Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands debate -
Wednesday, 16 Oct 2024

Vote 37 - Social Protection (Supplementary)

Apologies have been received from Deputy Naughten, An Cathaoirleach, and Deputy Ó Laoghaire. Members are required to participate in a meeting remotely from within the Leinster House complex only. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or on silent mode. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or entity outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

The purpose of the meeting is to consider the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 37 - Social Protection. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Humphreys, and her officials to the meeting. I invite her to make her opening statement.

Before I begin, on my own behalf and that of my Department, I extend our sympathies to the committee's Chairperson, Deputy Naughten, and the Naughten family on the sad loss of his brother John.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and members for the invitation to present the 2024 Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Protection. I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate of €875 million for 2024. The purpose of this Supplementary Estimate is to address a shortfall in funding for my Department. This is required principally due to the range of cost-of-living once-off payments that were announced as part of budget 2025 and the associated additional expenditure on Vote 37 in 2024. This range of once-off cost-of-living measures includes an autumn bonus, a fuel allowance lump sum and a lump sum for people living alone. It also includes lump sums for our carers, people on disabilities and those on the working family payment. There will also be two double child benefit payments, a child support payment, which was previously known as the increase for a qualified child, and a Christmas bonus. I will shortly set out the specific details of these payments, including the dates and the number of recipients.

We are all deeply conscious of the cost-of-living challenges that continue to face so many households. It is heartening to note that inflation has moderated significantly over recent months, with the CSO’s latest release showing an increase of only 0.2% in the 12 months to September. We are still dealing with a sharp spike in inflation, however, caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, with prices in Ireland having risen by 14% since then. The consequences of this spike are being felt by families throughout the State and have a knock-on effect on the cost of every household’s weekly shop. This is especially the case for those on fixed incomes, such as pensioners.

This Government has always supported those who need assistance the most. During Covid-19, the Government invested unprecedented sums in our health system, in supporting businesses and, through my Department, in supporting those who had lost their job. While the rise in inflation has, thankfully, abated, prices remain high and this is something of which the Government was conscious when framing budget 2025. I am delighted a core element of the social welfare budget remains a cost-of-living package designed to continue to support people in every community in Ireland. These additional payments made through October, November and December will put money into the pockets of older people, working families, carers and people with disabilities. In framing the budget, our aim was to ensure the support being given would be delivered in a timely manner, benefit households throughout the State and include key targeted supports. In 2024, these supports are estimated to cost €1.4 billion, of which €921 million is for Vote-funded schemes.

The cost-of-living supports that are paid to people in receipt of payments from voted schemes are funded entirely by the Exchequer. As members will be aware, there is a current-year surplus in the Social Insurance Fund. This means the cost-of-living supports paid to those on social insurance schemes have been funded from the Social Insurance Fund without recourse to funds from the Exchequer. As the cost of these supports was not included in the original Estimates for the Department, and unless equivalent savings on other schemes meet the entire cost, a Supplementary Estimate is required. In the briefing material provided to the committee, we have separately included the additional expense of the cost-of-living supports, including the Christmas bonus, to be paid for each scheme, showing the effect of these supports on the requirement for a Supplementary Estimate. This table also provides the outturn position on the various schemes prior to the payment of the cost-of-living supports, which eases comparison between the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate. I hope the committee will find this approach useful.

The balance of the Supplementary Estimate is required to meet a net overspend on the schemes and services delivered by my Department. In February of this year, a Revised Estimate of €25.6 billion was considered by the committee for projected 2024 social protection spending. This Estimate was based on Government decisions that had been made at the time. I have provided the committee with details of all schemes where the projected end-of-year Vote expenditure deviates from that projected in February 2024. I will now go through the key issues behind that in a little more detail for the committee.

The Government has provided a significant response to support social protection recipients in the face of the ongoing cost-of-living pressures that affected people during the year. Additional payments totalling almost €1.4 billion, specifically focused on mitigating cost-of-living pressures, will be made this year. Following the cost-of-living package announced as part of budget 2025, my Department will pay the following additional payments between now and the end of the year: an autumn double week bonus to be paid this month, a €400 disability and carer's support grant to be paid in November, further living alone and fuel allowance lump sums to be paid in November, more than 46,000 working families to get a €400 lump sum payment in November, €100 per child lump sum payments for those receiving a child support payment from the Department, two double child benefit payments for 1.2 million children in November and December and, of course, the Christmas double payments for more than 1.3 million people.

The position of the Social Insurance Fund in 2024 is again very healthy. As a result of our exceptionally strong labour market performance this year, the Social Insurance Fund’s PRSI income to the end of 2024 is projected at almost €17 billion. Gross fund expenditure in 2024 is now projected to be just under €13.3 billion, including expenditure for cost-of-living supports in quarter 4 in respect of Social Insurance Fund schemes. This means no Social Insurance Fund subvention is required from the Exchequer in 2024, and the Social Insurance Fund will carry forward an accumulated surplus currently estimated at more than €3.6 billion into 2025. I am sure the members will agree this is welcome news, but a surplus is important given the future financial pressures we face with our changing demographics.

