Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands debate -
Wednesday, 4 Nov 2020

Final Report of the Special Committee on Covid-19 Response: Discussion

I ask members to turn off their mobile phones as they interfere with the recording equipment. I also remind them of the importance of sanitising their desk area and seat when leaving the committee room.

We now turn to the main item on the agenda, which is the final report of the Special Committee on Covid-19 Response that was published recently and that has been circulated to members. The special committee was established by order of the Dáil on 6 May 2020 to consider and take evidence on the State's response to Covid-19. I take this opportunity to put on record at this committee our gratitude to the members of the special committee and its Chair, Deputy Michael McNamara, for their diligent work throughout the summer months and for the production of this very important report, which will be so beneficial to us in our work programme going forward.

This report is in a form that enables each of the Oireachtas sectoral committees to continue consideration of the Covid-19 response. As per the Government request, this report and its recommendations will form a priority item for the committee in our work programme for the remainder of 2020 and for 2021. The special committee's recommendations and the issues it deems pertinent to this committee and the Departments of Social Protection and Community and Rural Development have also been circulated to members. A briefing document from both Departments has been circulated.

I propose that at this meeting we consider those recommendations with a view to identifying the key areas we wish to scrutinise and examine over the coming months and to reporting back to the Minister with responsibility for both Departments when we have concluded our hearings. With regard to future hearings, and bearing in mind we are currently still at the highest level of restrictions, level 5, I am requesting that we limit the number of witnesses invited to attend Leinster House and we should encourage submissions in a written form, which we can then consider when received.

Members of the committee and of the Houses have absolute privilege in respect of statements made in either House of the Oireachtas or before a committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I now open the floor for contributions on the final report of the Special Committee on Covid-19 Response.

Five separate issues jump out at me from the contents of the report. The first is the issue of post office payments. As the Covid response has meant a move to fortnightly payments, this has had a big impact on the post offices, which we know are very often the linchpin of services in communities and rural places, in that it has significantly reduced the number of transactions happening in them. It is also having an impact on people who are dependent on social protection payments in that they now have to budget on a fortnightly rather than a weekly basis. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has raised concerns that people in those income groups are finding it more difficult to budget on a fortnightly basis. It is an issue the committee should examine.

Second, I welcome the fact there is an inflection on the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, to include an earnings disregard. This is particularly significant for people in the performing arts sector and supporting industries such as set design, lighting and costume design as well as for the small public service vehicle industry. They will now be allowed to have some earnings and still be entitled to the PUP, which is welcome. People in those industries believe it will be a long time before they are functioning and back on their feet, so this will allow some sort of pathway for people to continue. Many people in the performing arts industry are dying to get back to practice so they can begin performing again, and this provides some sort of pathway for that.

I want to raise an issue that might be more properly considered by the transport committee, namely, the impact on rural communities, in particular, of the shutdown of private coach operators. While other facets of the Covid response were quick and timely, there is no doubt there was a significant time lag in engaging with private coach operators. Like most public representatives, I could point to several places in my constituency where people did not have access to a public transport option and, if they did not have their own car, might not have had other options available to them. Perhaps this is something we need to look at going forward.

With regard to Gaeilge and the islands, I would be interested to know whether there are infection rate figures specific to the islands, given they are obviously a case where it would be possible to pursue a zero-Covid strategy. We are aware the population demographics on the islands mean more people are susceptible to the worst effects of this virus but, on the other hand, we have to balance that against the reliance of the economy of the islands on tourism. A balancing act will be involved, therefore, in deciding whether the islands can be reopened at level 2 or level 1, depending on their specific infection rates, and whether that is going to be practical in terms of the impact on the economy of the islands.

I have a minor point to make on language. Not all of the Covid information was released in Irish and English at the same time. While that is probably more for the coiste Gaeilge to discuss, particularly with the Acht teanga coming down the tracks, this is something the State needs to get better at. It should be a matter of course that any State material that is published in English is also simultaneously published as Gaeilge. Those are the five points that jumped out at me from the report.

With regard to the PUP, I welcome the earnings disregard announced in the budget of €480. It would be interesting to find out how the figure was arrived at. I am aware this is going to cause difficulties for people in the arts sector who may get additional payments, and €120 a week is not really a lot. This is also going to also be an issue for taxi drivers. According to the report, 23% of taxi drivers are aged 66 or over, so they could not access the payment and the only option available to them was to perhaps seek an increase in their State pension. Given the level of disquiet among taxi drivers and their representatives, there are issues in this regard. We need to keep a close eye on the payment, particularly given the cut that is due in January. It would be interesting to find out how the figure of €480 announced in the budget was arrived at.

There have been major difficulties for the self-employed when it comes to the PUP and this issue could be considered later.

There is also a current issue and I have been over and back with the Secretary General on this. Approximately 4,000 applications for the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, last week were refused because the Department did not have a PRSI record for the applicant. I have been inundated with representations from people in that situation. The Department did not have a PRSI record yet these people had sent in payslips.

