Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands debate -
Wednesday, 11 Nov 2020

Vote 37 - Social Protection (Further Revised)

This meeting has been convened to consider the Further Revised Estimates for Vote 37 - Social Protection, which was referred to the committee by Dáil Éireann. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, and her officials, Mr. Ciarán Lawler and Ms Saidhbhín Hardiman, to the meeting. I thank the Minister and her officials for the briefing document that was provided for the meeting.

As we have the Minister present, officials should not speak during the public session. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not criticise, comment on or make charges against any person or persons outside the House or to an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I advise the witnesses that any opening statement or any other documents they have submitted to the committee may be published on the committee website after the meeting.

To commence our discussion I now invite the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, to make her opening presentation.

Go raibh maith agat, Chairman, and thank you and the members for the invitation to be with you today.

The Revised Estimates for Public Services 2020 were published in December last year. The projected expenditure for the Department in the original estimate was €21.2 billion. Just over €11 billion of this was voted expenditure, paid through the Exchequer, to provide in the main for social assistance payments to pensioners, people with disabilities, jobseekers, child benefit and so on. The remaining €10 billion was to provide for social insurance benefits paid for through the Social Insurance Fund.

In the subsequent period and prior to those Estimates being voted on by the Dáil, a number of decisions were made which required significant increases in the Department’s expenditure. The introduction of the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, the Covid-19 illness payment, the temporary wage subsidy scheme, the increase in the payment for qualified adults, and the extension of the free fuel season required additional expenditure over and above that envisaged when the December Revised Estimates were published. The Revised Estimates, voted by the Dáil in May, provided for expenditure of in excess of €28 billion in 2020, or an increase of €6.8 billion over and above the Estimates published in December. The Further Revised Estimates being presented to the committee today include several components.

Following the formation of this Government, the Taoiseach announced that certain functions would transfer from what was then the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection to the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, now the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Employment rights policy and legislation has now transferred to that Department, as well as legislation on the national minimum wage and the Low Pay Commission.

There are also a number of EU and international issues for which the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will now assume lead responsibility. The details of the employment legislation that transferred from my Department following the Government decision are set out in the Employment Affairs and Employment Law (Transfer of Departmental Administration and Ministerial Functions) Order 2020. The transfer of functions involved 15 pieces of primary legislation in the suite of labour law. The transfer of funding associated with these functions amounts to just over €1.6 million. This transfer takes place on a cost-neutral basis between Departments. My Department’s title is now the Department of Social Protection following the transfer of these functions.

The Further Revised Estimate also provide for the apportioning of pre-5 August 2020 PUP expenditure between the Social Insurance Fund and Vote 37. To ensure that neither the Social Insurance Fund nor the Exchequer are disproportionately carrying the costs, the most appropriate way of apportioning the PUP expenditure during the period from March to August is based on the recipient’s underlying entitlement to a jobseeker's payment.

Accordingly, just under 60%, or €1.8 billion, of pre-August PUP expenditure will be charged to the Social Insurance Fund, with a corresponding reduction in expenditure on Vote 37.

The legal basis for this reapportionment is contained in the Social Welfare (Covid-19) (Amendment) Act 2020. Subsequent to the vote on the Department's Estimates on May, a number of significant decisions were made due to the evolving nature of the pandemic and associated policy responses. These decisions included the extension of the pandemic unemployment payment and the temporary wage subsidy scheme, as well as the introduction of the new employment wage subsidy scheme. By extension, this has had an impact on the provision for jobseekers, which has been reduced due to the extension of the schemes related to Covid-19.

The July stimulus package contained new measures related to my Department that were not included in the May Estimate. These measures included the establishment of a new work placement and experience programme, increased public employment service staff capacity, enhanced recruitment subsidies through JobsPlus, additional provision for the back to work enterprise allowance scheme, the extension of the back to education allowance scheme to recipients of the PUP, and additional places on State employment schemes such as community employment and Tús. While the bulk of the additional expenditure will take place next year, 2020 expenditure announced in the July stimulus package is included in the Estimate before the committee.

I was pleased to announced that, despite the challenging times we find ourselves in, the Christmas bonus will again be paid at a rate of 100% this December. Usually, the bonus is paid only to recipients of long-term social welfare payments who are dependent on their social welfare payment for most, or all, of their income for a prolonged period. The qualifying period for jobseekers to receive the bonus is usually 15 months. In recognition, however, of the impact the Covid-19 pandemic has had on employment levels, and the sudden financial impact on individuals, the bonus will be paid this year to jobseekers and people who have been in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment for a period of four months or more. The cost is broken down into more than €131 million for Vote 37 recipients and almost €258 million for Social Insurance Fund recipients, constituting a total of €389 million for the Christmas bonus. In total, the Further Revised Estimate presented to the committee seeks additional funding of €3.5 billion across a number of subheads to provide funding for the Department to implement decisions taken since the original Estimate was voted.

Finally, as we speak about the Revised Estimates and reflect on the past year, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary work by the staff of the Department during this unprecedented year. As public representatives, we all engage with staff of the Department at local level through our constituency offices and I know that members will agree with me in acknowledging the monumental effort the staff have put in this year at a time of national crisis to ensure that payments are issued to those who need them. To date, the Department has issued 12 million payments to more than 800,000 people under the pandemic unemployment payment. Since the start of October, it has processed more than 200,000 applications. That by itself is the equivalent of processing a full year's claims load in five weeks. It is sometimes forgotten that the Department and the staff have managed to do this on top of everything else they have had to do as part of their normal, day-to-day work, whether that is processing pensions, disability or carer's allowance applications, or all the other payments across the board. It can be easy to take for granted that everything will run smoothly and that payments will be there every week, but a great deal of work goes on behind the scenes to make that happen. It has been a monumental effort across the board by staff in every county to keep the show on the road this year and I acknowledge those efforts.

