Vol. 1038 No. 6
77. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Minister for Social Protection if her Department has examined expanding the payment of child benefit to children in full-time education or training up until the age of 22 years; the amount her Department estimates that this will cost; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24444/23]
This question was transferred to Deputy McAuliffe. I wish to come in at the end if that is possible.
I acknowledge the question was tabled by Deputy Crowe and appreciate him being present. Will the Minister update the House on whether she has considered expanding the child benefit payment for those in full-time education up to the age of 22? That situation existed in the past and we would like to see the scheme expanded.
Child benefit is a universal monthly payment made to families with children up to the age of 16. The payment continues to be paid in respect of children who are in full-time education or who have a disability until their 18th birthday. It is currently paid to more than 650,000 families in respect of more than 1.2 million children with an estimated expenditure of in excess of €2.1 billion in 2023.
Last September, as part of budget measures, a number of supports were introduced specifically for families with children, such as the double child benefit payment and the €500 lump-sum payment to recipients of the working family payment. Low-income families also benefited from other budget measures, such as the €12 increase in the weekly personal rate for recipients of the working age payment.
Furthermore, next month, June, as part of the €470 million package, a further lump-sum child benefit payment of €100 per child will issue. In July, there will be a one-off increase of €100 in the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. Families who are on low incomes may be able to avail of a number of social welfare schemes that support children who are in full-time education until the age of 22, including increases for a qualified child with primary social welfare payments, the working family payment for low-paid employees with children and the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. These schemes provide targeted assistance that is directly linked to household income and thereby support low-income families with older children participating in full-time education. There are currently no plans to extend child benefit in respect to full-time students who are over 18 years of age and who are in full-time education. Such an extension would have significant cost implications and would have be considered in an overall budgetary context. The Department does not hold figures on the numbers of students aged 19 to 22 years in full-time education or training. The estimated full-year costs of extending child benefit to 18-year-olds who are still in secondary school at the current rate of payment is €65 million. I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
I thank the Minister for the answer. It is a fairly detailed response and it is costed. As for the response the Government has made in terms of the cost-of-living crisis, despite the criticisms across the House we did take measures that were both targeted and more general. The genesis of this question comes from many queries to our offices from people who would not have been receipt of any other payment. They greatly appreciated the child benefit payments, the double payment that was made before Christmas, as well as the additional week for this June which will affect, as the Minister says, 1.2 million children.
While there are criticisms - I do not say they are not valid - that the child benefit is not more targeted, we have to accept that it also provides, in the midst of the cost-of-living crisis, a more general support across society. There are payments which the Minister says are available but they are only available to some recipients. Perhaps more could be done to protect those people who are in full-time education, even if it is not explicitly through this measure.
I take on board what Deputy McAuliffe is saying. Keeping a child in full-time education is a very expensive task. I fully understand it and I do know about it. Child benefit is one of the only tools at my disposal in the Department of Social Protection to support working families. We had the double child benefit payment in December and we will have the €100 lump sum payment on the child benefit payment at the start of June. I will be in the Seanad tomorrow for the next Stage of the legislation for that in order to pay that €100. A few people have raised this issue with me, and the request I have got most frequently is to continue paying child benefit when the child is 18 and they are still in secondary school. They will be 18 in March and nothing will have changed in April and they are still in secondary school. However, going out as far as age 22 would be a big jump. I am not sure that we could call it "child benefit" if we are paying it in respect of a 22-year-old. To be fair, they are adults at that stage and most of them are probably working part-time. There are other supports, such as the SUSI grant, which is available for when they are at college. I would like to try to do something for those families where the child is still at secondary school.
The way the Government has responded has been creative. It has looked for measures that can be rolled out quite quickly. In many cases, that can mean that it is perhaps not as targeted. I accept the Minister's point that there is a strong case for people who are over 18 and are in second-level schooling. However, I know that will require a strong case to be made to the Minister for Finance as part of the budget process. Work also could be done with the Minister, Deputy Harris, to reduce the overall cost of people who are going on to full-time education through higher education grants etc. There are many ways that you can skin a cat. This was a measure that was taken in the past. I have no difficulty with us finding other ways. While I emphasise we have to help people in targeted ways, we also need to find measures that support a broader base across society in a way that we have done over the last number of years.