One constituent sent in a letter from their employer. This person was at work and got the PUP the last time. I am waiting for full figures but I am aware that approximately 4,000 people were affected last week. Whether it is a breakdown of communication between the Department and the Revenue Commissioners I do not know but it has been a messy situation. One person who applied in early October has now qualified and received their payment. They have, however, only received one weeks' worth of payment of €200 whereas this person applied earlier in October. We know from a recent reply I got to a parliamentary question that the system is not even ready for arrears. It is not set up for it yet. While the Department said it will be paid by the end of the year I know from speaking to others it will be next year. To get an update on the arrears with regard to the PUP will be important as well, as people are owed quite a bit of money because of delays.

The islands and the water services are something we really need to look at. I am aware restrictions were in place that came in May in Inis Oírr which turned off the water at 5 p.m. It was off until 10 a.m. the next morning. The last boat came in at approximately 7 p.m. There was, therefore, a situation where people were consistently being told to wash their hands yet on Inis Mór, Inis Meáin and Inis Oírr there were water restrictions because of the constant drought every summer that is never dealt with. People could not actually wash their hands. We have a huge issue there and that needs to be looked at.

Finally, with regard to the islands and services, I am aware there is mention of services provided to the island communities during the pandemic. I am not sure there were any. What is of concern, however, when it comes to the services is GPs because, obviously, in a pandemic that is the most important service. On Inis Meáin, one nurse and one GP come to the island three times per week in the morning for two and a half hours. On Inis Mór, there is one GP. The island has a nursing home and there was one false positive case. I do not think there was any positive case at all but I believe with that nursing home there was real concern. GP services on the island, therefore, are something we could also look at.

I do not see anything in the report about how the Government communicates the decisions it makes regarding the pandemic and how it affects business, particularly. We have seen during the summer where the Government takes a decision in the evening and implements it that night by 12 o'clock. The likes of that has serious consequences for hotels, restaurants, bars, the staff who work in those premises and for the whole area where one takes, for instance, a hotel or restaurant with foodstuff in store for particular functions that may be planned in advance of a decision taken by the Government to close everything down. All that food is wasted. It is vulnerable food. The Government must be cognisant and take into account how these businesses will be affected if a decision is taken today that will be implemented tonight. I do not see anything in the report with regard to that.

First, it was a mistake not to make the bi-weekly payment optional. In most post offices it would not create an issue if people needed to get the payment bi-weekly. It can happen and there can be all sorts of reasons. It is much safer. I am not very happy personally about giving the lump sum of the fuel allowance rather than paying it bi-weekly. There are temptations in giving lump sums to a small minority but we know people are vulnerable; if they get the money in a lump they will spend it. I am not sure it was necessary because let us be straight about it, more people are migrating to direct payments instead of bank accounts all the time. The numbers going to the post office are reducing anyway. Many people would have opted for the bi-weekly payment. I am not sure, however, that was the best idea and it needs to be thought out carefully again. The other thing we know is any change upsets people, particularly those who are more vulnerable. Those people get upset by change and we must be sensitive to that.

Those of us who live in rural Ireland also realise again and again that the big demand is not post offices, it is broadband. Let us call it the way it is. It is 10:1 that broadband is the issue one receives the calls about. I believe I received two calls about the post office. I got endless demands for broadband. Mobile and broadband are the two big issues. There seems to be reluctance in some quarters here to recognise we are modern in the rural areas and that we use broadband. People of 70 and 80 years, and every age, use Facebook and all the rest and watch it every day. There is this kind of myth that it is only young people. Facebook is, in fact, an older person's platform. Broadband remains an issue. I am aware of the work the Chairman has done on it and I compliment it but we need to hurry that up. From the beginning I have said whatever resource it takes just get on with the broadband plan and see if we can cut that from seven years to five or less years. I must also say I am worried and we have debated before that the most isolated areas, the areas in the hills where there are often no mobile signals, will be last on the list. We must take that issue up as a committee.

I hear what is being said about the entertainment and events industries and that is a huge issue. There was, however, an equally huge issue in the beginning that was not dealt with. When the original pandemic payments came out they were based on what a person earned in January and February of this year. The problem was that many of the rural and coastal economies, particularly in the tourist spots, operate from March or Easter until the end of September or October and, thankfully, in more recent years up to Hallowe'en and in some cases until Christmas. The months one will find the people involved in the tourist industry on their holidays are January, February and March. It was a pity the Department did not recognise this issue and say that a person could prove he or she works seasonally and earns all of his or her living in nine months of the year because there are no tours in January, February and March up until St. Patrick's Day. I believe that was a major hit for these areas. There were certain sectors of society. The arts is one big one and events is another. Then we have all the other issues of people in transport. Again, anybody involved in tourism transport will have had the slackest period in January and February and, again, they were caught. Even to this day it is fair to say that people who have got "mobile" fixed assets are not being treated as well as those with "fixed" fixed assets and this has a big impact on the rural areas. People who have buses or limousines or whatever servicing the rural areas and the tourism offering there had the double whammy of the seasonal issue in the beginning and now the fact that, in many cases, they do not have fixed premises and are working from home. They are, however, valuable assets.