I thank the Chairman. I look forward to hearing members' questions and to working constructively with the committee in what will continue to be challenging times ahead.

I thank the Minister. Her Department will spend €1,000 every second this year, a phenomenal sum. On behalf of all the members of the committee, and the Members of the Oireachtas, I echo her sentiments in respect of the Department staff and the tremendous work they do.

All of us deal with them daily and all of us honestly believe that if every other Department could engage with Members of the Oireachtas in a similar manner, Government as a whole would operate far more efficiently. While it has been a very challenging year, even with the restrictions and so forth arising from Covid-19, the Department has been very responsive again. It typifies the respect they show Members of the Oireachtas and that avenue of communication, which is so useful in resolving many anomalies.

I invite members to raise issues with the Minister in respect of the Estimate on a programme-by-programme basis. We will go through the seven points of the Revised Estimate. I will ask for questions on each of those seven points and then invite the Minister to answer.

I remind members that we are conducting a detailed examination of the pandemic unemployment payment and its interaction with the temporary wage subsidy scheme and the employment wage subsidy scheme and that we will have officials from the Department with us within the next ten days specifically on that. I ask members, therefore, to be conscious of that in their engagement with the Minister.

No. 1 concerns the €388.8 million for the Christmas bonus, including €93 million for pandemic unemployment payment recipients. Are there any questions on that specific element?

Obviously, I welcome the Christmas bonus, and we need to bring some long-term certainty to it. We pretend it is a surprise every year, as the Minister will know. If it were to be cancelled some year, as we had to do in the bad times, there would be a big kickback. We should just tell people it will be there, factor it in at the beginning and not mess people around.

The Minister stated that people who have been on jobseeker's allowance for more than four months will get the Christmas bonus. Does that include people on jobseeker's benefit?

The Minister stated the bonus is for people who have been out of work for four months. Will the lifting of level 5 restrictions exclude many of those people?

Normally, an applicant has to have been on these payments long term. He or she would normally have to have been on jobseeker's allowance before qualifying for the Christmas bonus. Because of the situation we find ourselves in this year with Covid-19, we have decided that we will pay the Christmas bonus for anybody who has been on the PUP or whatever payment for four months. It is not just four months before the bonus is due to be paid but rather a total of four months since the PUP was introduced last March. If someone has been on the pandemic unemployment payment, jobseeker's allowance or any of those benefits for a total of four months, he or she will get it this year. We are paying many more people the Christmas bonus this year than we normally would.

We move on to No. 2, which concerns the €2.771 billion for the pandemic unemployment payment. Do any members have questions on that?

I came across somebody who was on the PUP. They have a low education level and were working in the events industry. They wanted to go on a one-year course to upgrade their skills. They were not long enough on it to get the back to education allowance, and if they went on a full-time course, they could not retain the PUP, and we checked that. If they went on a part-time course, they could.

Could that rule be amended to allow people to undertake courses, although not degree courses because we would hope that they will return to work, because there are industries in which people have sustainable jobs to which they will return but, as the Minister will know, upskilling is always a big advantage? The events, arts and culture industries are unlikely to be back in full swing for at least a year, especially as they relate to large outdoor and indoor events, unless some miracle happens. Will the Minister consider allowing people in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment whose employment is in an industry that is unlikely to recommence within a year or in the short-term and who want to upskill to do a course? There seems to be an unnecessary barrier preventing these people from bettering themselves.

I thank the Minister for her presentation. She spoke about expenditure on the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, pre-August. Given that the PUP was considered to be an urgent needs payment before August, I assume that people who were in receipt of that payment will not be liable for tax before that time, that is, from March to August. I know that the payment reference period is being extended. The Department will look at 2019, January and February, and January to September. That is really welcome. Can people who were in employment in January and February and whose payments were based on their earnings in that period seek a review based on January to September, the new payment reference period? I know all three ranges are considered but are people entitled to a review in that regard?

My third point is something which will have been raised with the Minister quite a bit. It relates to the arrears due to people. This is particularly important for people who applied in early October, who did not get their payment for a few weeks, and who only got a week's payment when it came through. They were obviously without payment for a couple of weeks in the meantime. When does the Minister expect those arrears to be paid?

I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív on the question of flexibility. One has to be on a qualifying payment for nine months to be eligible for the likes of the back-to-education allowance. Can flexibility in respect of such schemes be considered to allow people who may not be going back to work to go back to education?

I join with the Chair in complimenting the Department, the current Minister and the previous Minister, with whom I had a conversation, on the speed and the scale of the response to the Covid pandemic. It was entirely appropriate and the Department deserves great praise for the speed and the comprehensive nature of the introduction of the payments.

With regard to the earnings disregard introduced in respect of the PUP, are we seeing a big uptake of the facility for people to earn €480? Have there been any issues regarding the administration of it? Is it working smoothly? I know it is an additional layer of complexity but has it been catered for and is it working well?

When did that disregard come into effect? Was there legislation or a statutory instrument in that regard? Are people who have re-established some income allowed that disregard as at this moment?

I welcome the Minister back to the committee. I too recognise her work and that of her officials and the Department of Social Protection. I pay special tribute to the staff in the social welfare office in County Clare who have got through so much work. This year is unprecedented. Many people have fallen back on the support of the Department and I pay tribute to the Minister and her people for that support.

