qualified child allowance is 22 years of age. I have a copy of the request he sent to me. To be fair, it relates to an ongoing cost as opposed to an exceptional needs cost, so I think the family probably need to examine whether there are any other routes they can explore. I know the Deputy will be more than willing to help them do that to see whether any other options might be available to them.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 has been ruled out of order.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following: “Report on impact of employee PRSI contributions on minimum wage employees

5.The Minister shall, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the impact of employee PRSI contribution rates on workers earning the national minimum wage, having regard both to the pending increase in the national minimum hourly rate of pay and to the proposed transition to a Living Wage.”.

We are back to the issue of reports but, unfortunately, we are now restricted to that in legislation of this nature. They are the only way we can have scope to push back at the Government. On Second Stage, the Minister stated:

Weekly earnings in excess of €410 attract employer PRSI at a higher rate of 11.05%. The earnings threshold increase from €410 to €441 in section 4 is designed to take account of the forthcoming increase in the minimum wage from €10.50 to €11.30 per hour.

Employers with employees benefiting from the increase in the national minimum wage will continue to attract the lower rate of employer PRSI.

The amendment seeks to provide for some sort of an assessment of how that increase is impacting on both the employer and the employee in terms of the potential perceived loss of real income as a result of the increase in PRSI contributions. I seek some clarity from the Minister on where she and the Department are in respect of how, in real terms, the increase in the minimum wage will work. We do not want to have a negative impact, in real terms, on real income whereby increasing wages will be offset by increases in PRSI. I anticipate the Minister will tell me that, in real terms, that will not be the case and there is a provision for that, but in putting forward the amendment I am seeking further clarity on whether, if there is to be an increase in the national minimum wage, it will be worthwhile for an employee to receive that increase whereby it will not be taken away in taxation.

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

I do not propose to accept the amendment on the basis I do not think legislation is the appropriate vehicle for reports, although I understand why it was tabled. The recent Government decision regarding the introduction of a national living wage stated the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, in conjunction with the Low Pay Commission, which is under its aegis, will pursue options to improve median wage estimates with the Central Statistics Office and the Revenue Commissioners. Officials in my Department have produced analyses of proposals to address the employee and employer PRSI step effect that arises when the national minimum wage is increased, and this is being shared with officials in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. My officials and I will continue to work with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and officials at that Department on this issue, but given that work has begun and is ongoing, I do not propose to produce another report on the issue. Nevertheless, I will keep the Deputy informed.

In fact, was the Deputy not a former Minister in that Department? I think he was. Maybe he was not; I am sorry. He is very familiar with the system anyway. I will share that report and whatever we have with the Deputy. I get his point, however. We do not want to increase the minimum wage and then maybe make somebody worse off. That is not what we want. It is not what we are about. I understand that at the minute, a person must pay PRSI on anything over €350 per week, but it is then tapered and gradually increased up to €424 per week.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a former Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation if that is what the Minister meant. It was not the Department of Social Protection.

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

Yes, that is what I meant.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The tapering tax relief is the nub of it. I do not propose to withdraw the amendment. I propose to press it because I think it is vital. I note the Minister's response with regard to the work that is ongoing with the CSO, Revenue and various line Departments. I want to ensure that tapering tax relief issue is essentially nailed down, however. Obviously, there is an impact for the employer as well that cannot be underestimated, particularly for small employers and small companies, entities and holdings. It is, therefore, my intention to press the amendment.

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

I am happy to give the Deputy this report, which is with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We have done the work on it and we are discussing how we can go forward. The Deputy can press the amendment if he wants. I will give him the report and all I have, however.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that. With all due respect to the Minister and the generosity of her offer, I think I would have access to the report anyway. It will presumably be in the public domain. However-----

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

No, it is not in the public domain because the officials are working on it at the minute. We are trying to come up with solutions.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

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

The solution includes what the Deputy was talking about, which is the tapering tax relief.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Indeed. As a matter of record, given that we put forward the amendment on behalf of the Labour Party, we would still like to ensure the amendment is promulgated. Therefore, respectfully, that is what I intend to do. I am delighted with the Minister's offer to take receipt of the report, nonetheless. I thank her for that.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do any other Deputies wish to come in before I conclude? Does the Minister wish to say anything else on this amendment?