An issue I came across which I do not know if anyone else did is with regard to PRSI records. Even with the new schemes, a person must have last year's self-assessment tax not only submitted but the credits credited to him or her. In the beginning of October there was no obligation to have them in. Some people had to scramble to get the tax return in so they could prove they were self-employed last year. That can be a little bit of an issue.

I am glad people have mentioned the islands. In the beginning, the islanders were the first to want to close down the islands ahead of the general population.

At all times, islanders could come and go and all services could come and go. That was vital. We could not make prisoners of the islanders on the islands. The islands did not pursue a zero movement strategy. It was not possible. Workers were coming in to provide all of the services necessary on the island and people on the islands had to go to the mainland. There was movement but certainly the islands remained fairly Covid free.

The issue of health on the islands has been mentioned. One of the big risks, unfortunately, and perhaps it is an issue we should look at in a wider context, is that a lot of the staff of Áras Ronáin on Inis Mór come from the mainland. There was a false case, which turned out to be negative, on the island related to this, as far as I understand. Thankfully, it was not a Covid case. It involved somebody who had come to the island. This is always a risk when going into a vulnerable situation such as a nursing home. To my knowledge, there was no case in the nursing home. It seems a strange change in society, when 40 or 50 years ago we could provide medics and nurses who lived in rural areas. This is one of the big changes, as now we seem to be importing people all the time to provide basic services. We should look at whether there is a way to encourage people to return to the islands, or live permanently on them, and provide these services. It would create extra jobs.

When we introduced the ferry services I started them from the island to the mainland in the morning. This meant the boat was on the island overnight and the staff were employed from the island. There was no point in bringing staff over in the morning on an empty boat. One of the reasons was that it was convenient for the islanders because I wanted to give them the first run on the boat. Another reason very much on my mind was that it would create good permanent steady employment on the island by being island based and, therefore, create a bigger population with more families, which is absolutely vital. We do not want the islands as museum pieces. We want real working communities there.

Inis Mór has a very hard-working GP who has done tremendous work. Inis Oírr has a GP who also works on Inis Meáin. In the old days there was one GP between the three islands. Inis Mór has a doctor but all of the other islands are dependent on resident nurses. It is very important to keep these health services on the islands and, in particular, keep the resident nurses on the island. The islands are relatively well served for emergencies, although I heard that some suspected cases were taken off the islands on the regular boats. I have tabled a parliamentary question, to which I am awaiting a reply, on why suspected Covid cases were taken on the regular ferry services. I got the usual response that the matter had been referred to the HSE. I have asked what steps were taken to isolate those people on the boats. The boats are fairly big and it is probably possible to do this but it is important to find out what precautions were taken. I have heard concerns about it.

We need to look at the islands in their own right, inasmuch as there is some manufacturing on the islands. Allowing manufacturing to continue seems to be a reasonable proposition given the islands were Covid free. It is not like allowing it to continue where people are coming from throughout the country. These are islanders working in a factory and producing goods. The whole trick was to keep it off the islands as much as physically possible. We need to have fine-tuned policies.

I compliment the Department with responsibility for the islands because it undertook to keep all of the ferry services going, effectively with empty boats, in other words, discouraging passengers from the get-go. It was the same with the air service. These were lifeline services. Very few people were travelling compared to normal and it is important that we note all of the lifeline services were kept going.

The issue of water is very interesting. It is the most basic service. Most of the islands have good water services on them. Inishbofin has its own lake. Gabhla off Donegal is interesting because many years ago when we put in the electricity Donegal County Council suggested to me that it would run in the water pipe from the mainland at the same time. It put in the water pipe and the electricity. This is important because the islands with the perennial problems of water are Inis Meáin, Inis Mór and Inis Oírr. No matter what has been done on the islands there is a problem getting enough water because they are limestone, particularly because of the large tourist industries there. This year, they had to bring in water. They have been at this for a long time. They bring in water by boat every year. It is enormously expensive. This needs a permanent solution.

I have put forward a solution but the State needs to get involved, including the Department with responsibility for the islands, in the same way as the State was involved in providing the money for electricity on the islands. It is brought in on a cable, apart from Tory Island. There used to be generators. My suggestion is quite simple. There is an electric cable to Inis Meáin, Inis Mór and Inis Oírr and all of the other islands. I have suggested examining the feasibility of putting in a second electric cable. If renewables are to be produced on the islands, we will need a lot more resilience in our electric cables to take out the electricity from the islands. They are ideally placed in the teeth of the wind. This would do three things at the same time and the Government would fund it through the Department coffers. An extra electric cable would be run to export electricity and provide resilience in case one cable breaks. If the cable breaks at present, that is it, and that has happened. At the same time, a fibre-optic cable and a water pipe would be run to the three islands. Unless the Government makes it a clear policy to do a feasibility study on this, and provide Exchequer funding to do it as a stand-alone project, it will not happen. However, it is the answer to the problem. The amount of water the islands need in the greater scheme is small but compared with the water resource on the islands, it is huge. This would solve the problem once and for all.