Taking account of the cost-of-living measures, overspends and underspends on core schemes and the continued support to assist those under the EU’s temporary protection directive, overall social protection spending is projected to be €27.1 billion this year. This is a difference of €1.54 billion over the February 2024 Revised Estimate. Not all of this €1.54 billion is being funded through the Supplementary Estimate. There is a funding requirement of €665 million in respect of Social Insurance Fund schemes, which is funded by the 2024 surplus in the fund's income. This will more than cover the additional estimated expenditure on social insurance schemes.

Taking account of this, the total Supplementary Estimate required to meet the shortfall on voted schemes is €875 million. This €875 million comprises an additional €930.8 million for schemes and services funded from Vote 37 and a saving of €5.7 million on administration. Combined, this amounts to €925 million of which €49.9 million is offset by additional appropriations-in-aid receipts.

The need for this Supplementary Estimate is driven by additional expenditure of €921.5 million on cost-of-living payments on voted schemes. However, excluding these once-off measures, we estimate an underlying saving of €61.5 million on a range of schemes funded from Vote 37, mainly due to a stronger labour market and lower live register. The net amount sought as part of this Supplementary Estimate is therefore, as I have said, €875 million.

Before I conclude, as we approach the end of yet another busy year, I just want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the dedicated work of the people who work in the Department of Social Protection. During our time in government, the Department of Social Protection team have delivered again and again to support and protect our people. My Department has supported people through a series of crises - through the worst of the pandemic, then with the cost-of-living challenges and finally supporting those arriving from Ukraine. However, behind the headlines, this support is delivered day after day, week after week with professionalism, helpfulness, and speed. As we speak, the Department of Social Protection staff are working to deliver the first autumn bonus payments to customers in a couple of weeks’ time. I want to recognise the extraordinary efforts of the Department’s policy, IT, and operational teams to ensure all the payments are made. Payments will be made to hundreds of thousands of people and this is in addition to all the normal work of the Department as it supports our citizens. We can sometimes take it for granted that all of this will happen on time and on schedule and the money will just automatically land in people’s bank accounts or post offices. That is not the case. It takes a huge amount of work by a lot of people.

I want to use today as an opportunity to record my thanks to the staff of the Department of Social Protection all across the country. I have been in this Department for four and a half years and it has been a privilege and an honour to work in it. We all deal with people through constituency offices and no more than ourselves, Department staff cannot solve every problem, but they do their best.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank every member of this committee for their professionalism, courtesy and dedication on behalf of the people they represent and the support they have provided to me as Minister in two important Departments. I thank members for allowing me that opportunity. I am happy now to take any questions from the committee on the Supplementary Estimate.

I thank the Minister. Flattery gets you everywhere, as they say. I will now invite members to discuss the Supplementary Estimate.

People watching in are often confused by the Vote and the Social Insurance Fund. The Minister and I understand this. For the record, can she confirm, in simple terms, that the Vote covers the expenditure on schemes that are, for example, are means-tested, etc.? The Social Insurance Fund is money people get as of right as they have paid social insurance. What the Minister is telling us today is that between the two schemes, €1.4 billion is needed. That is more than the total amount of one-off payments between the two schemes.

The reason for that is that the Social Insurance Fund has done better than anticipated and, therefore, the Department was able to pay €600 million.

We were able to pay €665 million.

The Department was able to pay that out of the Social Insurance Fund and still have an increasing surplus at the end of the year in that. That is now a €17 million rainy day fund. If unemployment was to go up, those finances are there in the Social Insurance Fund.

The Deputy is correct. The surplus we have now in the Social Insurance Fund is about €7.5 billion.

That is in total.

In total. There is a €3 billion surplus this year-----

-----after we pay out. With that accumulating on top of what is already there, it is a €7.5 billion surplus.

The Department has a contingency fund effectively if the demographics go wrong or if unemployment increases and as pension numbers increase. The Department is on the right side of this. How does that €7 billion surplus, or reserve fund, compare to the last set of forecasts which were better than the previous set? Did the Department expect to have €7 billion at the end of this year, having been so generous? By the forecast saying the Department would have €3 billion or €4 billion in the accumulative fund? This has been fascinating me for a long time.

This has fascinated me, too. I asked the exact same questions the Deputy has asked. I understand we have more than was projected in the last review of the Social Insurance Fund, which I believe was in 2015.

I apologise, it was published in 2020. I always go back to see what was said 15 or 20 years ago because I am always told the short-term projections may not be as accurate but the long-term projections are always right. The 2020 report had not anticipated quite such a surplus in the Social Insurance Fund, but we have 2.7 million people working and we have never had so many in the workforce. That might explain why we are doing so well.

The key to the out-performance is not that there are fewer pensioners drawing a pension or fewer people drawing social insurance benefit; it is that employment has increased and it could not have increased if it were not for a high number of people coming into the country and working productively in the economy. It is a simple mathematical figure. All of these people, whether they be native Irish returning emigrants or people who have come in, are paying into this fund and as it is a pay as you go system, they immediately have an effect on saving for the rainy day.

The Deputy is absolutely right. If we did not have the contribution of people who are coming to this country and working and contributing to our Social Insurance Fund,

we would not have huge surpluses we have today. There are 500,000 working immigrants who are paying PRSI. I had a figure at one stage but I believe they have contributed €1.6 billion or €2 billion to the Social Insurance Fund. I will have to come back to the Deputy on that but it was a substantial amount when-----

It is a significant amount of money.