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

No, I do not.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “Report on extending availability of full Parent’s Benefit to Lone Parents

9. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on extending the availability of the full duration of Parent’s Benefit to lone parents to examine the effect that enabling all children to equally avail of the full duration of this Benefit would have and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 9 months of the enactment of this Bill.”.

This is an issue I raised with the Minister previously, which relates to parent's leave and benefit. At the moment, there is a leave period of seven weeks which, of course, is welcome. In the case of a lone-parent family, the newborn will have seven weeks with the parent whereas a two-parent family will have 14 weeks. I do not believe that is fair.

It would be positive and welcome if the Minister would agree to look at this. This would affect a very small number of people and, therefore, would not cost a lot. It is not fair that a child in a lone-parent family should be disadvantaged versus a child in a two-parent household. Those parents only get half of the same leave entitlement and time spent with their child at such a young age. In fairness, it should be looked at.

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

As it happens, my officials are preparing a report on this matter, which I would be happy to share with the Deputy as soon as possible. I will point out that in line with the provisions of the EU work-life balance directive, parent's leave is not transferable between parents. That comes under the EU directive, which recognises the importance of equality between men and women with regard to labour market opportunities and the equal importance of men and fathers in bringing up their children. It should encourage an increase in men taking leave and equal participation in care work, thus achieving gender equality and investing in the development of children.

A provision to allow one parent to take the dual entitlement to leave would place an increased burden on that individual's employer. As the Deputy is aware, an employee's eligibility for parent's benefit follows his or her eligibility for the associated leave. Assuming the contribution and other qualifying conditions are met, the arrangements regarding parent's leave are a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. Of course, this leave must be taken in the child's first two years. As I said, there is a report on the matter, which I will be very happy to share with the Deputy as soon as I get it.

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

I will withdraw the amendment on the basis that the report is being done. I understand the issues around having both parents and equality and all of that. It is not fair on children who have just one parent, however. A child with two parents will have 14 weeks whereas a child with one parent will have only seven weeks. It is not fair on a child who for whatever reason has one parent, even if, God forbid, the other parent is deceased. That is not fair on the child. Given that the report is being done, however, I will accept that and withdraw the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 5, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “10.Section 69(1) of the Principal Act is amended, in the definition of “medical examination” by the insertion of the word “virological” after “bacteriological,”.”.

I will speak to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 because they are the same. I do not wish to tick tack back and forth on the same set of amendments.

I tabled amendments Nos. 5 and 6 on the issue of long Covid, about which I spoke at length during Second Stage of the Bill. I want to see long Covid designated as an occupational illness for all front-line workers who contracted the virus due to their employment. We need to see long Covid listed as an occupational illness, allowing front-line workers to avail of long-term income assistance until they are actually fit to return to work.

At present, only healthcare workers who were out sick prior to 15 November 2021, which was prior to the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 being detected, are able to avail of paid leave. This will cease in June of next year if they have not made a recovery that allows them to return to work within that period. This applies only to public sector workers who contracted the virus prior to 15 November of last year.

All other front-line workers, including healthcare workers who are out sick due to having contracted long Covid as a result of picking up the virus in work, are now excluded from any support through their employer. This applies to any front-line workers outside of the public service who contracted long Covid as a result of their employment, as they are also excluded from the occupational illness schemes.

I understand from a EUROSTAT survey carried out last year that the only two member states of the European Union that have categorically ruled out making provision for long Covid as an occupational illness are ourselves and Greece.Denmark, Italy, Latvia and Slovenia have put in place specific provisions. Other countries such as Norway and Israel have also done that. It acknowledges the fact that people who were in front-line, people-facing jobs during the pandemic and subsequently contracted the virus and ended up with long Covid are getting support.

We asked them to run our hospitals and supermarkets and support people with disabilities. We are talking about a very small cohort of people as a proportion of all those who contracted the virus, but we are now turning our backs on those individuals. That is not fair or right.

I know healthcare workers have taken this up with the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, and that he has come back to the workers in correspondence advising that officials in the Department of Social Protection, who operate the national occupational injuries benefit scheme, said Covid-19 does not constitute a prescribed disease or illness as set out in the Social Welfare Consolidation Act, of which we are aware, and that these officials have no intention of revising this position. That is not good enough.