No matter how expensive capital projects look in the short term, they last 50 or 100 years and they are very cheap in the long term. We are telling people to wash their hands every minute but there is no water on an island, even in a quiet tourism season. Something we should take out of this is that the State, in the form of the Department with responsibility for the islands, should look at commissioning a study to bring in all of these cables in one go as a package to be funded directly through the Department with responsibility for the islands, and then contract out the work to the ESB, telecoms companies and Irish Water to get the job done in unity. A working group should also be established. It was done in Donegal many years ago and it is a working model.

With regard to what Deputy Ó Cathasaigh said, how that language was treated was an utter disgrace, nothing more and nothing less. It was the usual thing. The leaflet was sent around and it cost a huge amount of money to send a second leaflet. The law states quite clearly it should all be done bilingually. Signage could have been put up throughout the country. Children are going to Gaelscoileanna throughout the country and we are spending a lot of money on the Irish language on the one hand but we are making a joke of it on the other hand. How can we tell a child this is a real language when they only see it in school? The minute the children walk out the door of the Gaelscoileanna the world they see outside is totally different. I noticed the signs around the Houses are bilingual. Once one sign is being translated, they should all be translated. The old ríomhaire nowadays will keep producing them for us no bother.

I agree with what the Chairman said about the special committee and thanking its members for the terrific work they did. They kept us informed when we were looking in with regard to what was actually going on. The questions they asked were very important.

I will start with something close to the Chairman's heart, namely, broadband. It is, for rural Ireland, the number one topic. We can talk about post offices, which are so important as well - and we need to ensure we open and keep open as many of them as possible - but rural broadband is the number one issue. Thankfully, so many firms are now allowing their employees to work from home but, unfortunately, they cannot anymore and they have to look at what broadband is available to them. Deputy Ó Cuív is right that it comes down to phone services. I know many people in Kildare, which is not a million miles away from the capital here, who cannot get phone coverage, which is totally unacceptable in this day and age. It is a huge challenge for us all to ensure that we roll out broadband as quickly as possible, as the Chairman tried to do during his time as Minister. We also need to consider something that was mentioned recently at one of our committee meetings, namely, rural hubs and hot desks, as they are referred to, in our rural towns. We need to give people options such that they do not have to travel or commute but that they have a standard of living and a quality of life and that they can go to their nearest point. This has shown up as an issue during this pandemic.

One of the big issues that has arisen is rural isolation. We have had terrific support from local authorities and local community groups but they have been amazed, judging by the conversations I have had with them, going around the communities to see the extent of isolation in rural areas and people living by themselves who do not see another human being or neighbour for days or weeks. We need to tackle this and ensure that it does not happen again. Thankfully, such groups have been able to provide hot meals, etc., with the support of local authorities and the Government, but we need to look at this as a society. Rural isolation cannot be left like it was before. I have spoken to so many people involved in these groups who when they knocked on doors were amazed at the people they found behind those doors, who were living in isolation for days and weeks on end. This is something the pandemic has shown up and something we cannot let happen again.

I agree with what other members said about the fortnightly payments. Older people in particular find change hard to deal with. Communication is key in this regard. They had been used to getting their payments weekly. They knew how much of their payments was going on solid fuel and whatever other charges they had each week. To manage that fortnightly was very difficult for many people, so we need to look at that and to inform them very early in the day so they can change their habits. As we all know, habits form part of every older person's life. I heard weekly, even daily, "When will my next payment come through so I can manage my payments?" As a committee, we need to look at payments, particularly for older people.

As for the PUP, one issue is those who were under 18 years of age and who were working. A large cohort of 17-year-olds did not qualify for the PUP, as I understand it. They were paying full tax and PRSI each week but did not qualify. We need to look at that. It was highlighted recently on a local radio programme to which I listened. A 17-year-old who had been working for the past year and, as I said, paying tax, etc., did not qualify for the PUP. That is not acceptable. If one is paying full PRSI, one should qualify for the PUP. Surely we should look at that.

Deputy Ó Cathasaigh referred to private operators and transport, which is another major problem. It took too long for us to get them back up and running. When I talked to representatives of the NTA, I was told that a sum of money was promised but that the money was not getting back to the private operators or did not get back quickly enough. We cannot allow this to continue because transport, particularly in rural areas and rural towns, is vital for people to connect with their work.

The PUP is still a massive issue for students. They want to know where they stand on it. As we are aware, most students, thankfully, are now back at college and so on, but many of them had the PUP and they all want to know what about repayments and such. A huge issue for many people is the repayments and any tax liabilities that may be coming up in respect of the PUP.

Other members mentioned the arts and musicians and taxi drivers, who are all directly affected by what has gone on during the pandemic. We really need consider in future the self-employed and how a pandemic has affected them to the degree it has done. I agree with what other members have said in that regard.

Finally, I am actively involved with Text Alert locally. This initiative has shown its worth and how it can work in ensuring, going back to rural isolation, that we do not leave behind those who need us most. That is one thing this pandemic has shown. There is a cohort of people who need protection, and I hope we can ensure that those people are protected in future.

