We will take Priority Questions now.
Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions
Social Welfare Payments
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire
Question:1. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection if, in light of her not proceeding further with the consultation on the Green Paper on disability payments, she intends to examine a cost-of-disability payment; and whether she intends to introduce different reforms to the disability payments. [18467/24]
I apologise to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the Minister for being late. I appreciate the Leas-Cheann Comhairle taking these questions now.
I know Deputy Tully has a similar question, namely question No. 6. Many people welcomed the decision not to proceed further with the with consultation on the Green Paper and to walk away from the proposals examined in it. Questions now arise as to what happens next. What happens with the opinions that were submitted? There is a recognition that some reform is needed. How does the Minister intend to proceed with that?
I will deal with Deputy Tully's question later.
I thank Deputy Ó Laoghaire for raising this matter. I am committed to addressing the cost of disability and improving outcomes for people with a disability. I announced a number of measures to support people with disabilities in budget 2024, including a €400 lump-sum payment in November, a Christmas bonus double payment in December, a cost-of-living bonus payment in January and a €12 increase in the maximum personal rate of weekly disability payments. The free travel scheme is also being extended.
The Indecon report on the cost of disability identified that additional costs of disability run across many areas of expenditure, including housing, transport, health and education. The report found that there is a spectrum from low to high additional costs of disability, depending on individual circumstances. The report concluded that disability payments should be targeted to those most in need and who face the greatest additional cost of disability rather than spreading resources thinly.
Taking account of this analysis I commenced a consultation process on the Green Paper last September. Under the draft approach people with more profound challenges would receive a significantly higher level of payment. However, based on the feedback I have received to date, it is clear that there are significant concerns about the proposals, including with regard to how we would distinguish between people with significant challenges, attracting the higher level of payment, and other people with disabilities. Concerns were also raised about reforming the structure of long-term disability payments separately from a wider consideration of the other issues including access to education, transport and health.
Our new Taoiseach has placed a major emphasis on improving supports and services for people with disabilities in all aspect of their lives. He has announced his intention to establish a special Cabinet committee on disability. Accordingly, rather than proceeding further with the Green Paper process we will use the submissions received to inform this broader review of disability matters.
The question still arises as to what happens next. The Indecon cost of disability report rightly indicated that different people have different costs of disability and that people with higher costs relating to their disability should receive greater support. There were a number of problems with the Green Paper. One was that it conflated severity of disability with the higher cost of disability whereas that is not necessary the case. There are many other variables, including geography. Sometimes there is a cost to going to work. Different types of disability can cost differently and there may be different housing costs. The advocates for disability payment have advocated that it is a relatively individualised payment. The examination of the cost will require work and consideration. There are also problems and inconsistencies with the current system even aside from that. For example, someone on disability payment does not qualify for a stamp but someone on invalidity payment does. Issues like that need to be ironed out.
One of the main findings of the cost of disability report was that there is a broad spectrum of disabilities. We all recognise that some people need more support than others.
We all recognise that. There are some people with moderate disabilities who are able to work and some with profound disabilities who we know will never be able to work. That is the reality. The Cost of Disability in Ireland report specifically said it should be targeted at those most in need and that is what the proposal in the Green Paper was attempting to do. I accept there were concerns. It is clear people were not happy with it. I have listened to those genuine concerns and we now have to go back to the drawing board and take a fresh look at this. In fairness, the Taoiseach has put a major focus on this area. We have a Minister of State with responsibility for special education sitting at the Cabinet table. That sends a very strong message of the Taoiseach's commitment. In addition, a new special Cabinet committee on disability has been established. It is important because it means all the key Ministers and Departments have to examine how we look at this in an holistic way across government. Sometimes things can fall between different Departments.