Will the Minister take us through how the Christmas bonus is to be applied in respect of the pandemic unemployment payment? Are recipients of that payment entitled to a Christmas bonus?

I commend the staff of the Department. I remember when the first lockdown was introduced many people's avenues to download forms were cut off. I forwarded well over 1,000 forms to people in my constituency. I am sure all members did likewise. It was incredible to see the speed at which things changed. I have a broader question on the rate of the PUP as opposed to that of jobseeker's allowance, which are €350 and €203 respectively.

In an instant, the amount on which people were considered able to live went from €203 to €350. In light of the recognition that the vast majority of people could not afford to live on €203, will there be a review of jobseeker's payments? Clearly, €203 is not enough for people to live on. Where did the figure of €350 come from? That is the question I would like to ask.

I have one further question. It is on something I have raised with the party leaders both privately and publicly, the issue of the pandemic unemployment payment as against the temporary wage subsidy scheme and the new wage subsidy scheme. I believe we should do everything possible to ensure that as many employees as possible remain on those latter schemes and that employers are encouraged and supported in that regard. We should ensure that employees maintain, insofar as is possible, the same level of income through those supports as they had earned when they were in employment because, as we hopefully transition out of the Covid-19 restrictions and away from the pandemic unemployment payment, we will see challenges arise in getting people back into the workforce. Employers may not have a full week's work for their employees. They may only have one or two days a week. The temporary wage subsidy scheme and the employment wage subsidy scheme are far more effective in transitioning people back into employment than the pandemic unemployment payment.

As I have said from the outset, that is where the focus should have been from day one. Unless we address this now, when the payments are at their current rates, and put a structured transition in place, we are only kicking a grenade down the road which will cause great disruption for the families who rely on this income, for employers and for the economy overall. I will now let the Minister respond to the various questions.

I thank the Chairman. There were a good few questions. I will try to go through them. I will start with the Chairman's. I agree that it is better that employers take up what was the temporary wage subsidy scheme, now the employment wage subsidy scheme. The purpose of these schemes is to maintain the link between employers and their employees. Nobody thought we would be under restrictions for as long as we have been. It was initially thought they would last six weeks, which was then extended again and again. The whole point of the schemes was to ensure the workforce would be ready to be mobilised, that contact would be maintained and that the time might be used for reskilling or upskilling staff. The aim was to make sure that people were ready to go so that the engine could be turned on and that we could get going again whenever the restrictions were lifted. I want to see that continue.

Companies will inevitably hit difficult patches even in normal times. That is why we introduced the short-time working payment, which allows one to work a certain number of days with one's employer while receiving benefits for the remaining days. I want to build on that scheme. We considered it when I was Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation and we worked with my predecessor, Senator Doherty, in that regard. We were looking at how to operate a system whereby companies who may have to lay off staff temporarily due to Brexit could maintain a connection with those staff. We had done a good deal of work, which is why we were able to bring in the temporary wage subsidy scheme fairly quickly. We had some work done on that idea at that time. I agree with the Chairman that this is something with which we need to deal and that we need to look at how it can be improved.

Deputy Ó Cuív talked about courses. If one is doing a short-term part-time course one can stay on the PUP. I take his point that we cannot consider courses that may take a year to finish. The PUP is not a permanent social welfare payment. When this virus is gone, we hope it will no longer be required. We will then move away from it. The reason we wanted people to onto the back-to-education allowance was that they would sometimes take up courses of two or three years.

They would then have no payment if they remain on the PUP because we plan to stop that at the end of March.

Good luck with that one.

We will look at it again in January to see what the situation is like. That was the plan when we changed it last August but, as we know, times change. I take the Deputy's point and we will certainly look at that. If we were going to-----

(Interruptions).

Yes, it would be just a one-year course and we would see how it goes. We were worried that the PUP would stop and they would then have no payment and still be in their college without any income.

Deputy Kerrane mentioned the way the PUP was paid. The question of tax is a matter for Revenue. If somebody earns over a certain amount regardless of its source, it is taxable. It is an issue for Revenue so I cannot clarify that completely.

On that point, there is a time we need to sort out what is and is not taxable. For example, jobseeker's allowance is not taxable while jobseeker's benefit is. Child dependant allowance is not while carer's allowance is. All the pensions are taxable so someone moving from jobseeker's allowance to a contributory or non-contributory pension will be taxed. We have an erratic and funny system regarding what payments are taxable. I accept that if someone is on a basic social welfare payment, even if it was taxable, and had nothing else except a means-tested payment, he or she would not pay tax because it is not liable for USC. None of it is liable for USC. A person does get the PAYE allowance on social welfare payments as well as the basic personal allowance so I think it is time to sort that one out.

We want the Minister to respond to all the questions.

I appreciate that tax is a matter for Revenue but to be clear, when the PUP was introduced in March, it was introduced under section 202 of the 2005 Act. It is very clear from Revenue that anything listed under urgent needs is not taxable so I am trying to ascertain given that was in situ in the legislation. It feels like there is going to be a bit of back tracking here and people will be taxed from March to August when it is very clear that under section 202, it is not taxable.

I am not trying to avoid the Deputy's question but as I understand it, the Department of Finance will have it in the finance Bill and a decision will be made there because it is the Department of Finance that makes the final decision.

I was asked what would happen if a person's PUP was based on January or February income and then changed from March to September. The answer is that the person will get the best of both worlds. It is the best calculation. If somebody got a job in May or June and was earning more than he or she earned in January or February, his or her PUP will be related to his or her increased salary. If a person is not happy, he or she can appeal it.