A couple of issues have been identified. One is community supports. I know Senator Wall is coming at this from a rural perspective, as are many other Members. I am coming from an urban perspective. Urban isolation is as serious as rural isolation. One could be surrounded by 5,000 people but still be as lonely as the person who lives in the middle of the countryside. That is a really important thing we have to get across. I talked recently to the management in my local post office and they were chatting about the payments that started to be paid fortnightly. They said some people then did not come for their payments while others collected them on their behalf. The manager was really worried and concerned because that was their outlet. They went to the shop and to the post office and engaged with people and that was the only connection they had. Our local darts club organised meals on Sundays for vulnerable people. The payments only land from Monday to Friday, so we took on the Sunday aspect. I regularly did the Sunday afternoon run for perhaps eight or ten weeks for about ten or 12 vulnerable people on their own. The first day it took me about an hour to do, the second or third week it took two hours, and then it took three hours because they had nobody to talk to. We have to be really cognisant of that when we talk about isolation. It does not matter where the person lives. One can live in a massive estate and still be as isolated as a person in a rural area.

As for the community supports, when the chips are down we in Ireland always come together and support one another. I saw the incredible generosity of people who volunteered to pick up stuff from the pharmacy, do the shopping, cut grass, clean windows - whatever it was people were asked to do, they did it. We have to pull that together in some way. The opportunity now, as we come out of level 5, will be how we capture that again and ensure that that sense of community is not lost. I think that at times during the past ten or 15 years of the recession, the Celtic tiger and so on, people were just so stressed and so busy that in some ways that connection was lost. I think we have an opportunity now as legislators to figure out how we do this, how we support the local authorities, the local community groups, the local community centres, the resource centres and all those people who are there to help and to give us guidance and how we ensure that connection stays.

I wish to raise a few other connected issues. PUP payments for the under-18s were a missed opportunity. We talk about young people going to work or to college or taking on apprenticeships. There is a massive push in respect of apprenticeships. There are people on apprenticeships who are 17 years of age and who got nothing, and that was a shame. On the one hand, we are telling them that they are valued and that their skill set will be really valuable to our country in the next generation and, on the other, that they are not really that valued because they are not entitled to the PUP. We really have to work on that.

The final issue I wish to raise relates to the arts and music. We all like to go out and listen to music, go to concerts and plays and so on. I see a real issue coming down the line for some of the artists and musicians I know.

The past seven or eight months have been horrendous for them because they have lost everything. Their business fell off a cliff overnight and it does not look as though it will come back anytime soon. Many of them say that they got the PUP payments but they also have van insurance, equipment and all the overheads that still continued on which they were trying to keep up the payments. Now they are getting to the stage where they are looking for alternatives. They are saying that they cannot continue like this with the uncertainty of not knowing when they will work in the music industry or the arts industry again and they are leaving. I fear that they may not come back to that. Something we must consider is the supports. When the industry starts to reopen, we will need supports for them and they will need supports to ensure that they can get back into the industry. Individuals operating on a smaller scale who have their own equipment may come out of it a little quicker but there are bigger businesses that have warehouses of equipment and which now face the prospect of being unable to afford their rates and the repayments on their loans to buy equipment, some of which needs to be changed on a regular basis. It is something we need to consider in terms of the community. I see all of this in terms of the community. It is what we do; it is about the society that we build and what type of society we want to see coming out of this.

I thank Deputy Paul Donnelly. Does anyone else want to come back in?

Something that is not in the report but which has had a significant impact on society came to the fore when the pandemic hit. I refer to the abolition in 2014 of the mortgage interest supplement. At present, if one is renting, one can get the rent supplement which basically pays one's rent if one loses one's income. However, lots of people are paying mortgages. Right up to 2014, for up to two years after losing one's employment the interest on the mortgage was paid. That was a considerable safety net. What we hope is that if this pandemic ends, most people will go back to work. This will have been short lived. If one goes into a bank to tell it that one can pay all the interest and only needs a capital freeze, the bank normally will give one that. Anyway, one could make it a condition of getting a mortgage supplement that the bank would provide a freeze on the capital. This has brought forward the absolute requirement and this committee should recommend that the mortgage supplement be reintroduced.

I do not believe all this. Because of the structures we created with the Central Bank being more interested in fiduciary issues than it is in the good of the citizens, at times it is more worried about keeping the banks solvent. I can understand that to a point, after 2010 and 2011. That is all very fine but the individual citizens, who had no hand, act or part in bringing in the pandemic, have to be kept solvent too. It seems we have tackling this at the wrong end, on our knees begging banks to give maithiúnas, breaks and all the rest, instead of doing the obvious thing. Let us be straight about it. If one had no other care in the world and did not have any overheads, the €350 was a real big lift. If one has a family and a mortgage, even if one is getting the child dependant allowance or whatever, those who cannot pay the mortgage and the interest on the mortgage are taking a mega-whammy. This is one way of separating the people with high legitimate overheads, as we do with the rent, from those who do not have those overheads because they are living at home and targeting the money where it is needed to keep people in their status quo. That is all we are trying to do in such a situation. Even in ordinary unemployment, 60% or more of people who become unemployed are re-employed within the year. In the vast majority of cases, if this was a short-term safety net and if people got back into employment, they would not have an overhang of debt from the unemployed period. I am sorry for going on at length about it. Even within my own party, I have tried to raise this issue repeatedly since 2014. I cannot understand how we let that safety net disappear.