The other issue that has been a concern to me is that our focus is the need to support families. Every child growing up is potentially a worker and every worker is a contributor. Most people contribute from their 20s to their 60s. Some are contributing much later; way beyond that. For the bulk, those are the years they are contributing. If our population begins to decline, then we as a country either need to bring more people in or our Social Insurance Fund is going to decline. Therefore, I have to say that I welcome all the child supports and the child benefit. People have argued about means testing it. There are many good, logical, economic reasons why that is not the simple answer. The one thing we need in this country in the long-term, long beyond when some of us will be around, is children growing up and contributing to the economy. If somebody is now ten years of age, they could be contributing to the economy in 70 years' time. If I live that long, I will be 140-odd. Please God. My point is it is a long-term measure. Everybody keeps focusing on the fact that there will be more pensioners. We know that and there is not much we can do about it, because that is the system.

We need to keep the young people coming forward and contributing to keep the pensioners.

And to keep employment growing. When I was going to school, and that was a long time ago, I remember the science teachers and so on telling us that everything would be automated and we would be free every day.

It would basically be all sunshine and we need not work because machines would do everything. I do not know how many people would have been employed in the economy in the sixties. We thought things were going well but now we are in a much more automated world and AI and all the rest is coming but the amazing thing is that most of these things create more opportunities in terms of employment than they destroy. Now they definitely changed the employment pattern, because the things that were being done by people are now being done by machines, but what happens is a different type of job replaces them. There may be people writing the scripts because AI does not work on its own. It does not really think. It follows a very sophisticated programme that somebody has to input, devise and whatever. Therefore, I believe we can maintain employment.

The Minister also seems to be telling us something in the round, which is good news. The Estimate for the Department at the beginning of the year was bang on target, give or take that it is spending a very large sum of €13 billion and if it had not given the one-off payments it would have money to give back to the Exchequer and there would be no Supplementary Estimate. That is very good news. I think I am correct in that. That is a tribute to the forecasting of the Department. One thing I had to get my head around previously was that if a Department was spending €12,000 million, then €1 million out of that is 1 out of 12,000 which is equivalent to someone arguing that you had overspent or underspent €1 out of €12,000 if it was day-to-day expenditure in a household. You might say that is irrelevant but the accuracy of the forecasting is commendable and it is a great help.

I would like to raise one caveat, however. There is something I notice every year and have always thought it a bit strange. The Christmas bonus is not put in the Estimates. The chance of the Department not giving a Christmas bonus, particularly in an election year, and even with the chance of Sinn Féin in government. it would give a Christmas bonus-----

I would probably give two or three.

This is the point I am coming to. The chance of not giving the Christmas bonus is nil in reality. Therefore, why is it not included in the Estimate and be done with it? Why not just institutionalise it after all of these years? There is an old saying in the Irish language, “Ná dein nós agus ná bris nós”, which translated into English means do not make a habit and do not break a habit. One-off payments are becoming a habit. They came in during Covid. The longer this goes on, the more we will be forced into a situation where de facto the Government will not be able to get rid of a whole plethora of these. They will have to be factored into the arithmetic because some year we will not be as flush as this year but the problem for people living on welfare payments will be the same.

I welcome what the Minister did on the carer’s allowance. I will not be in the Dáil for the next term, so I will make my point here because the debate on the Social Welfare Bill was curtailed. I have to record that I am very disappointed we have not seen reform of means testing in my time. One thing that really woke my consciousness to means testing and how pernicious, old-fashioned, regressive it is and how it inhibits people from bettering themselves was way back when I was working in Joyce Country years ago as a co-op manager. My view has not changed. There has been some small tinkering with it but we need a radical reform now. We will send the Minister a committee report in the next week or two, I hope. The Department, for some reason, is very reluctant. I think the officials in the Department are great and I stand by everything the Minister said but at a policy level I have always found resistance. Many of the changes we need, rather than costing money, would cut bureaucracy and also stimulate more activity which would generate more money in the economy but also for social welfare. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face because there are attitudes here which I think are very regressive that would never be accepted by the tax paying public. If you told people we would penalise them 100% for earning more money they would say that was outrageous but effectively that is what happens to people at the lowest end.

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. I thank the Minister for her indulgence. It is a long question.

I will start at the last point first. The means test is something we have discussed on a number of occasions. I am on the same page as Deputy Ó Cuív on this. I think we could make some very small changes that would make a huge difference but before we can make those changes we had to carry out this review. We have over 90 schemes and a significant number are means tested. Each has its own means test. The purpose of the review was to look at the different schemes and to identify any issues around the application of the respective means test. It is complex and detailed work but the review is currently being finalised and will be given to me shortly. Some of the review’s initial findings did inform my thinking in the context of the social welfare package. That is why I once again increased the income disregards for single people on carer’s to €625 per week and couples to €1,250. I was keen to address the issue of the amount disregarded when a recipient of a non-contributory State pension, blind pension or disability allowance sells their home and moves into care. The income disregard is currently €190,500. I am glad that as part of budget 2025 I was able to increase this to €337,500 to reflect the current average cost of a house in Ireland. That will help some people.