We had a good few arrears on the original PUP. We have all received calls to our offices. Staff have worked extremely hard so we hope those arrears will be paid before Christmas and we will get them all up to date. Again, the priority was to get the payments out. We then got landed with the increased restrictions so it meant another workload came in. We are working very hard on it and hope to have it sorted before Christmas.

Regarding the income disregard, Deputy Ó Cathasaigh asked about the facility for people to earn €480. I am not aware of any difficulties with it and I think it is working well. It was particularly difficult for the self-employed. Again, taxi drivers come to mind because I spoke to a number of them. They were out trying to get work and there was very little work for them so they were able to get the PUP and allowed to earn up to €480 per month.

That has been very helpful, and for artists too. Some artists who might have got the odd gig were afraid to do it in case they lost their pandemic unemployment payment but we are now able to assist with that. That has been some help to them. It is very difficult for everybody and when one sees them standing around waiting to try to get business, it is not easy.

The Deputy asked when the €480 payment came into operation. That has been in operation since it was announced on budget day.

Deputy Paul Donnelly asked how we came up with the figure of €350. It is the equivalent of a jobseeker's payment for two adults and one child. That is the way we based it. If there were two adults and a child in a household they were getting something like €340, so it was rounded up. That is how we arrived at the €350 figure.

I have raised this previously but when the Minister saw what was going to happen in this catastrophe for people who were working, many of whom owned houses rather than rented them, was consideration given to a mortgage interest supplement, which had been available to 2014 - it has been available for as long as I can remember until it was stopped suddenly in 2014 - to match the rent allowance? The big divider in this society is often between those who have mortgages and those who do not. In that kind of situation someone is getting along very well. They are paying their mortgage and doing everything right but then suddenly hit a wall, so to speak. I do not believe in the policy of leaving oneself to the mercy of those beautiful things called banks. They are private institutions that take one's money off one as fast as they can do it. They are not exactly charitable organisations. Was consideration given to providing a mortgage interest supplement so that the biggest fixed cost that people cannot avoid would be covered, where it existed? Help would then given to all of those who did not have a mortgage while those who paid rent could legally apply for rent supplement.

Another supplementary question for the Minister.

I take the Deputy's point. In terms of the basis on which people were able to get the moratorium on their loan repayments with the banks, the banks announced that they could have a moratorium of six months. For those who wanted to engage directly with the banks, the blanket moratorium stopped and therefore it was up to people who could not pay their mortgages to engage directly with the banks. It is something I looked at but the situation had not arisen. I take the Deputy's point. Why should someone get rent supplement and not look at the mortgage interest supplement? It is a payment I am familiar with that we had years ago and then it was considered to be no longer necessary.

If we are happy with No. 2 we will move on to No. 3, which is the €710.4 million for the temporary wage subsidy scheme. Do members have questions on No. 3? If people are happy with No. 3 we will move on to No. 4, which is the €1.74 billion for the employee wage subsidy scheme. Are there any supplementary questions on the employee wage subsidy scheme? As there are not, we will move to No. 5, which is €38.1 million for the July stimulus package.

I ask the Minister about the work placement and experience programme included in No. 5. Can she give us more detail on that? Will the work placement be like the youth employment support scheme, YESS, where employers come forward and it works that way?

Will there be an increase in payment for people who take part in that?

I have been contacted by a number of people over the age of 66 who could not get the PUP or the enterprise support grant, which, in the grand scheme of things, is a small payment of up to €1,000 for someone going back to work. If someone is over the age of 66, he or she will be locked out of that and will be unable to get the PUP if self-employed. Could there be any leeway to allow those over 66 who are self-employed and returning to work to be able to get some part of the grant? It seems that they are caught whichever way they turn.

The additional 3,000 places on community employment, CE, and Tús are really welcome. I hope there will now be a focus on the likes of CE, Tús, and community-based and local employment service, LES, schemes in the community and not for profit, which are really important. What will this mean for JobPath and whether referrals will end this year? They were supposed to end at the end of last year but that was brought forward and extended by 12 months. Will that now end?

Over-55s can now remain on the CE scheme for only three years. Can there be more flexibility? If someone is 55 years old and goes on the scheme, he or she will have to finish up at 58 or 59 years old. It would be much better if they could stay on the scheme longer when they are in their late 50s and coming off the scheme. It might also be examined to see whether it could be extended to 60-year-olds.

I welcome the additional CE places provided through the July stimulus package. I too would call for more flexibility in respect of participation for people over the age of 55. Perhaps the Minister will consider that.

There is a long-standing issue with CE supervisors and their entitlement to a pension. The Minister has been party to talks on this issue and I would like her to update the committee on that. Perhaps she might give some indication if she could see some solution being provided for the issue of CE supervisors' pensions.

I support what my colleagues have said. In a parliamentary reply of 20 October, the Department stated the 2020 CE budget was €364 million, which would provide for approximately 22,750 places, but at the end of September, there were only 19,315 participants, which leaves 3,400-odd vacancies. That is serious. I was told that at the end of August, there were 2,270 vacancies in the Tús programme. When those two figures are added together, that is 5,000. I understand that names are not being put forward to the CE companies that have vacancies and that badly need the workers but cannot get them because the names are not being put forward. I understand that the reason for that relates to JobPath. I have never favoured JobPath as an approach. I am very wary of privatising and monetising data because it is a game of just calling everyone in and getting paid. If the people who would have got a job then get one, JobPath is paid again. If there were no JobPath, 99% of the people who get jobs would get them in any event. I am absolutely convinced of that and I had the experience of employing people when I was the manager of a co-operative. Most people who lose employment find it again, because the world goes around and they get into employment.