I will add to what my colleague has been saying. The most expensive years are probably the years when someone heads off to college. As many people now will no longer be living on campus because of the shortages of college accommodation, they will be commuting. The costs are astronomical for parents. If you are below a certain income threshold, there are many really good supports that the Department of Social Protection provides. If you are wealthy, you can ride out those financial years that are quite difficult. However, this is a matter of the squeezed middle.
I would also make the point that, while the Minister might not have to face this decision in the next 12 months, by design this will have to happen at some stage. I say this because now children are starting primary school at six years of age because of the early childhood care and education, ECCE, scheme. They will soon be leaving primary school at 14 years of age. They will soon be finishing secondary school at 20 years of age. They will soon ipso facto be finishing third level at 24 years of age. Therefore, at some point in the future, this support will have to be stretched out. Now that we are taking in a little more in the tax net, it would be a lovely thing if we could do it now. What it would mean for families would be incredible.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien. He came down to a very difficult situation in Clare last week at Magowna House. A tightrope had to be walked. It was appreciated. A lot more has to be done but I wish to recognise that on the record of the Dáil.
Briefly, I want to first compliment the Minister on targeting children. One thing she has done since she became Minister is target schemes and found funding, particularly for families who are in great difficulty. I must compliment her on that. Like the two previous speakers, however, I would like her to look, as she said she would, at ways and means, even if this did not mean extending it to 22 years of age. I refer in particular to families who are paying very high rents for accommodation for their children. These families are working and are being squeezed in every corner. They are paying for the third-level fees and for the rent. The big problem is that the only State payment they get is child benefit. It is something the Minister should look at because she has done very well, particularly in the area of targeted schemes for children and families with children. It would be worth looking at this during the budget process to try to help families in any way, particularly the squeezed middle. We talk about them and we want to support and help them. They should be supported.
I note the Minister, Deputy Harris, has reduced the student fees. To go back to the issue of the child benefit, I really would like to do something for those families where the child is still at secondary school. As has been said, many children are now not starting school until they are five. Then, if they do transition year, there could be some people who miss out because the child will turn 18 when they are in sixth year or at the start of it. I will certainly look at it but it will be a matter for the budget. Like all budgets, it will be about what we can prioritise in terms of what is available.
We will back the Minister.
I thank the Deputy. I need that.
I accept that child benefit is a universal payment. I acknowledge some people are against that concept. Yet, I can say as someone who worked in a credit union, there were a lot more hard-working, middle-income families who depended on child benefit than there are millionaires. Child benefit is one of the ways that I, as Minister for Social Protection, can support working families and I am glad to be able to do that.
79. Deputy Colm Burke asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress that has been made in expanding the hot school meals programme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24392/23]
I ask the Minister to outline the progress that has been made in expanding the hot school meals programme and to make a statement on the matter.
The school meals programme provides funding towards food services for some 1,600 schools and organisations, benefiting 260,000 children. The objective of the programme is to provide regular, nutritious food to children to support them in taking full advantage of the education provided to them. The programme is an important component of policies to encourage school attendance and extra educational achievement.
Budget 2023 provided €94.4 million for the programme. The Government recently approved an additional €14.5 million to allow access to the hot school meals scheme for all remaining DEIS schools from September 2023. On 30 March, I published an independent evaluation of the school meals programme, which sets out the positive impact the programme is having on children's education and well-being.
The evaluation is evidence based and sets out a series of recommendations for expanding the school meals programme into the future. There is an overwhelming consensus among all participants in the evaluation that the school meals programme is effective. This indicates strong support for extending the school meals programme. Since my appointment as Minister for Social Protection, I have increased the number of schools with access to the hot school meal option from 37 to more than 500. I am committed to continuing to expand the school meals programme and building further on the significant extension of the programme that has taken place in recent years. In this regard, I intend to roll out the hot school meals to all remaining DEIS primary schools and special schools from September 2023. This will increase the numbers on the scheme dramatically to 1,000 schools and 150,000 children. From 2024, we will start the roll-out of hot school meals to all remaining primary schools, in line with the recommendation in the report of universal provision by 2030. My ambition is to move faster and I believe we can reach all primary schools sooner than that.