I agree this may have been what it was intended to do but conflating the cost of disability with severity of disability, when they are not always precisely the same thing, was a problem and there were concerns. I welcome the fact the Minister has listened in that regard but what we do not know is, and this may not be decided yet, if there is a timeline on it. The Minister referred to a broad review within the Department or across other Departments. There was a general consensus among people with disabilities and disability organisations that they wanted reform and change. This paper was not what they wanted but they do want change. That feeling is still there. The question arises what timescale we are looking at for a broader review. When do new proposals come back onto the table? Will they be co-designed with the organisations? It is also important the Department of enterprise is part of this because we have very low levels of employment. Some of that is cultural and some of that is due to obstacles to people taking up opportunities.
Regarding the Department of enterprise, the Deputy is right that it has an important role in getting the message out to employers that all workplaces need to be assessable. That is why I will be shortly announcing a new and improved scheme to support employers in adapting their workplaces for disabled people. The Deputy mentioned transport. I am extending the free travel pass to anyone who is medically certified as being unable to drive. That is going to be a big help to people with disabilities. Again, I am doing that within the social protection system but I want to hear what the Department of Transport will do. The Department of Health has a role in improving services. The Department of Education has a role as well. The Department of housing has a role in providing grants to help people to adapt their homes. Income supports are only one part of the puzzle here. We need to look at this in the round through the new Cabinet committee and come up with an holistic response across government. The Deputy is right. Organisations did not want the Green Paper but we need to engage with them too to try to find out what their views are. We did have a lot of consultation on the Green Paper, so we can take learnings from the feedback we got there as well.
Question No. 2 taken with Written Answers.
Citizens Information Services
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire
Question:3. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection the steps she and her Department are taking to ensure workers in citizens information companies are provided with a pay increase, given the length of time since their last pay increase; and if she will provide the funding to ensure this happens [18468/24]
More than tens of thousands of people rely on the citizens information service. It is a vitally important, high-quality service. To ensure it remains a high-quality service, we need to ensure quality staff are attracted to it. The pay has not changed for those in the citizens information service in 16 years, since 2008. That is an absolutely extraordinary amount of time considering the extent of inflation over that period. The starting salary is less than €30,000. This is a serious problem that has been attempted to be addressed for some time. I hope to hear the Minister's response as to how she will address it.
I also value the important work carried out by employees of the citizens information service, or CIS. I acknowledge the role they play in providing people with free, quality and independent information, advice and advocacy services throughout the country. It is important to point out that employees of the CIS are not employees of my Department nor are they public servants. They are employees of independent companies that provide important services on behalf of the Citizens Information Board, CIB, which are delivered under a service level agreement between the companies and CIB. CIB itself is funded via an Estimate agreed as part of the annual budget process.
Last summer, a funding request for an 11% pay increase for employees of the citizens information service 2024 was submitted to my Department. This followed a non-binding Workplace Relations Commission process that involved SIPTU and the citizens information service employers group. However, there was no involvement of CIB in the Workplace Relations Commission process, nor was my Department aware of this pay request or its scale in advance. Given the scale of the increase, it is important that all relevant parties were involved in this process from an early stage. The Citizens Information Board has informed my Department that SIPTU and the citizens information service employers group attended a further WRC process in February where the matter was referred to the Labour Court, a date for which has recently been set for 14 June. This process is ongoing and my Department is monitoring the situation closely. If a request for an increased budget provision is formally submitted to my Department following the process, my officials will consider it carefully and engage with colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform with a view to determining if a Supplementary Estimate can be provided.
I may take some comfort from that to a small extent. I do not think it helps that there is such a baroque structure here. These are companies but they are not for profit and they are funded exclusively through the public purse. There is the Minister, the Citizens Information Board and then the citizens information service. I do not know why this is the case. Leaving that aside, it is important to put on the record what this means practically. The pay has not changed in 16 years. The starting salary is less than €30,000. Recruitment campaigns to the service have not been successful in recent times. It is not attracting people and it is easy to understand that. Previously, there would have been more than 200 applications for positions. Now, there is only a handful. Four long-serving staff members have recently left the national phone service in the past nine months. My understanding is that the employers group and the trade unions agreed a pay claim, brought it to the Department of public expenditure and it was refused last year. That should not have been the case. My understanding may not have been correct. I understand the employers group and the employees are on the same page. It is that the board and the funding is not available through the Minister's Department and through the Department of public expenditure and reform.