Means testing is complex and detailed. It has to be undertaken to accurately estimate the impact from an inflow and cost perspective of any potential changes. We have added material to the review from this committee. I know my officials were in with the committee. I am looking forward to receiving the committee’s report. I hope to have the means test review ready shortly. I will be happy to share it with the committee. It is an important thing. I agree with the Deputy.

I always talk about, as does the Deputy, a situation where there is a qualified adult. There is someone on a pension and they are claiming for the wife or their partner, I should say, on the pension. They put the money into the joint names and then they are means tested. If you keep it in your own name, it is fine but if you put it in joint names, and everyone is encouraging you to do it for inheritance purposes or whatever for when you pass on-----

It is good practice.

It is good practice to do that. However, that is a case that does come to mind. Many people have been in my constituency office about this and you feel sorry for them in many respects, and it is mainly women. They find that they have no income of their own because of that rule. It is something I would like to address at some stage, if possible.

The Christmas bonus requires a Government decision. The Deputy knows all this, but I will sell it to him anyway. We have not always given a Christmas bonus.

In 2011 and 2012, we did not do so but generally we do. That is the way the system is and the Deputy knows it has been working that way for a long time.

The other thing was the lump sum payments. They really do make a difference.

It is a few bob in people’s pockets and it is the same thing with the Christmas bonus. People go shopping. There are always pressures at Christmas time and it does help.

The Deputy also mentioned the child benefit. He is correct that we need to support families, including working families, and children. In this regard, the hot school meals programme has been very successful. After our last call, 900 schools were interested. About 400 have not expressed an interest but we are engaging with them. The plan is to have a hot school meal provided in every primary school by the end of 2025. This is on track. I am very keen on providing hot school meals to children. It helps with their educational attainment. We have set up a fund of €1.3 million to address holiday hunger. We are considering a pilot scheme to determine how to help children who do not have the benefit of a good meal when they are not at school.

The core weekly social welfare rates are going up by €12, focusing on lone parents and on tackling child poverty. The child support payment is to be increased, going up by €4 per week for those under 12 and €8 per week for those over 12. The increases will mean the payments will be €50 per week for the under-12s and €62 for the other recipients. That is a good support for low-income families with children.

There is a €60 increase in the working family payment threshold. We are introducing a newborn grant of an additional double child benefit - a payment of €280. On 1 January, you will get the normal €140 and an additional double payment of €280. That will be a help. Now that I am a grandmother, I see the price of buggies and such things. They are not cheap and there are plenty of costs involved.

There is a series of bonus payments that will also help families with children. These are the October bonus, the Christmas bonus, the working family payment bonus, the fuel allowance lump sum, the €100 qualified child bonus, and the two double child benefit bonuses before Christmas. I agree with the Deputy. He was a co-op manager and I was a credit union manager, and I can tell him that although there was talk of millionaires, I did not see too many. I saw many people who were damned glad of the payment. If they were means-tested, they would not get anything. The payment does make a difference.

The child benefit was a transformational payment that came in in the 1950s or earlier and it made a difference.

The 1930s. That is going back a good bit. I remember the child benefit coming to my own house. It was my mother’s money and that was it. It was well minded and well spent. It was spent on the children. I was speaking to somebody last night who said the benefit does make a difference. It just allows people to get the extra things or supports they need for their children, such as an additional visit to a speech therapist. Investing in our children is the right thing to do. We have continued to do that in the budget.

The last point concerns the Social Insurance Fund. The actuarial review we carried out in 2020 projects for a long-term deficit by 2034. The short-term one is broadly in line with the forecast, but it is probably worth going back. Things change. One can forecast all these things, but the high employment-----

We are on the right track.

-----figures we now have mean we are in a happy position of surplus. Having said that, the Deputy knows I have taken action through very small increases in PRSI. That is the right thing to do-----

-----and this is the right time to do it. For the next five years, we have a very clear pathway on PRSI and how we can provide for the future in this regard. It will not always be like this. The Deputy and I are around long enough to know that and we need to prepare for the rainy day.

I have just one comment, just in case anybody misunderstood what I said. I welcome the one-off payments but the more they are paid, the more necessary it is to have a structure. I have said time and again regarding the Christmas bonuses that their structure should be such that nobody will be able to say in a future year that, because the Exchequer is a bit short, they will not be paid. People are beginning to depend on these payments. They are a great idea as many people on welfare are struggling. It will be great for them to have a little extra in a few weeks when the lump sum comes. If you get the same amount every week, you may not save anything. The bonuses are a great idea but I worry that if they are paid out for a long time, somebody will, at the stroke of a pen, say they cannot be afforded in a given year, meaning those anticipating them will be caught short. That is my concern and it is something we all need to reflect on.

I agree with the Deputy on that. We have paid out the lump sum. We paid two lump sums last year and gave the spring bonus. The payments are being made available again this year. It will be up to the next Government, of course, to address this. The payments are having a huge impact in reducing poverty. They certainly have a place in people’s pockets and, as we know, it would be hard for anybody to take them away.