For healthcare workers, an arbitrary date of 7 February 2022 has been chosen, prior to which they had to be out of work for 84 days. I have asked for the basis for choosing the 7 February date and for the 84 days prior to that, which brings us back to 11 November 2021. There is no basis for it. These dates have literally been plucked out of the sky and we are completely excluding from any support anyone who contracted the Omicron strain of the virus, which was the most contagious strain of the virus, even if that person was a healthcare worker. Other front-line workers are also being excluded.

Long Covid is costing at least half a billion euro in lost work and welfare costs alone. The data provided by the Minister to me have shown that 0.81% of all those who contracted Covid-19 and who claimed enhanced benefit were still out of work 12 weeks later. If that were to be extrapolated to the population, it would equate to €586 million in lost welfare payments and wages. Some of these healthcare workers - I gave an example in the House on an earlier occasion - have gone to very significant financial cost themselves in trying to manage this illness.

I gave the example of one young fit woman, a specialist clinical physiotherapist, who has gone to a plethora of private clinics, which she has paid for, and now has a monthly bill for medication of €270, which is not covered under the General Medical Services, GMS, or the drug refund scheme. She is receiving zilch from the State, even though she worked right the way through the pandemic. Because she ended up with the Omicron strain and subsequently ended up with long Covid, she is being ignored. There are hundreds more people in a similar situation. Will the Minister seriously consider acknowledging that long Covid is debilitating and that, in a certain number of employments, the infection has in all probability been developed and picked up through those employments? Those people need to be acknowledged by the welfare system and I very much ask the Minister to consider these amendments.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wholeheartedly support Deputy Naughten’s proposed amendment because more of us are interacting with people who are definitively feeling the effects of long Covid. The amendment is a reasonable one in that it seeks to have a report laid before the House on particular measures, especially, as stated in the amendment, in designating long Covid as an occupational illness. We all have first-hand experience, based on our interactions with our constituents, particularly front-line workers. If something can be devised or constructed to recognise that formally within the Department of Social Protection to ensure there is a payment process in recognition of it, that would be wholeheartedly welcomed.

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

I fully support this amendment. We have a duty of care to health workers, cleaners etc., in particular, to those workers we asked to work in retail shops, and to all those working in areas on the front line. If we received a report on this, we might then seriously consider there should be an occupational illness for people with Covid-19. I have met so many people in my constituency who have contacted me about being ill with neurological symptoms, and not so much issues with the lungs. This has been consistent and one particular woman, Miriam Cullen, who was in the Dáil when Deputy Naughten’s Bill was going through in Private Members’ time, has been out of work since the very start, practically, in March 2020. All of her family got it because her mother was ill at the time and was in a nursing home. She cannot and has not been able to work since then. This is something we should look at seriously. This is a new illness and we should be recognising it.

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

I thank Deputy Naughten for raising this issue. I will speak, as the Deputy himself has, on the next two amendments together.

I am not prepared to accept the first amendment, and I will explain that shortly, but I am prepared and happy to do a report. My Department is monitoring the work and the recommendations of the European Commission in this regard, and I understand the Commission has published its recommendations on occupational diseases this very week. I can assure the Deputies that my Department and the other Government bodies concerned will give very careful consideration to the Commission recommendation, which I have not seen myself.

The Deputy’s proposed amendment provides for the inclusion in the definition of the medical examination the terms “virological” and “bacteriological”, and I am happy to consider that in the context of the report. The report will require consultation with the stakeholders, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Authority, following consideration of the EU Commission’s recommendations. I am not averse to arranging for such a report to be conducted and I assure the Deputy I will do that. The Chief Medical Officer of my Department, however, has warned that because Covid-19 was so widespread, adding long Covid as an occupational illness in the Statute Book could be difficult. We are happy to look at it. Conducting a report on this important issue is timely and I will be happy to do that. As part of that report, I will look specifically at the Deputy’s proposal and I am happy to see what we can do at that stage. If we change this legislation now before we do the report, that would, in a manner of speaking, be putting the cart before the horse. As I have said, I am happy to do the report and to take into consideration the Deputy's proposed amendment. I will talk to the Minister for Health and to the Chief Medical Officer.