I welcome this decision. There are quite a number of DEIS schools in my constituency of Cork North-Central. I welcome the fact that the hot meals programme will be available in all DEIS schools from September. One problem with rolling out and expanding the programme is that we started off in 2020 with 30 schools on the hot meals programme. Now it is up to 500 but the Minister believes we can have all the structures and the necessary supports in place by September to double the number of schools that are currently in the programme. The Minister mentioned that the programme will involve 500 schools by September and that by the end of the year it will involve more than 1,000 schools. I wonder what progress has been made to date in making sure everything is ready to go from 1 September.
We have been working with the school meals providers. There are a number of different providers who tender through the process. We increased the rates they are paid because they had not increased in many years. The rates they receive have been increased from 1 January this year. We are in constant contact with them. I am satisfied that we can roll this out to the DEIS schools and meet the target for this year. With regard to next year, we are putting out a call now to non-DEIS primary schools that may be interested in providing the hot school meals programme. We are putting that call out and we will see who comes forward. My aim is that by the time he or she goes to primary school, any child born today will get a hot school meal.
I recall being involved in a pilot project which provided meals at breakfast time when the children came into school. That had a huge effect in getting children into school. Likewise I believe this programme will have a huge advantage for schools, especially DEIS schools. I very much welcome the decision. I hope that all the schools being targeted will be able to offer hot meals from September onwards.
Before the Minister comes in, I call Deputy Cathal Crowe.
As a teacher I love this initiative. It is transformative. The quicker it rolls out, the better. There is one small flaw that I would love to see the Minister address. The data set that designates a school as a DEIS school is based on Pobal statistics which are linked to the census that happens every five years. A child factored into census 2022 could very well be a teenager or possibly even an adult depending on their age. It does not truly capture the transience of the rental market. It does not capture the transience of the large number of Ukrainian people and international protection applicants who come into our county. It does not fully get the make-up of a community. Shannon in County Clare is a perfect example. Lisdoonvarna is another example where the population has increased fourfold. We can see that deprivation has come with that but it is not fully captured in the statistics. The best data set, and other countries use it, is the school census that is run by the school inspectorate in a school or a school cluster. It involves taking a temperature gauge of a range of poverty or deprivation indices. That is what you should use as the data set, rather than the old traditional five-year census.
I certainly will not be critical of this as it is something that I advocated for as education spokesperson until recently. It is beneficial and great to see it being rolled out in schools, even though we started from a long way back compared with other European countries. It is good to see we are catching up. I have more of a statement than a question. As we roll this out, it is important to ensure on an ongoing basis over the course of many years that we keep an eye on quality. In some countries that have long-established school meals systems, the quality has slipped. I am not saying there is a problem with the quality at the minute. My own young fellow gets school meals and he is very happy with them. We need to ensure it is monitored on an ongoing basis over the next few decades.
I support absolutely the hot school meals programme. The Deputy mentioned the quality. We have a committee that monitors and checks the quality. We make sure the children receive good, healthy food and schools must reapply for funding in advance of each school year. They are required to submit detailed records. Expenditure on all healthy food items is deducted from the following year’s funding allocation. The most important thing is good quality and good food.
When I went to a boys' primary school in Artane to announce the expansion of the school meals programme, I was impressed to see that the school meals given to the kids are hot because they come in a foil container. The schools do not need to worry about heating it up. This programme is a wonderful equaliser. Every one of those children sat down to eat their meals, having chosen their menu from the previous week. There were ten different options for them to choose from. Each day could be different. They all turned their desks around, sat around the table and had a conversation as they ate their hot dinner. It would do your heart good to see it. The teachers could not praise it enough. They said the difference it makes to the child's educational attainment is game changing. I have committed to doing this and to moving it on as quickly as I can.
80. Deputy Neasa Hourigan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will outline the work undertaken by her Department to support the 200 people facing redundancy from a company (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24359/23]
Will the Minister outline the work undertaken by herself and the Department to support the approximately 200 people facing redundancy from the company Indeed?
When my Department received the notification of collective redundancy from the company concerned, the employer relations division of my Department made contact with the company and provided information on income, redundancy entitlements and employment supports for their impacted employees. This communication contained a video presentation to be shared with its staff. A team from the Department is available to meet with the workforce, virtually or in person, to ensure speedy access to income supports and to support them into alternative employment, or to access appropriate education, training and development options.