I want to start off by referring to the broad one-off payments the Minister mentioned. They do not reduce poverty but give a nice boost in the run-up to Christmas. There is relief more than a boost, in that people are relieved that they will have an extra payment, be it before Christmas or before the children go back to school. These payments are really important to people and do make a difference. They take the pressure off people. However, according to Social Justice Ireland and the Combat Poverty Agency, hundreds of thousands of children are in consistent poverty. In a society with a surplus of billions of euro, we are not tackling this. This does not seem to be changing for the affected families. We need to consider this and ensure the one-off payments made through the budget in a given year are not taken away the following year or in the years thereafter, thus ensuring people are lifted out of poverty. Fundamentally, this needs to happen.

Are there people who were in poverty one year, two years or three years ago who have been lifted out of it? Of course, there are, because so many people are now in work. People are lifted out of poverty through work but those with disabilities who cannot work and rely exclusively on social welfare payments, whom I mentioned last night, can be in consistent poverty. Many people who become unemployed will have a safety net, such as some sort of payment, savings or the capacity to generate some income. Over a period, this depletes to nothing, leaving the person with basic payments. Particularly in the case of those with disabilities, we have to be really careful to ensure payments are enough to give a quality standard of living. If I were to single out one group of people as being absolutely in need of a consistent payment to give them a proper standard of living, it would be those with disabilities. I was talking to a member of a disability group in Dublin 15, BCIL, and they said there are many incidental payments that are taken for granted. They said there are tasks that able-bodied people do not have to pay for because they do them themselves and that if you are able-bodied, you can do an awful lot of work in your home. They outlined the difficulties if you do not have the payments.

It could be something as simple as cutting the grass, which costs maybe €20, cleaning the windows or cleaning your house. We had representations from carers. The vast majority of the carer's role is not about cleaning your house, it is about the shower, medication and food, but there are no supports in place for people with disabilities for cleaning their homes. There are some but provision is very limited, as they admitted themselves. The vast majority of carers do not provide that type of home care. If the State is saying that the best place for people to be is in their home and we will support them to be in their home, then we need to ensure that they can be sustained in their home. It starts at a very basic level of what a person's income is. It needs to be looked at more consistently.

I will just run through a couple of the issues that we raised, which I also raised with the Minister last night. We put in a number of submissions to establish a pay-related social insurance rebate scheme. Could we have a comment on that? On the pay-related carer's benefit, which prevents those who have to give up work for care from seeing their income fall off a cliff edge, we are saying the maximum payment could be something like €450, tapering down to a payment every six months. When something happens and a person has to go and care, sometimes it just happens overnight. People have to stop work overnight. There needs to be something in place to ensure that their income does not fall off a cliff edge. They are already dealing with some really serious issues themselves and caring for people. We can support them so that their income does not fall off a cliff edge. It is one less worry they would have to think about.

On making carers wait, I raised this yesterday evening. The Minister said that it is not straightforward and would take time. We have a note here from Family Carers Ireland who understand from their engagement with the Department that systems have been updated and the new disregards can be easily integrated. It is not clear why carers must wait ten months for the new disregards to take effect. Maybe the Minister would make some comment on that.

I agree with Deputy Ó Cuív on the abolition of the means test for carers. It needs to be done and we need to move forward with it as quickly as possible. We all come across instances where people are excluded from it for very small amounts of money, or are given very small payments. I raise this case because it puzzles me. A woman in my constituency had to give up work for her mother and faced that cliff-edge. She had to travel over to the far side of the city. She was awarded €10 per week. What would that cover? It would not cover petrol for two days, going across. It absolutely needs to be looked at. The job she is doing, if the State had to step in and do it, would pay far more than what we would give in terms of a carer's allowance.

The introduction of a leave scheme for parental bereavement was included in Sinn Féin's alternative budget. We would make a statutory provision for two weeks' paid leave for parents following the loss of a child. I find it really strange that we do not have something like that in place. On energy costs, we are looking at extending fuel allowance eligibility to recipients of the working family payment. The last issue is a report on the social welfare rates to protect those who rely on them from poverty. Going back to my first point, a minimum essential standard of living is needed to protect people from poverty and provide rate adequacy across the social welfare system. Social Justice Ireland and the combat poverty agency are also calling for that.

I thank the Deputy. On the first issue regarding the poverty assessment, the CSO measures consistent poverty. As per the CSO's analysis, one-off measures do reduce consistent poverty and those at risk of poverty. Consistent poverty as measured by the latest SILC survey is at its lowest ever level, at 3.6%. The at-risk-of-poverty level would have been at 13% without the one-off measures. With the one-off measures it is now at 10.6%. The Deputy referred to Social Justice Ireland. In its pre-budget submission and its post-budget analysis, Social Justice Ireland called for an increase of €25 per week in all weekly social welfare payments. This would cost approximately €1.9 billion. However, the total Department of Social Protection budget package was worth €2.6 billion, with €1.2 billion for social welfare measures for next year and €1.4 billion for the cost-of-living measures, the lump sums we are paying out now. If I adopted what Social Justice Ireland was calling for, what measures or cost-of-living payments would I not have included? There are choices to be made here. Looking at the package of measures I introduced, a lone parent family with two children will experience an increase of €2,424 in their income. A carer caring for one of their two children will experience an increase of €2,906 and a person with a disability living alone will see their income increase by €1,778. These increases are all far more than what a €25 weekly increase would have delivered these individuals. Social Justice Ireland also called on us to ensure that weekly social welfare payments are benchmarked to movements in average earnings. Benchmarking already provides an input to Government decisions on budget measures. The smooth earnings approach ensures the State pension contributory rate keeps pace not just with the average earnings but also with inflation. I have to add that Social Justice Ireland also welcomed the cost-of-living supports and the increase in the child support payments. It welcomed the adjustments to the carer's allowance, fuel allowance, domiciliary care allowance and working family payment. All of these measures were only possible due to the overall package of measures that I introduced. Were a €25 social welfare increase announced, most of these measures would not have taken place.