Recently somebody contacted me who had unfortunately recently been diagnosed with motor neurone disease, MND. The person, who had been working without problem, obviously has had to stop working. The person went to look for a mortgage supplement or something to help with the mortgage and there is nothing. In those circumstances, with that safety net that we used to have which was called rent supplement-----

It was mortgage supplement.

Once somebody lost his or her job, that safety net worked. That is needed, particularly for somebody in such circumstances of life-changing diagnosis. Such people have all of the stress and worry of how the individual and his or her family will deal with this, how they will pay the mortgage and what will the person leave behind when he or she passes away. It is really difficult. It is very important.

I thank Deputy Paul Donnelly. Deputy Ó Cuív is correct about mortgage supplement. As practising politicians, all of us have dealt with and used that scheme successfully in the past where families have ended up in desperate situations. In fact, an issue I raised only last night is the issue of the central banks and the burden of interest on families. Even if there is a freeze put on the capital, having that burden of interest is a compounding problem that is left for people. It is a way to overcome the particular problem where the regulatory arms of the State say that we cannot continue to have a freeze but most of the banks would be quite flexible if the issue of interest could be addressed. It is something that we need to take up quickly and not only with the Minister for Social Protection. This has implications in terms of housing and is probably a Department of Finance issue. It is something we should probably act on quickly. There is much good feedback from members here this morning.

In looking through the report, there are quite an array of issues in terms of the pandemic unemployment payment. One of the recommendations that has been made by the Special Committee on Covid-19 Response is to also review the statutory instruments that have been issued by the relevant Department. In terms of our committee, 18 statutory instruments related to Covid-19 have been issued over the past seven months. We will have primary legislation being dealt with here on Committee Stage within the next few weeks. In terms of the operation of the pandemic unemployment payment, there are changes coming. A body of work also has been completed by the ESRI in that regard. I firmly believe that the vast majority of people should have been left on the temporary wage subsidy scheme and a wage subsidy scheme rather than being transitioned onto the pandemic unemployment payment in the first place and it would be far more cost-effective for the State, even if it was paying 90% or 100% of that, than the pandemic unemployment payment. For a cohort of people, I acknowledge the only solution is the pandemic unemployment payment. If it is something we are to look at, we need to do it quickly because it is pointless to make recommendations after this legislation is enacted. I suggest that we seek submissions on a tight timeline from both Members of the Oireachtas, who themselves know some of the existing anomalies, and from the public where they have come across anomalies.

Deputy Kerrane mentioned the issue of the over-66s.

Several members, including Senator Wall and Deputy Paul Donnelly, mentioned the under-18s and the anomalies regarding apprenticeships. We could have feedback on these very quickly and put together a short, snappy set of recommendations that would feed into the work of the Minister before we deal with Committee Stage of the legislation. This would be important because there are many complex issues. Some of the changes proposed will benefit people while others will not. Regarding the arts and entertainment sector, in particular, we should be considering this matter seriously because of the complexities that exist. Deputy Paul Donnelly made the point that it is not just a question of income because it is also a matter of paying for equipment and bands and so forth. There was a scheme that took those types of costs into account, namely, the farm assist scheme. Is it possible to design a scheme for the entertainment sector, and maybe for the bus operators and taxi drivers, that is somewhat akin to the farm assist scheme, which allows for income and takes into account the costs but still provides a supplementary income so people have a basic income? It is important that we get the entertainment industry up and running quickly. Not only would it create employment, it would also have an impact on the tourism and hospitality sectors. Probably more important, it would have an impact on the mental health of every citizen in the State. If we could have socially distanced entertainment or any type of arts activity, even through a remote mechanism, it would have a major psychological impact.

I return to the issue of isolation. It is not just a rural issue. It is easy to see isolation in rural areas because people are physically isolated in addition to being socially isolated, but isolation is also an issue in urban areas. I would like to see us move on this quickly and get feedback from our colleagues and the public, with a quick turnaround. This would tie in with the review of the statutory instruments, which we are obliged to review based on the recommendation of the Covid-19 committee.

Senator Paddy Burke made an important point on communication. One of the recommendations of the Covid-19 committee is that the communications strategies of the Departments that are accountable to us be reviewed. Perhaps we should ask the two parent Departments for a report on communications in terms of the various avenues they used. Having done so, we can make an assessment. The ESRI's report shows that about 40% of the population who lost their jobs ended up worse off because of their being in the temporary wage subsidy scheme or on the pandemic unemployment payment. Deputy Ó Cuív is quite right that the main difficulty of many of those concerned was having to service a mortgage. They could have managed if the mortgage issue did not exist.