When a person moves onto a jobseeker's payment, this team works with the individuals and focuses on what they need to assist them to re-enter the workforce. This individualised support comes in various forms, including the provision of supports and schemes when a customer returns to employment or to full or part-time education, or wishes to start their own business. My Department also provides an online jobs portal, JobsIreland.ie, where jobseekers can apply for open vacancies and employers can advertise their job vacancies. Further help is provided to jobseekers to create a CV and find their ideal job while also assisting employers to advertise their vacancies and match their requirements to jobseeker profiles already uploaded to the JobsIreland portal. I can confirm that my officials are available to meet with the impacted employees in the company concerned to ensure speedy access to income supports and to support them to secure alternative employment, or to access appropriate education, training and development options.
It sounds as though the Department has been very active on the issue. I wonder if Indeed has been active, however. This matter affects a number of people in my constituency.
The text or bumf from the company states that it will offer individual consultations to staff facing redundancy and meaningful engagement but the reports I have heard are that this has not happened, or certainly not in the way the staff require. They have come to me with questions regarding the rounding down, rather than rounding up, of years of service. I have been contacted by people who might have nearly four, five or six years of service but those years are being rounded down. They are seeking further assurances with regard to healthcare and dental. They are looking for longer vested periods in terms of their shares, as well as scaled statutory payments, rather than a flat rate, for years of service. The Department seems to be very active but is there oversight of the company with regard to whether it is doing what it says on the tin?
My Department is happy to meet with the employees. We will appoint a contact person to whom the employees can speak directly. It is very difficult for people when they get word they are losing their job. It is not a nice place for anybody to be. I understand the concerns of the staff. They are worried about how they will be able to pay their bills. The team is available to help them through the social welfare system, try to match their skill set with other jobs and help them to find new jobs.
The Redundancy Payments Act provides for the making of payments by employers to employees in respect of redundancy. It is the responsibility of the employer to pay statutory redundancy in the first instance to eligible employees, in compliance with the relevant legislation. An eligible employee is entitled to two weeks' normal weekly remuneration for every year of service, plus a bonus week, and normal weekly remuneration is subject to a ceiling of €600 per week.
I thank the Minister. It sounds like the Department is doing its piece in respect of the employees but the question is whether the company is subject to the kind of scrutiny that would ensure it is doing what it is required to do. I am not sure that is the case. All present are aware there is a natural ebb and flow of employees in the sector, and that is to be expected, but we should be fostering a sector in which employers are held to account and how they treat employees is seen as being important to the State. Many of these employees are facing into an uncertain time and seem very dissatisfied, more so than other employees facing into similar situations, with the way they have been treated by Indeed. I ask that the Department pay particular attention to the behaviour of that company in the coming months.
Policy and legislative responsibilities for the redundancy and insolvency schemes fall within the remit of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment but if the Deputy has particular instances she wishes to bring to me, I am happy to have them checked out. As she stated, when a person loses his or her job, it is not a nice place to be. The employees in question are vulnerable and both the Deputy and I will want to ensure they get the full entitlements they are due on foot of the redundancy. If there are specific instances she wishes to bring to my attention, I will be happy to follow up on them with my officials in the first instance. If it needs to go to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, I am happy to raise it there as well.
I thank the Minister. That is very helpful.
81. Deputy Alan Dillon asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will consider further supporting the seniors community alert programme through the community employment scheme, Tús, and the rural social scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24639/23]
I recently had the privilege of engaging with dedicated members of the seniors alert scheme who emphasised the importance of further enhancing the effectiveness of the scheme. Will the Minister consider allocating additional supports to the scheme by means of the community employment, CE, scheme or the rural social scheme, RSS?
The seniors alert scheme provides funding for a free personal monitored alarm for people aged 65 or older and of limited means. The scheme is intended to support older people to live securely and independently in their homes. It is funded by the Department of Rural and Community Development and administered by Pobal, with the support of local community and voluntary groups.
The Deputy will be aware of the good work undertaken on the employment support schemes operated by the Department of Social Protection. These schemes are targeted at long-term unemployed and other vulnerable groups. There are currently more than 18,500 participants on community employment, 4,400 participants on Tús and slightly more than 2,800 participants on the RSS. Government investment in the schemes will amount to more than €500 million in 2023. These work schemes are typically sponsored by voluntary and community organisations wishing to benefit the local community. As the employers, these sponsoring organisations contract with the Department of Social Protection annually to provide participants with good-quality work experience. Eligible work placements under the schemes are identified by the scheme sponsors in response to an identified community need and provide development opportunities for participants. The projects and work undertaken must not displace or replace existing jobs.