I agree with what my colleague said about JobPath. For three reasons, namely, local services, personal well-being and the national good, we should examine the CE and Tús schemes and ensure that all the places are taken up. We should have a hierarchy whereby if a vacancy arises, somebody new coming in should have first preference, but if such a person cannot be found, the people already in place should be kept indefinitely because there is nobody else to take the position, particularly in the case of the Tús scheme. We should move away from the one-year model for Tús.

Before the Minister comes back with responses, I echo the comments Deputy Ó Cuív has just made. I have a couple of specific questions. The Revised Estimate for the work placement and experience programme is €3.67 million, which seems a very small amount of money. The detail of it has yet to be announced. What are the projected numbers for this year? I know they are more than 10,000 for next year, but is there an opportunity to ramp it up beyond that figure based on demand? What specific focus is being put on to engage directly with employers to ensure that those places become available? This could be a very useful scheme if it is structured properly, but it is imperative that there is an incentive for people to take on this experience without being exploited, and an incentive for employers. They need to be made aware of this particular scheme.

Two other issues have been referenced. First, on the enterprise support grant for people over the age of 66, we have taken a decision where we want people to work longer in the workforce. I know there has been a postponement put on that at the moment, but that is the view of Government, that we want people to work longer in the workforce. Yet these very people in the workforce who are working beyond their 66th birthday were denied the pandemic unemployment payment and the enterprise support grant to get back to work. They are, therefore, being doubly discriminated against. It is going to be very difficult to encourage people to remain in the workforce into the future if this is the approach that is being taken to them during a pandemic like the one we are dealing with.

Second, I echo the comments of Deputy Carey. It would be useful if we could get an update on the community employment supervisors' pensions. This is a very contentious and long-running issue. I know from my previous discussions at the Cabinet that it is not a black and white issue, but it does need to be resolved and cannot drag on much longer.

I thank everyone for the questions, and I will do my best to answer them. On the enterprise support grant and people over the age of 66, the pandemic unemployment payment is payable to people between the ages of 18 and 66. This is consistent with other social protection schemes payable to people of working age who have lost their employment. People aged 66 years and over are provided for through the contributory State pension or the means-tested non-contributory State pension. Anyone over the age of 66, therefore, is getting a payment, whether it is a contributory or non-contributory State pension. They are entitled to one of those. A person in receipt of the contributory State pension can retain his or her entire State pension and employment income. If a person does not have the required number of contributions to receive the maximum rate of the contributory State pension, he or she may qualify for the non-contributory State pension, depending on the person's circumstances.

People aged 66 and over may also be entitled to auxiliary supports such as free travel, fuel allowance, household benefits, packages and the living alone allowance. There are many other supports, therefore, that they are getting. They can, if they are over 66, apply for the employment wage subsidy scheme. They are also entitled, if they have a business premises, to get the restart grant and the restart plus grant, and there are a number of other supports. In terms of social protection, our payments and supports under the pandemic are cut off at the age of 66. We have looked at it but we are still coming back with the same answer, that they are getting the other payments. We are trying to be fair and make sure that everybody gets the support, including those who have lost their jobs and have no other form of income. They have their pensions and all the add-on benefits that come with the pension to help them meet their costs.

Regarding community employment, CE, and Tús schemes, Deputies will agree with me when I say that CE workers the length and breadth of the country do a wonderful job in the services they provide in local communities. We have examined CE schemes. Only a couple of years ago, we increased the age to which someone could remain on a scheme. I believe it is 62 years of age now. There has been an increase in the number of participants in CE schemes and it should increase further from 19,244 at the end of October to 22,700 by 2021. The number of participants in Tús schemes should increase from 3,700 at the end of October to 5,500 by quarter 2 of 2021. The 3,000 additional places envisaged in the July stimulus package are over and above the February 2020 position, with a breakdown of 75% CE and 25% Tús. That is the level we are aiming towards.

Regarding back to work initiatives, we have the work placement and experience programme. It is a very good programme and we plan for 10,000 participants. We are finishing up its details and hope to announce it shortly. Many of us know people who were able to avail of a similar programme in the past and who got good jobs out of it. There are still some issues that we need to address with the programme, but we will announce it shortly. We will also engage with employers and ensure that the programme benefits the employee and the employer.

The CE supervisor issue is a long-running one. We have all had representations on it on foot of a Labour Court ruling in 2009. We have been engaging with supervisors. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, has also been engaging with them. I believe he has met them. Discussions are ongoing between my Department and his. We hope that we will be able to find a resolution to this long-running issue and are working hard on that.

I take the Deputies' concerns about JobPath on board. The OECD has worked with my Department to measure the effectiveness of JobPath. The findings, which were published last year, indicated that weekly earnings for JobPath clients were 17% higher and employment outcomes were 26% better compared with similar individuals who were not supported by JobPath. Given the current level of unemployment and the fact that many people are receiving the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP - unfortunately, some will never return to their old jobs because those jobs will not be there any longer - we cannot let the JobPath contract lapse without replacing that capacity. JobPath contractors provide approximately 40% of our public employment services' capacity. There would not be sufficient capacity within the existing structures to support the anticipated increase in numbers requiring access to employment services without there being a JobPath service in 2021. We have examined this issue and, in light of our situation, we have rolled JobPath out for a further year. We could not have done otherwise, given that we would not have the necessary capacity without it. That said, we have put out to tender local employment services in four areas that do not have any currently. I hope that the local providers will be able to submit an offer to do that work.