To be clear, there is a process under way. It has been referred to the Labour Court and a date set for 14 June. We have to let that process run its course. When the Labour Court concludes its work, my Department will not be found wanting in responding. Shortly after I was appointed, we managed to sort out a long-running issue, and it was long running, for CE supervisors.
We provided them with an ex gratia payment. I absolutely value and recognise the work carried out by the staff in the citizens information offices throughout the country. For many of us, it is the first place we go to look for information. The staff and, indeed, the volunteers do great work. At the same, the Deputy will appreciate it is not within my gift to unilaterally award pay increases. The Minister for public expenditure will need to be consulted on this when the Labour Court process has concluded. A date has been set for 14 June. As I say, I will not be found wanting in making the case when the time comes.
I have a few other points. The Minister made the point these staff members are not public servants. They were aligned to the public sector pay structure until the previous recession. I also make the point that the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, is aligned to public sector pay. Even MABS, which is a sister company of the citizens information service funded through the Citizens Information Board, has received those pay increases. The point regarding the Labour Court is that the only people who can be brought before the court is the employers group of the citizens information service, but they are actually on board. They are going along with this.
The trade unions and the service are going to the Labour Court. The Minister and the Department cannot be brought because they are not the direct employer, nor can the Citizens Information Board.
I will take the Minister up on the point about a Supplementary Estimate. Is she saying that, pending the outcome of the Labour Court and so on, this will not necessarily wait until budget 2025 and that a solution could conceivably be found in advance of that funding-wise?
What I am saying is that I will not be found wanting, depending on the Labour Court outcome. We have to hear what it has to say. These people, as the Deputy knows, are set up in such a way that they are not employees of my Department. That probably emanates from voluntary boards many years ago. That is the way it is, so we have to go through the process. The Labour Court will make its finding, and I assure the Deputy that, whatever that is, I will not be found wanting in trying to resolve the issue. I agree with the Deputy that people should get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work and that nobody should be left behind. What I said was that if a request for an increased budget provision is formally submitted to my Department following the Labour Court process, my officials will consider it carefully and engage with colleagues in the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform with a view to determining if a Supplementary Estimate can be provided. Neither the CIB nor my Department was made aware of the request. My understanding is that it was a non-binding WRC process. Since then, SIPTU and the CIS employers' group attended the WRC again in February. Following that, the matter was referred to the Labour Court and a date was set in June. We have to let the process play out.
Níl an chéad duine eile anseo.
Question No. 4 taken with Written Answers.
EU Directives
Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire
Question:5. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection to clarify whether she intends to taper benefits received by beneficiaries of temporary protection in advance of the ending of the temporary protection directive in 2025. [18469/24]
This is an area the Minister and I have discussed before. The temporary protection directive ends next spring. It is not fair on anyone, including those in receipt of payments currently who are under temporary protection, that there be a cliff edge and uncertainty as to what will happen after that date. The Minister has made a number of remarks, not always necessarily to the same effect, in recent months, so I want to know what the Department's position is at this time and how she intends to prepare for the ending of the directive.
The war in Ukraine has resulted in the largest humanitarian effort in the State's history. Ireland has responded to the war with a co-ordinated, whole-of-government response and has provided protection and support to those who have had to flee from the violence in Ukraine. More than 106,000 people have arrived in the State since the European Council unanimously adopted the implementing decision regarding the temporary protection directive in March 2022. In October 2023, the EU Council agreed to extend the period of temporary protection to March 2025. Options as to what arrangements might be in place after March 2025 are being considered at EU level, and the Minister for Justice is the lead Minister for Ireland.
The Government has recently implemented changes to the supports to those fleeing the war in Ukraine. Under the revised approach, beneficiaries of temporary protection who seek State accommodation are accommodated in designated accommodation centres for a maximum of 90 days, during which time they receive a reduced weekly payment of €38.80 per adult and €29.80 per child. When they leave the designated accommodation centres or if they make their own accommodation arrangements on arrival, they are entitled to apply for standard social welfare assistance equivalent to that to which Irish citizens are entitled, subject to meeting the eligibility conditions. The changes have been widely communicated to the Ukrainian community both in Ireland and elsewhere to ensure people make informed decisions on coming to Ireland.