These scheme sponsor groups provide valuable and dedicated services in communities throughout the country. Employment support scheme employees may support the community alert programme where it is identified as a community need by their local sponsor or partnership company and where the senior alert scheme is also operated by a community or voluntary group.
I am interested to hear the Deputy's suggestions on further enhancements to the scheme. It is important that we get word out about the scheme and I look forward to his input.
I thank the Minister of State for his response. I appreciate the points he raised but it is important to acknowledge that participants on the CE, Tús and RSS schemes have diverse responsibilities within their communities. The Minister of State referred to ownership within the local stakeholders or sponsors. By increasing awareness of the seniors alert scheme and promoting better integration within the schemes to which reference was made, we can strengthen the capacity of local organisations to reach a larger number of older and vulnerable individuals. That, in turn, would significantly increase the overall impact of the seniors alert scheme in communities. We are all in agreement that it is a crucial initiative for older people living in rural areas. In areas on the west coast, such as Achill Island or Connemara, there is an opportunity to better integrate the CE, Tús and RSS schemes, which provide valuable services within their communities, with the seniors alert scheme.
We have a network of community and voluntary organisations throughout the country that should cover every geographic area. There are responsible community organisations in every area. If the Deputy believes a particular area is not properly covered, we would like to know about it. The organisations are effective in getting the word out. They use CE, Tús or RSS participants in the process of getting the word out and the equipment in and connecting it and so on. Some of them also use full-time paid employees to do the process. There is a healthy flow of new joiners, with between 15,000 and 19,000 new people joining the seniors alert scheme every year. If there are particular examples, we would be eager to know about them because it is an effective and important scheme.
I again thank the Minister of State for his response. Personal interaction with older or vulnerable people who do not get as many visits as those who live in more clustered communities is of importance in this regard. The Minister of State referred to getting the word out but it is important to ensure people are visited regularly, similar to the service performed by Meals on Wheels and so on. That was very prominent in the early stages of the Covid pandemic, when people were being checked upon regularly. We can enhance the scheme and its effectiveness through integration and proper consultation with the sponsors and stakeholders. I would appreciate that being considered in any further revisions within the schemes.
As the Deputy was speaking, two things occurred to me that we could do in terms of joined-up thinking. The social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP, which falls under the Department of Rural and Community Development, funds several friendly call service programmes nationally which contact older, often isolated, people by telephone.
It grew up over Covid. Maybe we can ask those services to spread the word about the senior alert scheme. With regard to joining up two Departments as well, I can talk to the sponsors of the community employment, TÚS and the rural social schemes to make sure they know about the senior alert scheme too. They have a lot of people on the ground who go into communities and situations. It is an easy enough job to get that dialogue happening between the two Departments, as I oversee both schemes as well. That could be a course of action I can take.
82. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress made with the review of the rural social scheme; when it will be completed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24674/23]
I wish to ask the Minister of State about the review that is taking place in the rural social scheme, RSS, and when it is likely to be completed. Changes are needed urgently to the scheme, which has a large number of vacancies on it.
The RSS implementing bodies undertake a diverse range of activities including the regeneration and enhancement of community spaces, environmental maintenance work and the staffing of cultural, tourism and heritage sites. I acknowledge the excellent work undertaken and the contribution these schemes and their workers make to communities across the country.
The RSS has a budget of more than €51 million in 2023 and currently has more than 2,800 participants. The Deputy will be aware that the six-year participation limit was removed prior to the commencement of the review. I set up an RSS review steering group late last year, which comprises a range of key stakeholders representing statutory, voluntary, community and farming organisations, with an independent chair to oversee the group. The RSS review will examine the current and future role of the scheme and the changes required to ensure its continuing relevance in a changing economic and environmental landscape. In addition it can make recommendations as to the most appropriate resourcing, governance and management arrangements for the scheme.
A consultation process is currently under way with an online survey issuing to scheme supervisors, participants, implementing bodies and placement providers. Additionally, interested parties will be invited to make written submissions on a number of key themes that have been identified by the steering group. Consideration is also being given to holding a number of themed focus groups and workshops. We will hold an event later this year to facilitate those groups and workshops.