An anomaly that colleagues came across in respect of the pandemic unemployment payment concerned the Department's enterprise support grant for the small businesses - the man or woman with the van. There was a subsidy of up to €1,000 for restart costs. Some 5,600 businesses claimed this but the actual cost was €5.8 million. Therefore, a scheme with a cap of €1,000 per applicant has actually paid out €1,035 per applicant. I cannot understand how that could have happened. It needs to be clarified by the Department. In the short term, that should be our immediate focus.

Broader issues arise regarding the islands, not just in regard to Covid-19. There is a lot of merit in what Deputy Ó Cuív said. It would be useful if we got feedback from the island communities on what worked and what did not, and the challenges that exist as a result of Covid-19. This is an area we need to examine. I recall being a member of the old Western Health Board and dealing with the issue of public health nurses on the various islands. It was asked whether a premium should be provided to people to work in such locations. This relates to a broader issue that many of us deal with, that is, the challenges in attracting doctors to rural communities. If we accept the challenge on the islands, why can we not accept them in other rural communities?

Part 1 of the Covid committee's report refers to the care of the elderly, going into a lot of detail. It states, "The Committee is of the strong view that future moves to support the older people at home must have, as a priority, a publicly funded and publicly provided model of care that is underpinned by community intervention teams from the HSE." This feeds in very well with our own work programme, which identifies the issues of carers, a carer strategy and the type of long-term solution that is required. It is also related to the issue of isolation. One of the systemic issues highlighted in the report is "The failure to prioritise empowering older persons to remain at home and develop models including smaller domestic-style units integrated into towns and city community areas." That could also apply to villages, where we should be making provision for older people living in isolated rural areas, perhaps in big houses, so they may have access to smaller units of accommodation close to services. This would be far more fruitful for them.

Broadband was raised by several speakers. It is an issue close to my heart. Let us identify what this committee can do practically. There is a lot that we could do. I suggest to members that, as a starting point, we seek a submission from Telecommunications Industry Ireland, the telecommunications infrastructure federation of IBEC, and ask it to identify the key challenges for it in rolling out infrastructure and ramping it up, be it through mobile broadband, wireless broadband, fixed-line broadband or fibre services. We should seek a report from the task force in the Department that examined this issue, and perhaps we could invite the relevant officials in to discuss it.

Senator Wall raised an important issue, that is, the fall-off in the quality of mobile voice services since the outbreak of Covid-19. There was a clear fall-off. Decisions were taken that led to a reduction in the quality of voice services. We need to examine this because an increasing number of people rely on voice services, particularly beyond their domestic circumstances. There are many practical steps we can take in the short term in addition to feeding into our overall work programme. I suggest that we focus first on the social welfare payments and the pandemic unemployment payment, particularly when we are going to be dealing with legislation in this regard in the next couple of weeks.

This matter was raised with me by people in the entertainment and events industries who wanted to go on one-year courses and retain the PUP. If someone on jobseeker's allowance did a part-time course, he or she could retain it, but a full-time course would remove that eligibility. People in receipt of the PUP and who are in certain industries and want to do something useful during the year should not be disqualified from the PUP if they do a one-year course. I am not referring to people doing three- or four-year degrees. Hopefully, things will be back to normal long before that but people who want to do a one-year course should be allowed to do so because there is no good to be gained from forcing them to sit at home when they could be doing a full-time course online. Obviously, all of these courses are online now and people would not be out and about and breaking the level 5 restrictions.

That is an interesting point. The professional artists scheme allows professional artists to claim jobseeker's allowance for 12 months while setting up their businesses. The numbers involved are small, with only 100 participants. As such, its cost is small. I hope that the Department is considering disregarding the past 12 months for people on that scheme and rolling that disregard over for them, given that they have not had an opportunity to gain an income in recent months. Small changes can have a big impact and make a real difference for a small cohort of people. I believe the committee's view is that it should be a short-term focus.

Another issue has been raised by a number of people and is one about which I am also concerned, namely, lump sum payments. Many people do not have the skills to manage them. Regarding fortnightly payments, we have thankfully returned to weekly payments in post offices and I do not believe the issue should arise again. Practical measures can be put in place. We should get feedback from the Department about its contingency in this regard. It would also be worthwhile to get the input of the Irish Postmasters Union and An Post. An Post is doing a great deal of work in financial services. Perhaps we could also get the perspective of the Irish credit union movement.

I suggest that organisations like family support networks and addiction services also be consulted. This situation has posed difficulties. I am on the board of a community drugs team and the issue of payments was raised by support workers, particularly in respect of those at the vulnerable end of addictions and who were getting fortnightly payments. Unfortunately, that money was gone by the end of week 1. There were major difficulties in week 2 and people had to wait for another payment. We could spread our net. There is considerable expertise among the cohort of people who support these vulnerable families and individuals and it could usefully feed into our work.

Are many other committees examining this report?

Fourteen.

While we might believe that much of the report falls in our area, there may be duplication.