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

I thank the Minister for her response. I would love if we had a situation where we could amend the legislation. We cannot propose that, as the Minister knows. She is meeting me halfway and I acknowledge that. I accept this is not a black and white situation. Covid-19 was widespread. My point, however, is that, in all probability, the vast majority of those front-line workers contracted that virus through their employment. We have the position where, on the basis of probability, the State has paid in respect of medical conditions. A precedent is there for that.

I will make one final point.

This was adapted unanimously by the House at the start of this month when we brought forward our proposals. One was that healthcare workers would get proper provision now and beyond June 2023 and the second was that provision would be made in the occupational illness scheme.

On the basis of the response the Minister has given, I am prepared to withdraw both amendments and we will see what the Minister comes back with.

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

I thank the Deputy for that.

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

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, after line 33, to insert the following:

“Report

13. The Minister shall, within 6 months, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the application of the provisions contained in this section to TÚS and Rural Social Scheme Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors.”.

The amendment seeks equality of treatment for community employment supervisors. There is provision in the legislation under sections 12 and 17 for the ex gratia scheme for community employment scheme supervisors and assistant supervisors. The same provisions should be made for Tús supervisors, rural social scheme supervisors and assistant supervisors.

We should not force those cohorts of supervisors to go through the same long and protracted Labour Court negotiations to end up with the same result at some stage down the road. More and more of those staff are coming close to retirement and the same principles reply for Tús and rural social scheme supervisors as for community employment scheme supervisors. I ask the Minister to take this amendment on board and make provision for an ex gratiapayment for all the supervisors across these schemes.

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

I thank the Deputy. As I do not like putting these reports into legislation, I was not-----

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

Neither do I, but it is the only way I can table these amendments.

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

I can agree to report to the Oireachtas on the matter. However, I have to set out some facts relating to the ex gratiapayment. It is a complex issue as community employment, CE, workers are not State employees. This agreement was reached with both unions representing supervisors, SIPTU and Fórsa, arising from a 2008 Labour Court recommendation on pensions for CE supervisors and assistant supervisors. The agreed ex gratia payment is in respect of workers covered by that recommendation and not any other group. It does not apply to rural social scheme or Tús workers.

The agreement I reached with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, to enter discussions with unions to resolve this long-standing and complex issue was strictly on the basis that any agreement reached with unions was ring-fenced for this group of CE workers. At all stages, both unions agreed that the discussions and any agreement only applied to the group of workers covered by the 2008 Labour Court recommendation. Following a ballot of members, both unions confirmed agreement to the settlement reached by my Department in consultation with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and that settlement resolves any issues relating to the 2008 recommendation.

I am pleased to say the processing of claims received to date is well under way. We have received around 624 claims for the payment and 480 are processed and ready for payment. It is my intention that these payments will issue following the enactment of the Bill. Hopefully, we will have them through to them before Christmas. I will report to the Oireachtas on the matter.

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

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following: “(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall prepare and lay before the Oireachtas a report on the benefits, or not, to benchmark and index welfare rates against inflation.”.

The Minister knows I raised this last week and before that. Age Action Ireland has performed a strong analysis and found that the increases in the pension and working-age welfare payments have lost their spending power. Based on inflation to date and the Government's projected rate of inflation for 2022 and 2023, working-age payments will have lost €32.27 per week in spending power by the end of 2023 and the State pension will have lost €42.54 per week, despite the additional €12 from January. This loss of spending power is so extreme because of the cumulative effect of inflation. A nominal €10 in December 2023 will only afford a person what €7.76 would have bought in December 2020. By the end of 2023, a working-age welfare payment of €220 will buy 15.9% less than €203 would buy in December 2020. The €265.30 State pension income will buy 17.1% less than the €248.30 payment bought in December 2020.

Raising welfare by €20 in 2023 would not erase most of this lost spending power but is the least that must be done to limit the inevitable increase in poverty and deprivation next year. I am not arguing that the one-off payments are not helping people. They are, but we are talking about a baseline. There have been calls before to keep pension and working-age payments in line with inflation. We have not seen the type of inflation we have seen in the past year or year and a half, so it is more important that we look at it and bring forward a report on it.