It is anticipated that the review will be completed by the end of the year. I look forward to receiving the review report, and expect that the recommendations will focus on ensuring the best outcomes for participants and their local communities going forward.
When Ministers are advising in scripts that it will be by the end of the year, and so on, I always take it with a pinch of salt. It could be well into next year. In fact, we could be on top of an election if the Taoiseach calls the election when he said he would call the election, which is autumn 12 months.
Breaking news.
In the meantime, will the Minister of State consider reversing the change that was made to the means-testing under the scheme? By definition, all of these are small farmers and all of them have an income. The reality is that for people with adult or child dependants, they are getting paid €27.50 for 19.5 hours per week, which is €1.50 per hour. It is fair to say that all someone needs to do is go to all the football pitches around the country and around all of the villages and towns to see all of the Tidy Towns work that has been done. The RSS is a most amazing scheme and it really delivers. Obviously these are very expert people as they are all farmers. In the meantime, while this long involved and convoluted review is taking place, will the Minister of State consider reversing the changes that were made to the means-testing under the scheme, and pay everybody the full rate that they should get?
Deputy Ring also wants to come in on this matter.
I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív. This has been one of the best schemes that has ever been introduced by a Government. I have just taken a note of what they are actually earning per week, which is €27.50. They actually do more work in rural areas than the county councils. I am asking the Minister of State to do what has to be done immediately. When officials get at reviews there is a review of a review of the review. I was a Minister myself and I know about reviews. They have to be told that you want the report completed in a certain time. Even then they will not have it but at least you would have put them on guard that they would be doing something about the review.
There is no need for a review here. Everybody knows that this scheme works. As Deputy Ó Cuív said, the one problem we have now is that we do not have enough people to go on these schemes, particularly in the area of health. Without these schemes in some of the areas of health, we would have a major problem. I would like the Minister of State to deal with this as quickly as possible and to pay these people as quickly as possible.
So, do not bother with the review, just get on with it.
I thank the Deputies. I dispute the fact but I understand why people are concerned and that they would think it might drag on. I am determined that it is going to be as tight as possible. At the same time, we need to get the views in. I want to refresh it. I do not just want to make one or two tweaks to it. The scheme has huge potential in the long term and there are opportunities that we need to consider, which perhaps the RSS has not gone into before.
Ostensibly, it is labelled as an income support scheme but the Deputies know as well as I do that people on the scheme do not get involved for the money. They get involved for the community aspect. They get involved to be a part of the community. Ultimately, it is a social inclusion scheme and it is also a mental health scheme. There are a lot of core benefits, to use a phrase, that need to be identified and acknowledged by other Departments that are at the table for the review as well. They also need to play their part.
I wish I had the power to go, "Yes, let us just bump up the rates on it now", but we must respect the review process. I expect there will be financial suggestions coming out of the process and I will look at them in due course.
I will let the Minister of State into a little secret. I went to a Minister for Finance and he said, "Get a scheme to me by breakfast time tomorrow morning." I wrote the scheme out in one morning, it was passed in the budget and set up. If we went back to the people who participated in the scheme, and particularly the people who had dependants, they would say the scheme was a good scheme and that a lot of work was done. It was very popular in rural Ireland. There were high participation rates until they changed the rules on the means testing. Will the Minister of State reverse that rule change while he is doing the review? I cannot understand how it can take so long. I suspect that when all of the review is done and we have all the changes, it will be very little. In the meantime, will the Minister of State reverse it and stop having people working for €27.50? The reality is that people with dependants, be it children or adult spouses or partners, are not going on the scheme. Yes, it is good for people's mental health but they, like everybody else in the country, have to put bread on the table. As the Minister of State will be aware, their labour is worthy of their hire.
Deputy Ó Cuív invented the scheme so he knows what he is talking about.
I would not question the Deputy's knowledge on the RSS ever. He will know too the answer that I am able to give, that I will use the phrase, "It is a budgetary matter", and that I do not control the strings in the middle of a budget year. I attended the first meeting of the review group. It was very clear that the income side of it came up there as well. We had 1,000 submissions to the questionnaire we put out. There is a bit of that in the process there. I would be very surprised if proposals around increasing the rate of it were not part of that. If we have that volume of people participating, and if we have high volumes of people saying that, it can certainly strengthen our hand at budget time to make the case the Deputies have made.