No, the report is laid out and sets specific recommendations for each committee. Part 1 of the report relates to all committees. In a separate section, it makes recommendations for each sectoral committee. There are two strands of work for each committee, namely, under part 1 and under the sectoral recommendations.

The committee's remit includes the west. In terms of aviation, Ireland West Airport Knock plays a major role in people's weekly commute to the UK and Germany for work. They travel out on a Monday morning and return on Friday. All of those families live in the west. That matter could fall under our remit, but it could also be covered by the transport committee. The issue of testing and the revitalisation of the aviation sector could be debated. Currently, it is like the main highway has been blocked off. If the main thoroughfare from the south, east or west of Ireland to Dublin was cut off, there would be an outcry. The situation at Ireland West Airport Knock is not dissimilar to that. I am sure the same can be said for Shannon Airport and its region. Our airports are vital to the survival of our regions. Even though we will not debate the aviation element, we should ask the transport committee to examine the impact that the closing of these airports is having on rural Ireland, in particular the west.

The second element-----

Section 9 of the report contains the recommendations for the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications Networks. In fairness, that matter would be more appropriately addressed by that committee rather than this one. We are running tight on time.

I was making the point that we should write to that committee to ask it to examine the impact of the airports' closures on rural communities in the west, including on people who commute to the UK and so on.

That committee will have to make its own decisions on its work programme.

The Senator is a member of that committee. Indeed, we can all be members of any committee. As such, we can attend the transport committee's hearings on this matter. Each committee has been directed to have a specific public meeting to go through the recommendations relating to its sector and to progress them. My suggestion is for the Senator to contribute to that hearing and ensure that his points be reflected. I fully agree with him, as I know quite a number of the members present at this meeting do, but it can only be adequately and appropriately addressed at the transport committee.

The other element is the impact of a four-day working week on communities and how it would pan out during the pandemic. Would that fall under our remit?

I understand that the four-day working week is being considered by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. That responsibility would have been our predecessor committee's, but responsibility has been transferred to the Tánaiste's Department.

Are we happy enough to proceed along these lines? To address Deputy Paul Donnelly's points, because we are now in a level 5 lockdown, we should not restrict our request for submissions regarding any topic to any group. While we will actively seek submissions on broadband and mobile phones from the Department's task force and Telecommunications Industry Ireland, we should also put a notice on our website and have a specific press release issued stating that we are seeking submissions from the public in respect of all of these issues. Regarding fortnightly payments, we can seek specific submissions from groups but we should not exclude anyone. There are many people, including retirees, who have time on their hands and may have constructive inputs to make. They could be at the coalface. As I stated at our initial meeting, we have a responsibility to get the views of people who are directly impacted by decisions and let them feed into them.

There may be members of the public who have very strong views on these fortnightly payments. It would be useful to hear their perspective on this also. We will actively seek submissions from various organisations. All requests that we make for submissions should be published on the committee's webpage and a public notice should be issued to enable members of the public to make submissions on any such submissions, unless the committee decides otherwise with regard to some particular submission we are seeking in the future. Is that agreed? Agreed.

As there are no other matters arising, I thank members for their positive contributions. The secretariat will take note of the useful suggestions made today and I will liaise directly with the clerk to the committee to ensure those suggestions are incorporated in our work programme going forward.

The select committee is scheduled to meet this day week, Wednesday, 11 November, to consider the Revised Estimate for the Department of Social Protection. I understand it will be referred to us this afternoon. I hope we will receive a briefing from the Department before the weekend so that members can consider it over the weekend.

On that point, this is the month of November and we are about to consider the Revised Estimate for 2020. As we have already had the budget with its social welfare changes, can we ask that the Minister give the committee a briefing on what will be in the social welfare Bill which will come before us? To a certain extent, this is going to be an historical exercise. We need to consider the Revised Estimate in the context of 2021, even though it is a 2020 Estimate. The position is farcical. It is bad enough when the Revised Estimates come to us in June but to come in November is unprecedented. It would be useful if the Department did not confine its briefing to telling members what is in the 2020 Revised Estimate given that we have already had the budget. Presumably, much of the discussion will be on 2021 and the forthcoming social welfare Bill. We should specifically ask that the brief include this.

Absolutely. I must lay down the caveat that we will only have two hours to discuss the Revised Estimate. I will not guillotine any debate on an Estimate as I do not believe we should do so. This may mean that we may have to revisit the issue. We must have a break of at least 24 hours between meetings to consider Estimates because of the Covid-19 restrictions. I will be far more rigid in managing times than I was when we considered the community and rural affairs Estimate earlier. I agree that we should certainly get a briefing from the Minister on her future plans for the legislation, as suggested by Deputy Ó Cúiv.

As I said, the select committee is due to meet next Wednesday. This joint committee stands adjourned until Monday, 16 November when the committee will meet in private session on the Microsoft Teams platform. It will meet again in public session on Wednesday, 18 November.

Is there a meeting on Monday?

No, there is a select committee meeting on Monday week and the joint committee will meet in public session on Wednesday, 18 November. I thank members for their time.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.24 a.m. until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 18 November 2020.
Top
Share