I will give the Minister some figures for the working-age payment by year. In December 2020 it was €203. There was no annual loss of spending power. In December 2021, it was €203, that is, for two years there was no increase. The loss of spending power was €10.62 per week or €554 per year. In December 2022, it was €208. The loss of spending power per week was €20.71, which was €1,080 for the year. In December 2023, it will be €220 and the loss of spending power will be €32.37 per week or €1,688 per year. The figures are strong and warrant a serious look. There should be a report on indexing of social welfare payments with inflation.

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

I thank Deputy Joan Collins. As part of the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025, the Government committed to finalising an approach for the benchmarking and indexation of pension payments and to consider and prepare a report for Government on the potential application of the benchmarking approach on a wider basis to other welfare payments. I am happy to share that report with the Deputy when it is complete. Work is ongoing on it.

In September, I announced a series of landmark reforms to the State pension system. The measures provided by the Government are in response to the recommendations from the Commission on Pensions and represent the biggest ever structural reform of the Irish pension system. As part of this, a smoothed-earnings method to calculate a benchmarked, indexed rate of State pension payment will be introduced as an input to the annual budget process and will be submitted to the Government by the Minister for Social Protection in September each year, starting in 2023. As the Government has approved this approach to pension payments, potential benchmarking approaches to other social welfare payments will also be examined.

We are doing this as part of the roadmap for social inclusion and I hope to publish it early in quarter 2 of next year. While I am not accepting the amendment, I have already committed to prepare a report on the benchmarking and indexation of social welfare rates. I give the Deputy my word that it will be done.

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

I welcome that. The Minister has said it will be completed by quarter 2 and in September 2023, social welfare will be linked into the budget for 2024. I welcome that and, on that basis, I will withdraw my amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Report on rates based on Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL)

16.The Minister shall carry out a review on introducing social welfare rates which are benchmarked to the Minimum Essential Standard of Living (MESL) to study the effect that adequacy of social welfare rates could have on addressing poverty levels and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection ahead of Budget 2024.”.

In light of what the Minister has just said about a report in quarter 2 of next year and the potential benchmarking and indexation of social welfare rates beyond the State pension, as already planned, will the minimum essential standard of living, MESL, be looked at in that regard? I have raised this issue many times. It is important to have our social welfare rates at a level where they protect people from poverty. That should be the basis of any social protection system. I ask the Minister to clarify that.

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

As I just said, given that the Government has approved an approach on pension payments, potential benchmarking approach to other social welfare payments will, of course, be examined.

Regarding the MESL, my Department has used this research as a key input into consideration of budget options in recent years. I value the insight this research provides and it will form part of the consideration of next year's benchmarking review. Improved access to services such as the extension of the GP-visit cards for children and the affordable childcare scheme can result in significant reductions in the minimum income standards needed by households. In this respect, the MESL relates to issues wider than just social welfare rates and it would not be appropriate to carry out a review in isolation. However, consideration of MESL will be included in the review that I mentioned earlier. On this basis, I have already committed to preparing a report on benchmarking and indexation of social welfare rates and that will be done. I am happy to do that report.

Kathleen Funchion (Carlow-Kilkenny, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and may be discussed together.

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

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Report on the means-testing for Blind Pension and Disability Allowance

16.The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the means-testing eligibility requirement for Blind Pension and Disability Allowance and the impact that income threshold limitations have on access to these schemes and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 9 months of the enactment of this Bill.”.

During Question Time this week, the Minister confirmed that the blind pension and disability allowance would be looked in terms of that straw-man proposal as regards long-term disability payments. I am satisfied with that in respect of amendment No. 10. As I have mentioned to the Minister many times, I believe the blind pension, in particular, needs to be looked at and I welcome that it will be reviewed through the work already under way. I have used this example before. I have a lady in the office who is blind. Her partner got a promotion at work, which was great news, but as his income increased, she lost her blind pension. She is blind, but as far as the Department is concerned that is just tough. That needs to be reviewed. I welcome that work will be under way. I intend to withdraw amendment No. 10.