I thank the Minister. Before I turn to members, I wish to discuss the over-66s. An argument has been made to me. There is a cohort of people over the age of 66 who have no entitlement to a contributory State pension and who, because they were working, are not entitled to a non-contributory State pension. They have fallen between the cracks but should have been eligible for the PUP. It could have been structured in such a way as to ensure that someone did not get a second payment, which is the case under the social protection rules anyway. This affects a small cohort of people who are being discriminated against. I will not get into a debate now, given that we will revert to this matter when we discuss the social welfare Bill, but I just wanted to make the point.

The Minister stated that she had considered extending the PUP to over-66s. That would encompass the enterprise support grant being payable to them. Does she have a rough idea of how many people aged 66 years or older would be at work, either as self-employed or otherwise? I assume that her Department has examined the cost. Does she have the figures?

It took us two years to find out the fees relating to JobPath. We got them through the Committee of Public Accounts. It is an enormous cost to the taxpayer. One need not discuss how people are treated or so on if one just looks at the figures - €3,718 per person who sustains a job for 52 weeks. People are being referred two, three or four times. Each time someone is referred, the company automatically gets €311. There are then four sustainment fees depending on how long the person sustains employment.

The local employment service, LES, proposed that it could take up to 100,000 people. The Minister knows the wrap-around supports that are included with the LES in terms of well-being and mental health, which are important in the current climate. Those supports are not provided through JobPath.

Will the Minister examine the amounts that these companies are getting? Will there be any change to same, given that the companies will get fees for a further 12 months?

There is a saying in Irish, "Ar mhaithe leis féin a dhéanann an cat crónán". Translated into English, it means that the cat purrs for its own good, although it does not work as well in English as it does in Irish. Will the Minister make the OECD report available to us? I would be interested in seeing the methodology that the OECD used to work out the magic figure of 17%. I have a funny feeling that it was working on JobPath's reports, and what would they tell someone other than it pays very well, given that the contractors' livelihoods depending on giving a good answer? From my experience on the ground, I am sceptical about that figure. One case is not a generality, but a constituent of mine was on jobseeker's allowance and was doing what was technically a part-time course, namely, a Hibernia course to become a teacher. My constituent was called up to JobPath, given that the constituent was on the magic list. This person already knew they were going to qualify that summer, given that they were a native Irish speaker and would not have too much difficulty getting a job as a full-time teacher. I would love to see the report on the salary level that that person earned à la JobPath. It was ridiculous that this constituent was forced in, but the company needs the numbers. It is driven by numbers. At the other extreme are people who, for one reason or another, will never get jobs. They go to JobPath and learn typing skills even though they can hardly read or write.

The cost of JobPath needs to be examined. When it was provided by the State, this service was much less money driven, was much more understanding of people's realities and dealt with individuals as real people.

JobPath is driven by profit because the service is run by a for-profit organisation. It is in it to make money and it is not in it for anything else. Whereas I believe when we are dealing with people who are unemployed, particularly those who are long-term unemployed, a much more nuanced approach needs to be taken so that is not driven by profit but by the personal benefit of the people we are trying to look after. In an extreme case, the person who is going to get the job is a teacher anyway. We would have said that was grand, to keep studying and not interfere with it. People who are unlikely to get commercial jobs would be better put into community employment schemes where there may be a graduated step forward. I do not like this being driven by profit rather than being motivated by the people. Will this issue be reviewed?

Will we be given the OECD report? I am absolutely fascinated to see the methodology. I presume we will be given the report which tells us what the answer is but I want to know the methodology by which the answer was arrived at. The greatest oxymoron we get in the English language all the time is when reports tell us that based on the following suppositions what the conclusions and facts are. However, they are not facts if they are based on supposition no matter how much the supposition is a big part or small part of the report's conclusions. Any scientific approach will tell us that once we start putting in suppositions the conclusions are what we think but they are not hard facts because we have created doubts by putting in suppositions.

I want to add my voice to those of Deputies Ó Cuív and Kerrane. I accept the Minister's contention that now is not the time to shut down any type of employment service but on a fundamental level we should not be privatising employment services. They should be coming back to the local employment service and that is the correct way we should be supporting people back into work.

To be clear, I will not be looking at the pandemic unemployment payment for those aged over 66. I want to be clear because I do not want any confusion. It is not planned to look at the pandemic unemployment payment for those aged over 66 because it was set down for those aged between 18 and 66. They are the people who qualify for the pandemic unemployment payment. I know what the Deputies are saying, and I have the same cases in my constituency, whereby people have businesses and no income because they are closed. It applies to many publicans, let us face it. That is where the problem lies. As I said, we looked at how we could extend the enterprise support grant to those aged over 66 and many problems came up. I take the point and perhaps when the committee does the review it will have the chance to go through it. I am open to any suggestion. I am sure there are not many people affected. I am open to any suggestion the committee comes up with. It is something I am very conscious of also.

Normally what happens when somebody applies for a non-contributory pension is the previous year's means are assessed. Could people who have become unemployed because of the pandemic not be assessed on this year's means rather than last year's means? It would mean they could get the non-contributory pension.

In fairness, this is happening and some of them have. I have to say the Department of Social Protection has expedited such cases but the difficulty is that the pandemic unemployment payment is there to supplement income because of a loss of income. There are people who would have some income coming into the household who have lost a substantial amount of income because of Covid 19 and would be ineligible for a means tested payment for one reason or another, because of capital or property. This cohort is caught between the grants.