83. Deputy Neasa Hourigan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will outline her Department's plans to provide support for healthcare workers experiencing long Covid as a result of their service; her plans to provide recognition of long Covid under the section 87 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24358/23]
Will the Minister outline the Department's plans to provide support for healthcare workers experiencing long Covid as a result of their service? What are the Minister's plans to provide a recognition of long Covid under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005? Can I have a statement on the matter?
Section 87 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 legislates for the occupational injuries benefit scheme for persons injured by an accident at work or caused by a prescribed disease due to the nature of their employment. The occupational injuries benefit scheme is a compensation and income support provided by my Department and, as Minister, I have the power to prescribe diseases under the scheme.
Covid-19 is not currently a prescribed disease or illness. Section 87(2) of the Act states that a disease or injury shall be prescribed for the purposes of this section in relation to any insured persons, where the Minister is satisfied that it ought to be treated, having regard to its causes and any other relevant considerations, as a risk of their occupations and not as a risk common to all persons.
In addition, the disease should be such that, in the absence of special circumstances, the attribution of particular cases to the nature of the employment can be established or presumed with reasonable certainty.
My Department is aware of the recommendation of the European Commission regarding Covid-19. The decision on whether to recognise an illness as an occupational illness is a member state competence and, in this regard, it should be noted that the European Commission has not made a recommendation about recognising long Covid as an occupational disease. Most member states have not recognised long Covid. The UK Department for Work and Pensions presented a report to the UK Parliament in November 2022, which concluded that long Covid should not be considered an occupational disease due to the lack of evidence and the evolving nature of the illness. However, I have consulted with other relevant Departments and Ministers on the matter and the responses received are currently under consideration. I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
I thank the Minister. I am glad she brought up the principles of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 because I argue that the people we sent into our hospitals - I do not just mean nurses and doctors but healthcare assistants, cleaners, and housekeeping and catering staff - were not able to shelter in place. They were not able to stay at home and mind themselves like the rest of us. They had to go to work. Not only that, they often had to go to work with personal protective equipment that was less than appropriate. Although that was not just due to a failing of the State but because Covid was a pandemic, and we all understand there were difficulties, it is very hard to argue that people who are experiencing this post-viral condition did not contract it in the course of being continuously subjected to exposure to Covid-19 in their workplace in a way the rest of us were not.
I raised this issue earlier in the year, when I brought those principles to the attention of the Minister and the Minister of State. I highlighted that the EU Advisory Committee on Health and Safety at Work has recommended recognition of long Covid. At the time, I was told the Department would take that away and review it, in addition to consulting with the Minister for Health. Where are we with that?
I would like to support my colleague on this matter. There was huge commitment and dedication by medical staff throughout the Covid period. They were there to do the best possible job for people who had Covid or other medical care requirements. People contracted it as a result of their commitment. We cannot ignore that some people have long Covid. They contracted it in their place of work and that should be given recognition. Serious consideration should be given to providing for them, particularly while they continue to receive medical care.
I have consulted with the two relevant Ministers on this matter, namely, the Ministers for Health and Enterprise, Trade and Employment. We have received a response from both Ministers. My officials are currently considering those responses. I will meet with the Ministers in due course to discuss the issue further with them. Social welfare is only a small part of this. It is a cross-Government issue that will require further work and consideration. The response to the pandemic was whole-of-government. This issue will have to be dealt with in the same way. Ultimately, it will require a decision of the Government. As I said, I plan to meet the Ministers for Health and Enterprise, Trade and Employment very shortly to discuss their views on it.
Ireland has not always had the best history in dealing with post-viral illnesses, recognising them early and giving people supports. I welcome Deputy Colm Burke's comments. We have seen some countries in the EU recognise long Covid and provide social supports in respect of it. France, Italy, Denmark and Sweden have all accepted that Covid is not going away and, therefore, we will have people with long Covid for many years to come, unfortunately.
I completely accept the idea that an all-of-government response is needed and that we have to decide as a society to support people. On the social protection issue in particular, however, we are often talking about fairly young people as regards this issue. They are people in their 30s and 40s with small children. They might be sick, not forever, but for two, three, four or five years until they get back on their feet and into a place where they can actually work. We do not want to see people with that kind of ambition and ability put into medical early retirement. There might be a better way of going about it.