Regarding amendment No. 11, the Minister will have engaged with disabled artists and disabled academics regarding artists in receipt of the disability allowance and the blind pension. With this amendment I particularly want to focus on one issue. If an artist in receipt of blind pension or disability allowance wins a bursary or an award of funding through the Arts Council, that is great. However, it is taken in its entirety as income and assessed in its entirety by the Department regarding their income support. That part of the amendment should be looked at because winning something or getting an award should not be treated as income when it comes to disability allowance and blind pension for artists. It impacts the development of artists and I ask the Minister to look at it. The group has brought this to the Minister. It has also made suggestions on the creation of a disabled self-employment support scheme and there are other issues. However, the classification of income should change. Bursaries, commissions, awards and grants awarded by the Arts Council should be disregarded when it comes to blind pension and disability allowance. Let us allow the artists in receipt of those income supports to continue with their art and if they do well, they should enjoy that award or that bursary without its impacting on their income support on which they are heavily dependent.

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

On Committee Stage, I committed to initiate a wide-ranging review of means testing in the Department. I said I would review all those schemes. This review will with cover the treatment of income and disregards across schemes generally and will therefore include the examination of thresholds and their impact for both the blind pension and the disability allowance scheme. I take the Deputy's point about somebody who has won a grant to do a particular piece of work as an artist. I understand where she is coming from now. Regarding the disabled artists assistance that the Minister, Deputy Catherine Martin, introduced, it is very hard for me to say that that payment should not be taken into account as income if there is a different treatment for a disabled person who is not an artist working another job. It is very hard to say that one disabled person is more deserving than another. It is a difficult space to be in.

I did change Catherine's Law when we established that Catherine Gallagher had a disability and was going to lose out on her bursary to finish her education. We were able to do something on that.

I will do this review and I will take on board at what the Deputy has said. The disabled artists made a pre-budget submission and attended the pre-budget forum. We will look at that when we are doing the reviews.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Report on assessment of self-employed people in receipt of Blind Pension and Disability Allowance

16.The Minister shall review the way in which self-employed people including artists and people employed in creative industries are assessed regarding Blind Pension and Disability Allowance and the impact that income threshold limitations and assessment of grants and awards have on these payments for those workers and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 9 months of the enactment of this Bill.”.

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

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 8, after line 32, to insert the following:

“Report on extending the provision of Disability Allowance to agents in the case of the bereavement of a child

16.The Minister shall review the rule regarding the continuation of Disability Allowance payment where a person is the collecting agent for their child who passes away and prepare a report on extending payment of the payment for six weeks in these circumstances in line with the provision made for payments such as Domiciliary Care Allowance and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 9 months of the enactment of this Bill.”.

I have raised this case with the Minister previously and she is well aware of it. Tracy McGinnis raised it on the death of her beloved son, Brendan Bjorn, earlier this year. Because he was over 16 and therefore in receipt of disability allowance as opposed to domiciliary care allowance, his payment was automatically stopped on his death. The payment of domiciliary care allowance continues for up to 12 weeks.

There is an error in the amendment. What I asked and indeed the amendment I sent the Minister back in June or July is for those 12 weeks to align disability allowance with domiciliary care allowance. I do not believe this will cost much. It is only for those cases particularly where there is an agent, in this case it was Tracy McGinnis, Brendan's mother, who collected the payment on his behalf. In raising this issue as we approach Christmas, I am also conscious that it will be a really difficult time for Tracy and her family. I ask for this issue to be looked at. When I raised it back in June and July, there was a commitment to look at it. I understand the Department is looking at. This is something really positive we can do so that when a young person aged 16 or over on disability allowance in the care of parent passes away, there would not be that cliff edge there. I do not mind how many weeks it continues for but it should continue on for a number of weeks just to give that recognition and to ensure that there is not a financial cliff edge for a parent when a child passes away. As far as I am concerned it does not matter if they are 16, 17, 18 or 20.

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

I, too, want to say that it has been a tough year for Tracy McGinnis. We think about her and we extend our thoughts and prayers to her as she faces Christmas without her son, Brendan. It cannot be easy for her. I was in touch with her recently about a separate issue.

I appreciate where Deputy Kerrane is coming from on this matter. She is coming from a good place and I recognise that, but there are two main issues here. Domiciliary care allowance is paid for three months after a child passes away, but it is different. First, domiciliary care allowance is a monthly rather than a weekly payment. Second, domiciliary care allowance is paid to the family, not the individual. Disability allowance is different in that it is a weekly payment and it is paid to the person with the disability in their own right. It is important to say that if a person is providing care to a child with a disability, then carer's allowance will continued to be paid for 12 weeks after the child passes away.