The Deputy referred to disability. We have announced a number of changes under the budget to address the additional cost of disability, including increases to personal payment rates for people on long-term disability and lump sum and double bonus payments. Indecon's Cost of Disability report did not actually recommend a cost-of-disability payment. It found that the additional costs of disability run across a number of areas of expenditure, including housing, health, education and transport. The report concluded that a whole-of-government approach is required to address the cost of disability. As the Deputy knows, I published the Green Paper. There was feedback from it and I said I would not proceed any further with it. I have to say there was a lot of consultation. The Taoiseach has also set up a Cabinet committee on children, education and disability. Any reform of disability payments, including a cost-of-disability payment, will now be considered as part of a broader review of disability matters on a whole-of-government basis. There is feedback. We will be feeding the information collected during the Green Paper process into that Cabinet committee. The Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth is also co-ordinating the development of a new national disability strategy on a whole-of-government basis. The cost of disability will be addressed again through that strategy.

The Deputy raised the issue of carers. There has been a lot of talk about this. I was very pleased to announce the increase in the income limits. It is only last year that I increased them, as the Deputy knows, and those income disregards kicked in from July of this year. In fairness I have pushed this more than anybody. I have met directly with carers.

Like Deputy Donnelly, I see at first hand the challenges carers face. Of course, parents of a child with severe disabilities particularly come to mind when you see what they have to provide. It is 24-7 work for some parents.

I am the first Minister in 14 years to increase the income disregards. They have almost doubled since 2020. The carer's support grant is at its highest level and is not means tested. I brought carer's benefit to the self-employed for the first time. Self-employed people can now qualify to apply for carer's benefit. Carer's allowance is now a qualifying payment for the fuel allowance. Domiciliary care allowance, which is not means tested, was increased by €50 during my term as Minister. We have also provided for a pension for carers. I have made considerable headway in this regard. We are on a journey and I am aware there is more to do.

The income limits were increased in July 2024, which is only three months ago. That is already having a positive impact. There is a process we must go through. The Department will engage with carers on the increased limits and that work starts now. We have to engage with them. There is work to do. The disregards have to be increased and all the payments, therefore, have to be reassessed. While we work close with Family Carers Ireland, it is not quite as simple as it has made it out to be. There is a bit of work to be done.

More than 90% of carers are already on the maximum rate of carer's allowance. I cannot pay carers for the work they do. The Department of Social Protection supports people’s income for those who are less well-off. I have, however, set up a working group to look at all of these issues. It will report back before the end of the year. I fully understand Deputy Donnelly’s point that supporting carers to do the work they do to keep people at home saves the State and the Government money. While I agree with the Deputy, not all of this falls within the Department. There is a wider picture to look at and that is why I have set up the working group. This issue was moving back and forth between the Department of Health, my Department and various other Departments. There are different players involved. That is why I said we would bring them all into one room to try to find a solution. To be fair, we have done a lot for carers, but it is a journey and we will continue on that journey to support them because we all recognise the huge contribution they make.

I believe I have covered everything.

I will come back in on two issues. I am not clear whether it is a political or technical decision to delay the increase in the carer’s allowance for ten months. Is it technically difficult to do, such as the IT systems not being in place to be able to do it, or is it a political decision to kick it further down the road?

The other issue relates to the temporary cost-of-living measures. The Minister spoke about the percentage of people being lifted out of poverty. That is absolutely perfect. I am glad to hear that. I am delighted to hear of anyone being lifted out of poverty. The Minister, however, is making the point that these temporary payments are lifting people out of poverty. The danger is that they are temporary payments. If those temporary payments were removed, those people would very quickly go straight back into poverty because their basic social welfare payments are the ones which have led them into poverty. Approximately 3.8% of people are in consistent poverty as we stand. I find it incredible that, in such a wealthy country, we are saying there is anyone in consistent poverty. That 3.8% translates to tens of thousands of families and children. We should be heading towards 0%. That is something we need to do. The danger with the underlying issue in respect of consistent poverty, which Deputy Ó Cuív alluded to as well, is that because these are temporary, year-on payments, if we had some sort of economic crash and the temporary payments were removed, we could quickly end back up at that 10%, 12%, 13%, or whatever it was of people in consistent poverty.