I suppose we have to go back to what social protection is about. It is providing a basic income to people and therein lies the problem because they probably have other income. We can go through this again and I am happy to hear and look at the suggestions of the committee members. I know what they are saying and I have seen it myself.

To go back to JobPath, there are 201,000 people on the live register and a further 340,000 people are in receipt of the pandemic unemployment payment. The economic impact of the pandemic has certainly increased the number of people who are likely to require these supports.

I mentioned the OECD report and I am very happy to provide the committee with a copy of it. It is not a problem. JobPath has a proven track record of providing sustained employment. Up to September 2020, more than 280,000 jobseekers had commenced engagement with JobPath and to date more than 64,000 jobseekers have commenced employment during their engagement period with JobPath. In 2018, the Comptroller and Auditor General undertook a detailed report on the JobPath service and, in particular, he examined how the Department of Social Protection monitored and measured the achievement of the JobPath contract objectives and the associated costs. It is notable that the Comptroller and Auditor General made no recommendations on how the JobPath service is governed. He did not see any issue there.

We are facing record unemployment as a result of the pandemic and now is not the time to be cutting support services. JobPath is just one part of the jigsaw. We are also expanding the capacity of other contracted employment services, such as the local employment services, job clubs and EmployAbility. These contracts are also being extended into next year. This will include the expansion of the footprint of community-based contract services, as I said earlier, with four new geographical areas where a local employment service does not currently exist. The Government is also expanding the capacity of job search support services provided by the Department of Social Protection's Intreo offices countrywide. An additional 300 staff will work in the Department in 2021, including expanding the capacity of the Intreo centres to provide employment services and supports with the assignment of an additional 100 job coaches. Recruitment for these posts has started and it is intended to fill these positions over the coming weeks.

The Minister for Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science is increasing investment in apprenticeship schemes, including the provision of incentives to employers to take on more apprentices, and short-term courses by investing in more than 35,000 new education and training places. Young jobseekers can now benefit from the JobsPlus scheme after being unemployed for four months instead of 12 months. We have made changes to the back to education and the back to work allowances. As part of the July stimulus we have opened access to these schemes to persons who have lost their jobs during the Covid pandemic by waiving the waiting period, which is between three and nine months in more normal circumstances. Persons who have temporarily lost their jobs during the Covid public health restrictions can also avail of part-time education programmes while continuing to receive the pandemic unemployment payment, and we discussed this earlier. I also spoke about the additional community employment and Tús places.

There is a bigger picture here and JobPath is only one part of the jigsaw. The total cost of the JobPath service to date is €244.7 million. The total number of people engaged to date is more than 280,000, giving a total cost per client of €873. Delivering 12 months of employment services engagement for this cost compares favourably with the cost of other public employment service provision and provides value for money.

This will go out to contract. Other providers now have time. It has been extended and it will go out to contract in late 2021 or 2022. Now is the time for all of the other providers to put their case together and prepare for the contract for this. I looked at this very carefully because I took on board the concerns of committee members, and I have heard various stories, but generally the figures I have received show complaints are low at only 1,267 complaints out of 280,000 participants, which is less than 0.5%. These are the figures I have been given. At the time we are in, it would not be wise to withdraw a full service such as this that has a role to play as part of a bigger picture. It will go out to contract at some stage next year and it will then be up to everybody interested in providing these services, whether community-based or whatever, to put in a bid to tender for this work.

Is everyone happy with No. 5? We are not going to dwell on JobPath. If we get the report back, we can come back to it again.

Of the 280,000 people who have been referred, how many did the Minister say have got a job?

To date, more than 64,000 jobseekers have commenced employment during their engagement period with JobPath.

Have those 64,000 people got employment that has been sustained for more than a year?

In excess of 22,000 of them were still employed after 12 months. These figures do not take account of the fact that many participants are still with the service and will get a job in the months ahead.

I thank the Minister.

As everyone is happy with No. 5, we will move on to discussing No. 6, the offset of savings of €2.119 million on jobseeker's payment to reflect the Government's decision on the pandemic unemployment payment. Any questions? No.

No. 7 is the €1.55 million due to the transfer of the employment policy and Low Pay Commission funding to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Any questions? No.

We have covered the Estimate. Are there any supplementary questions before we wrap up?

I would like to join in the compliments that people have paid to the staff of the Department. They have been very helpful through this pandemic. They have adjusted very quickly and are very interactive. I wish I could say that we had the same tolerance, understanding and pliability with some other agencies, particularly those who deal with a certain card that people with health issues need to get. It is a very good service but there is an issue.

I presume that a lot of the Minister's staff are following the instruction to work from home. In this context, has the Minister looked at remodelling her Department? At the moment the pensions unit is in Sligo, the child benefit unit is somewhere else, the unit dealing with carers is located in Longford and so on. Has she considered allowing people to work in different places? Somebody may work in part of the pensions unit or whatever but want to work in Longford as it is more convenient for them. I ask her to allow more people to work near where they live so that they partially work in an office of her Department and partially work at home or whatever the case may be in this new hybrid world we are all going to get into. I urge that staff would not necessarily have to work where the headquarters of a particular section of her Department is located. It would be interesting if the Minister would comment on this matter. Her Department has offices in Buncrana, Sligo, Longford, Carrick-on-Shannon as well as more local offices located throughout the country. There are a large number of social welfare offices located throughout the country outside of Dublin. Now is the time to change and allow people to work, where possible, near to where they live or would choose to live if they had the opportunity. I mean that they would be able to go into an office three days or whatever number of days a week for meetings, socialisation and all the rest and then work from home the rest of the time. We need a new model of work.