These changes bring the supports being provided into increased alignment with those of other member states. They also incentivise independence and integration into communities. People who are not being accommodated by the State require support, including social welfare support, to live independently in the same way as all other citizens.
There has been a notable drop in the number of people arriving from Ukraine and seeking temporary protection since the beginning of 2024. In addition, the number of Ukrainians relying on State-provided accommodation is decreasing every week as people focus on becoming more independent, living independently and integrating into local communities, with some leaving the country to return to Ukraine. The CSO estimates that more than 22,000 people granted temporary protection are no longer in the State.
Any further changes to payments for beneficiaries of temporary protection will be considered on a whole-of-government basis.
It was absolutely right and necessary that people who were fleeing war and the aggression of the Russian Government would be in a position to receive protection, and the Irish people have responded with great generosity. There is no question about that. The changes that have been made already have in effect created a two-track situation between those who arrive after the date of the passing of that legislation into the temporary protection system and those who were here prior to that, even if they are in perhaps not the same accommodation but comparable accommodation. The Minister might correct me on this, but it seems to me that it is unlikely to be the case that the current dispensation will continue to apply after the ending of the temporary protection directive. She herself has indicated that there may be changes in that regard. It is only fair that people understand precisely what will happen. It is not very far away at this stage. People deserve clarity, and a coherent plan should be there for next spring.
The extension of the directive, which expires in March 2025, as I said to the Deputy, is a matter for the Minister for Justice. She is discussing that and we will decide that as part of an EU response. I have already signalled that I do not think it is sustainable long-term that people would get their accommodation provided for and receive full social welfare payments. We will look at that. It is not a decision I can make on my own. There have to be discussions with party leaders. We need to make a decision as a Government and we will do that. The legislation to reduce payments for new arrivals took effect only in March, and it is only April now. As I said, I will discuss this with the party leaders, the Ministers, Deputies O'Gorman and McEntee, and other Government colleagues and we will come up with a pathway forward on it.
While it is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, social welfare policy is the responsibility of the Minister opposite. In any event, further clarity is needed at the earliest possible date. It is not very clear what the picture is at this point.
I will ask another question. The Minister was involved in devising the new approach in respect of designated accommodation centres. Obviously, there are likely to be children in those locations. I disagree, incidentally, with being forced out after 90 days. I think that in a lot of instances people will not be in a position to find accommodation and in other instances they will be competing in a competitive rental market. In any event, will the children who are there for those first 90 days receive education? If so, where will they receive it? Will it be in the centres or in local schools?
As the Deputy said, that does not come under my remit. I will have to raise that issue with the relevant Minister and ask him or her to come back to the Deputy on it.
I have to remind the Deputy that he and colleagues of his have said in the past that not only should Ukrainians get full social welfare payments but all refugees arriving in this country should get the same treatment. That is in stark contrast to what he is saying to me today. Is this a change in approach from Sinn Féin? I saw the video he did outside the Dáil yesterday.
The Minister is a fan.
I have also seen some of the Sinn Féin election leaflets referring to open borders. We are an island. The only open border we have is with Northern Ireland, and I do not think the Deputy would suggest we have a hard border with Northern Ireland because, in fairness, we put in a huge amount of work-----
No border.
-----and a huge effort during Brexit to make sure we would not have such a hard border.
No border.
We know what we heard from Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson on Brexit, "It is time to take back our borders", and we know where that ended up, so we need to be very careful here.
Táimid thar am.
Does the Minister wish me to respond?
No thank you. She may well, but you are not doing so. Go raibh maith agat. Tá mé ag bogadh ar aghaidh.
It did appear that she wanted a response.
Deputy, thank you.
I am very happy to respond if the Minister wishes me to do so.
Deputy, please. We waited for Priority Questions.