I will come back in on that. As regards the carer's allowance, the Department needs a lead-in time to undertake reviews of the means test and to contact people whose payment might be affected to give them the opportunity to update the means data the Department has on them. Basically, while we can change the IT systems quickly, we have to apply the changes to every individual claim and we need to contact all of the recipients, of whom there are approximately 100,000. That is the reason. As I said, we increased the allowance only three months ago. There are different times in the year for different things and this is when the increases come into effect. The changes have always been made in July. As I said, 90% of carers are in receipt of the maximum payment anyway.

On the other point, social protection budgets in recent years have been very progressive. We have always sought to target those who need it the most and are on low incomes. The poverty rate is at 3.7%, which is the lowest level ever. The target is to get that figure to 2%. It is measured in a relative way. It is benchmarked against other incomes and as they go up, then the rate goes up. As I said, it is at its lowest level ever. This Government has never been found wanting, in fairness. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the PUP payments came out which supported people. They, in fact, meant the economy was able to rev back up again quickly. It is a model which will be used again when difficult times occur. It certainly worked extremely well. We have not been found wanting when it came to the cost-of-living increases. This is now the second year and the third set of payments to address and support people with the cost of living. I take the Deputy’s point that other governments will come in and they may not do that. I can, however, assure the Deputy that this Government is totally committed to supporting those on lower incomes. We have a strong, progressive budget. While I cannot speak for all parties, I can speak for my own and I know that focus will continue within the party.

I thank the Minister. I invite Deputy Collins to come in.

I generally agree with the points and critiques of Deputies Donnelly and Ó Cuív and, therefore, I will not repeat them. I will come in on two or three aspects I want to address with the Minister. Like everyone here, I support measures that help people make ends meet. Once-off payments are definitely welcome, as has been said. They are a huge relief for people who are desperately looking at Christmas, any other time of the year or at situations where they need a little extra, such as when a child is born, etc. It really helps. Once they are gone, however, people are back where they started. That is where I have grave criticisms of recent budgets.

I have two amendments to propose. One is that the Minister must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay a report before both Houses of the Oireachtas on the cost and extent of the fuel allowance to those in receipt of the working family payment. That was probably one of Deputy Donnelly's questions the Minister did not answer. Will that be done? It relates to the energy crisis we have been seeing since 2019 and 2020.

We know the figures. In 2022 alone we had 377,400 unable to keep their houses warm; 450,000 who had gone without heating; and 469,000 people in utility arrears. The ESRI estimated that 29% of the country experienced energy poverty in 2022 and St. Vincent de Paul estimated that could be peaked at more than 40% of the country experiencing energy poverty. The Minister made the point about poverty at 3.7% and the hope the poverty rates go down to 2%. However, there are areas, particularly people in work, where we have seen increases across the board for rates of risk of poverty, deprivation and consistent poverty. In 2023, we saw large increases in work deprivation and consistent poverty. Part of this increase in work poverty is driven by energy. That has to be reviewed and a report needs to be brought back as to why the fuel allowance was not extended to working family payment recipients. I would like the Minister’s opinion on that.

The other area is the household benefits package. The €35 a month fuel part of it now barely covers the standing charge. That has to be reviewed. An increase to support people in the household benefits package needs to be looked at. The Minister mentioned she had constituents coming in. I have had a number of constituents coming in about that because it has been eaten away.

I welcome the provision of hot school meals, which are transformative for children.

I agree with Social Justice Ireland, which said that the pension should be index-linked. The trade unions have a campaign related to that.

That is what should be happening in respect of our basic payments. I ask the Minister to comment on those two matters.

On the energy payments, I think it was Deputy Pringle who said last night that he does not but if anybody had four or five houses, they would be getting €1,000 to €1,250 on those energy bonus payments whereas the working poor, as such, are not getting that support in the fuel allowance. I will leave it at that and I ask the Minister’s opinion on that.

Regarding fuel poverty, as we know, the best way to tackle fuel poverty in the long term is to improve the energy efficiency of the dwelling through proper building and household insulation. As the Deputy knows, I expanded the number of people who can qualify for the fuel allowance last year. I increased the income limits for the over-70s. In this budget, I dropped that to age 66 and over. Recipients of the fuel allowance can apply for the scheme run by the SEAI and, if eligible, the retrofitting will be conducted for free to the customer or person. We need to address the problem of heating our houses. The new means threshold was introduced for the over-70s, as I said, and it will apply to those over 66 from next year. From January 2023, the disabled benefit payment and half-rate carer's is disregarded when assessing means for fuel allowance purposes. In addition, in budget 2025, I announced the enhanced fuel allowance measures for those under 70. That will be available from January for those aged 66 and over. There is a €300 fuel allowance lump sum and there is €250 in energy credits. We increased the working family payment by €110 over the past two years, so that is considerable. People can earn more and still qualify for the payment. The fuel allowance has now become a qualifying payment for those on the carer’s allowance, so that is important. Why did I not do it for the working family payment? I have to make choices. I cannot do everything. I made those particular changes. The fact is I increased the disregards for the working family payment, so people get more money. I am trying to balance it in that respect.

Increasing the monthly gas and electricity payment rate or restoring the household benefits package in full can only be considered while taking account of the overall budgetary context and the availability of financial resources. In other words, I have choices to make. There has been no recent increase to the gas or electricity element of the household benefits package. The Government targeted the limited resources available towards the increase to the core social welfare payments and more targeted payments such as the fuel allowance. Electricity and gas prices have stabilised and energy credits of €250 are also being provided as part of the budget.