This is one of the issues that we will look at as part of the reform of the long-term disability payments. As I outlined last night, I intend to publish a straw man proposal on those reforms for consultation shortly. That straw man proposal will look at everything, including linkages and the interplay between domiciliary care allowance and disability allowance. I have not forgotten about the matter. It will be looked at as part of those wider reforms of disability payments.

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

In that case, I will withdraw the amendment.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

"In page 9, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following: “Report on including apprenticeships as education for social welfare payments

17. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas reviewing the inclusion of apprenticeships in the definition of “full-time education” and with regard to how this is approached in determining eligibility for Social Protection payments and the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within 6 months of the enactment of this Bill.”.

This is an issue I raised with the Minister earlier in the year. I had been contacted by a parent who is in receipt of the guardian's payment. She looks after two children and she has done for most of their lives. In the case of the son, he wants to do an apprenticeship. The guardian's payment continues up to the age that the child turns 22 if they are in full-time education, but apprenticeships are not listed as full-time education. I appreciate that apprentices are paid while they are on the job, but for the guardian, there is a cost when their child goes into or continues in full-time education. Whether they are in school, in an apprenticeship, or in college, there is a cost there. The guardian's payment is not very high and I think consideration should be given to what I am suggestion. We are at the stage now in the State whereby we really need to be encouraging apprenticeships. In fairness, the Government has made moves to do so. That is welcome. Yet, I do not think we should be differentiating, particularly when it comes to the guardian's payment. There are cases where there is a guardian who is taking care of a child and they choose to continue in education, but if they choose an apprenticeship over going to college, the payment will not continue. I ask that the Minister might look at this again. I do not think that there will be a huge number of people concerned because I do not believe that the guardian's payment involves a major amount of money. I ask the Minister to look at that, especially at a time when we are encouraging apprenticeships.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy Kerrane's amendment. This is a time when the Government, to be fair to it, and the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Deputy Harris, are putting particular emphasis on apprenticeships. There is now a clear Government policy around resourcing apprenticeships. We want to see more apprenticeships coming from right across the demographic spectrum, particularly in instances where people have not attained points for third level institutions and they may be thinking about apprenticeships to create that environment where they are encouraged to take up apprenticeships without the loss of any element of their household income. In that context, I support the amendment.

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

It would not be appropriate for my Department to compile a report, as is requested in the amendment, because policy in respect of apprenticeships does not come within my Department's remit. As the Deputy knows, the overall policy responsibility rests with my colleague, the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science and his Department. This year, the National Apprenticeship Office was established jointly by SOLAS and the Higher Education Authority. It is the lead agency responsible for apprenticeships on behalf of the Government.

In general, a person who is participating in an apprenticeship is not eligible to receive a jobseekers' payment. I am advised that apprentices are primarily considered as employees and that apprenticeships are undertaken under contracts of employment. For the majority of apprenticeships, the rate of pay is agreed between the apprentice and the employer, with the employer paying the apprentice during both on-the-job and off-the-job training elements of the apprenticeship. Apprentices earn while they learn and they have employment contracts. They are paid for the duration of their apprenticeships and they can access other social welfare supports. An apprenticeship is not an obstacle to, for example, claiming one-parent family payment, provided that the other conditionalities of the scheme are met. In the case of craft apprenticeships, periods of off-the-job training are funded from the National Training Fund. Payments are made by the education and training boards during such periods. In some instances, the education and training boards will also contribute to travel and accommodation costs.

Deputy Kerrane specifically referred to the guardian's payment. I will certainly look at that but I cannot accept the amendment.

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

I had initially raised this issue with the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science because I had presumed, like the Minister opposite that it was a matter for him. However, the Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science redirected me to the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, because of the impact it would have on social welfare supports. I understand that there can be some income supports when one is on an apprenticeship. The Minister cited the one-parent family payment in this regard.

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

Yes.

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

However, take for example, an 18 year old who is leaving secondary school and who is going on to do an apprenticeship. I do not think that there is any financial support or an income that they can access. I do not think that there many people on the guardian's payment. They are looking after a child. I believe that because of that it should be looked at. The Minister has agreed to do that, which I welcome. In that case, I will withdraw the amendment. I thank the Minister for agreeing to look at the guardian's payment.