I thank the Minister for her engagement with the committee. I know that she intends to improve the parental leave scheme by increasing the number of weeks and extending eligibility to more than, perhaps, a two-year period. I ask her, please, to update the committee on the parental leave scheme and payment.

On the exceptional needs payment, I note from the Estimates that the payment was reduced in 2020 as compared with 2019. That is quite unusual, given the circumstances we are in with Covid. The payment very much varies depending on the community welfare officer. There is a job of work to be done in terms of how the payment works. Some officers will give it but some will not, so we could consider providing them with better guidelines.

In the Estimates there is a reference to control measures where 80% of people in receipt of a weekly social welfare payment make debt repayments. Can we have a breakdown of the people and payments concerned?

Social welfare appeals is a consistent issue and there has been a very high number of appeals at the end of this year. Has the Minister considered deploying additional staff or taking additional measures to tackle the issue?

I appreciate that the 15-month qualifying period was lapsed for jobseekers in order that they could get the Christmas bonus, so I will talk about the fuel allowance. I have heard from someone who lost their job in October 2019 but could not get the fuel allowance then, cannot get it now and can only get it in January of next year. With the 15-month qualifying period for someone who has lost his or her job, particularly now with Covid, it means he or she will have to wait 15 months to qualify for assistance with fuel and at a time when the price of fuel is increasing all of the time. I ask the Minister to look at fuel allowance.

Before the Minister makes her closing comments, I refer to the point made by Deputy Ó Cuív. The Minister for Finance made an announcement in budget 2020 that we look at the possibility of staff being able to hotdesk in other Government offices. For argument's sake, that would mean someone who is based in the Department of Social Protection in Sligo, Carrick-on-Shannon or Longford hotdesking in Roscommon or Athlone, if that were closer to his or her home, rather than commute daily. People would still work in a public office but would be able to hotdesk. Has any progress been made on hotdesking? I realise the Minister may be unable to provide details today but I would appreciate it if she could furnish the information to the committee.

There is a huge opportunity now to have more co-working spaces for public servants across the country. I am developing a new regional development plan and, as far as I am concerned, this issue will be at its centre because it is the right thing to do. People are working from home and some people would gladly go into a co-working space in a local town or village rather than stay at home all day because they would have good connectivity, the right environment and the social interaction they need. Many people are working from home and doing tremendous work. A person who works from home has a start time but sometimes no finish time. Working from home encroaches on family life and it is not particularly healthy. Now is the time to do that and I will look at what we can do in the Department of Social Protection. Overall, in the Department of Rural and Community Development, now is the right time, so we need to grasp the opportunity and run with it. Remote working was a concept a year ago but now the need for it has become a reality, so we must consider ways to make it part of our everyday lives. We must accommodate people, so they can live in their own communities, and not have to commute or spend days away from their home or area. I am happy to work with the committee on these proposals.

The Department of Social Protection has many offices. I had intended to visit them but, unfortunately, with the Covid restrictions I have been unable to do so. I think the first office I was going to was in Roscommon because that is where all the records on births, deaths and marriages are kept.

I have a particular interest in that from my time in culture and the arts but we will get there. I will definitely be going to visit.

Deputy Carey raised the issue of parent's leave extension. As the Deputy knows, as part of budget 2021, parent's leave will be increased from two weeks to five weeks per parent in relation to children born since November 2019. As with many of the budgetary measures, there is a lead-in time for its implementation. It requires legislative changes but I assure parents that everything is being done to make this support available as soon as possible. I know Deputies are being contacted by parents who are currently on leave and who want to extend it. Bear with us, there is legislation to go through. The Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy Roderic O'Gorman, will bring the legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas. He is working extremely hard on it and hopes to have it as soon as possible. Until the legislation is enacted - and I look forward to Deputies' co-operation on that - there is no statutory obligation on employers to grant the extra leave. Once the legislation is enacted, parents will be able to take the leave at that stage.

On the payment, a number of changes are being put through on the social welfare IT systems. The Christmas bonus has to go through and there are a number of arrears and different things. This is very important also. We have been prioritising the work on the pandemic unemployment payment and getting the payments to workers impacted by level 5. It is expected that the system changes in respect of parent's benefit will be in place at the end of March 2021. We will make the payment for the leave that was taken. Once the legislation goes through, the parents can take the leave and they will get the payment as soon as we get it processed and the IT systems updated. It will be backdated so parents can take the leave in January. They may not get the money until a month or two later but they will definitely get the money and it will be backdated.

The period during which this leave can be taken will be extended from 12 to 24 months. That means parents with children who were born after November 2019 will have until November 2021 to take the leave.

Deputy Kerrane raised the issue of the exceptional needs payments. It is a demand-led scheme and the money will be provided as it is needed. It is there to help people who need it and I encourage people who find themselves in difficult situations to use that scheme. The important thing about this Department is that it is here to help people. Our number one purpose is to give people that helping hand when they need it.

On the question of 80% of people making debt repayments, I do not have the numbers but I will get them to the Deputy if that is okay. The high number of appeals is probably related to the fact that there has been such a massive number of payments. People have probably appealed the decisions and we are going through those and working with them all on a one-to-one basis. I take on board what the Deputy said about the fuel allowance but I will have to check that out.

I think I have covered everything. I thank Deputies for their co-operation. I will be back shortly with the social welfare Bill, when I will talk about budget 2021.

That concludes the consideration of Vote 37 - social protection. We have put the Minister's officials under pressure over the past number of weeks and I thank them for providing us with information. There will be further engagement over the next couple of weeks in advance of the social welfare Bill coming before the House.

Top
Share