As the Deputy knows, my Department provides a suite of income supports to those who cannot work due to illness or disability. It is important to note eligibility for these payments is generally not dependent on the type of illness or disability but the extent to which it impairs or restricts their ability to work. However, I am considering whether to include Covid-19 as a prescribed disease under the occupational injuries benefit scheme. As I said, I am consulting with the other two relevant Ministers and a whole-of-government response is the right way forward.
The recommendation from the European Commission concerns Covid-19 and not long Covid. I understand most EU member states and the UK have not recognised long Covid. Having said that, it is up to us to decide what we will do in this country. I will discuss it with my colleagues and, ultimately, it will be a decision of the Government.
84. Deputy Paul McAuliffe asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress to date in reforming the jobseeker’s allowance payment to link it to a person’s previous most recent employment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24657/23]
I read an interesting report, published last December, on linking jobseeker's allowance to a person's most recent income. I would appreciate it if the Minister would make a statement on the matter.
I thank the Deputy. The programme for Government and the economic recovery plan include commitments to consider a pay-related jobseeker's benefit scheme. This would bring Ireland in line with the majority of other EU member states. The core rationale for the introduction of a pay-related benefit is twofold. First, to recognise and cushion people against the income shock that arises on loss of employment and, second, to provide a tangible return to people who make social insurance contributions.
The need for such a pay-related system became very evident during the Covid emergency leading to the introduction of the pandemic unemployment payment and the employment wage subsidy scheme. I published a straw-man document in December 2022 that sets out the broad parameters of a possible approach to a pay-related jobseeker's benefit scheme. It is not a final design. The objective of the straw-man document is to elicit feedback through a national consultation process to develop a preferred policy design. Written submissions have been received from more than 80 individuals and 32 stakeholder groups. My Department hosted a stakeholder event in Dublin in February, which I addressed. In addition, a series of individual bilateral meetings between Department officials and selected stakeholder organisations has just concluded.
I am very appreciative of the level of engagement with the consultation process by the general public and stakeholder groups. Generally, there is support for the concept of a pay-related benefit for jobseekers, with some concerns and issues raised, as one would expect. Officials in my Department are currently analysing all feedback received through the consultation process. This will inform the design of a proposal, which I intend to bring to Government for consideration in the coming months.
Many people who pay PRSI contributions feel that while they contribute to the overall support of the State and people in need, they themselves may get very little in return. It was always pay related social insurance. The idea of this model is that we reflect the actual reality of the shock that happens when somebody loses their job and his or her income drops very significantly. The Minister is right that the pandemic rate of €350 highlighted, in many ways, the inadequacies of how the current social welfare jobseeker's allowance rate protects people. While acknowledging that we need to pay more to protect people in the short term, there is a bigger discussion to be had on whether we perhaps need to pay more in the longer term as well. I appreciate that is a bigger discussion.
I have some concerns with regard to the overall length of time. The payment would end after six months. That would mean means-tested payments would then kick in after six months rather than nine months, where it currently is.
While we are giving with one hand, we may be taking away with the other. I appreciate the current proposals are not the final details of the scheme.
As the Deputy will be aware, pay-related benefits are designed to reward people who have worked hard all their lives, paid their PRSI and contributed to the system. Under the current scheme, the basic rate for both jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit is the same at €220, which means that someone who never worked a day gets the same rate of payment as someone who has worked, for example, for 20 years and has contributed to the system by paying PRSI. The current system does not distinguish between the person who has contributed and the person who has not. That is not fair. Many other European countries have pay-related benefit systems. The pandemic unemployment benefit showed that a pay-related system can work. People received payments based on what their prior earnings were. Technology and the ability to get real time earnings data from Revenue made that possible. Under the draft proposals, people with a long work history would receive 60% of their previous income up to a cap of €450. The reality is that people enter into commitments based on their weekly earnings. If they suddenly lose their jobs, they face a cliff-edge drop in their income. Pay-related benefits are about softening the sudden income shock many workers face at some stage during their lifetimes. I saw it when I worked in a credit union. People who worked all their lives lost their jobs and suddenly could not pay their mortgages. They were in a terrible space. This would cushion that drop in income.