The Deputy mentioned the report on extending fuel allowance eligibility to the working family payment. I know Deputy Donnelly has that as an amendment. We will discuss that on Committee Stage this evening in the Dáil. I am awaiting a previously requested report on the provision of the fuel allowance to those in receipt of the working family payment and I will make that available as soon as it is completed. It is not finished yet. It will be made available as soon as it is there. Is that okay?

The Deputy mentioned benchmarking the State pension. The Government decided that we should calculate the pension rate of payment based on a smoothed earnings approach. That calculation will then act as an input into the budget preparations and be brought forward for the information of Government. I did that, and under this model endorsed by the Commission on Pensions, the pension rate should be set at 34% of average incomes with a relatively small margin of 1% to 3% during periods of high inflation. The Department calculated the rate earlier in the summer. We shared the outcome with the Department of public expenditure and reform and it informed the budget decisions that were announced. While the €12 increase in the weekly welfare rate did not on its own meet the smoothed earning calculation, the combination of the additional €12 per week with a significant set of one-off measures more than covers the gap. The measures taken by Government therefore exceed the increase calculated under the smoothed earnings approach. The €12 increase taken with the lump sum together makes it well covered. The Deputy is saying that when it is gone, it is gone. However, when it comes to the wintertime and you have to get fuel, it is good to have the money in your pocket. It is always hard to save it but it is nice to get those lump sums.

I refer to pensioners on the contributory State pension. Let us say somebody in their 70s living alone receives the maximum State pension. They will benefit by €1,423 from this budget. Indexation on its own would only have seen an increase of in or around €700, so it is well over double in the way we are doing it through the lump sum or the cost-of-living payments.

Have I covered everything? I think I have.

Yes, the Minister covered a lot of it. However, let us say we do not get that energy bonus next year, that the Government does not offer it. An increase in the €35 a month now over the next winter period would be worth more than the bonus payments if it was in that fuel part of the household package, and it would be more consistent for people. That is the point I continuously make. While the once-off payments are welcome, they are not dealing with the basic payments people rely on over the winter period, like this and the fuel allowance.

I refer to the working family payment.

We see more people in work who see deprivation and consistent poverty. I will not go through what the energy prices were before. The energy companies are still making profits and people are feeling the brunt of those energy costs. It is really important that the fuel allowance be extended. How many people on the working family payment do we have? Does the Minister have a figure for that?

Yes. It is 46,000.

It is not a huge cohort of people but it is an important cohort of people who are in work and many of them suffer from energy poverty and deprivation. That definitely has to be looked at. We are letting people down by not looking at those structural changes that need to be given to people.

As I said to the Deputy, there is a report coming, and I will publish that report as soon as I receive it. This Government has not been found wanting. We had a set of two cost-of-living payments last year and we have a cost-of-living payment this year. Prior to that, we had Covid. We supported people with the PUP. We have a good track record in supporting people and improving people's incomes. Everybody wants to talk about what will happen down the road, but let us stay in the present for the minute. This is a progressive budget that will put money in people's pockets when they need it.

Minister, I will put a few questions. First, I will extemporise a little. It is worth bearing in mind the five budgets when they are put together. I think when we came into office, €203 was the basic rate of payment for jobseekers.

That is quite some movement. Similarly, on the IQC - I still call it the IQC; I cannot get used to the new name - there has been really significant movement and significant movement on the working family payment.

I will go through a couple of line-by-line questions on cost. I might come back to more general questions. I am looking here at the makeup of administration under the Supplementary Estimate, heading A.2. It is something that jumped out at me. The question I want to ask is about payments to agency services, which have gone up by €5 million. Notwithstanding what Deputy Ó Cuív said about how small €5 million is in the context of the overall budget, it is still a lot of money for agency services.

On A5, which deals with the one-parent family payment, we are €7 million less due to fewer recipients than anticipated. I assume those are people who have entered the workforce, but the Minister might be able to clarify why we were not able to project the number of recipients and why we came in at €7 million less.

Which payment was that? Sorry.

The one-parent family payment. It is A.5. It tells me here that it is offset by €7 million less due to fewer recipients than estimated.

On A.10, additional needs payments, there is a jump in expenditure which is, I am told, related to the increased price of accommodation and fit-outs. The Minister might mention some specifics on that.

Disability allowance is a peculiar one. The Supplementary Estimate refers to €56.7 million due to a higher number of recipients in 2024 than estimated. I am just slightly surprised. I would have thought the number of people who will end up being recipients of the disability allowance was relatively predictable. We have had a fairly significant jump on that, so the Minister might talk me through the detail on that and how we ended up there.

The job initiative, on which I have had a parliamentary question to the Minister before, is an employment support scheme, and there is kind of a discrepancy between what people get paid on the jobs initiative. It is a relatively small number of people, and I would have thought it would be a relatively low-cost fix.

I might come back with some more general questions but I will stick to those specific ones first.

I will try to answer those. If I miss any, come back to me, Chair.

The first one is administration, A.2, as the Deputy said, non-pay. A lot of the increase there would be to do with the payments we make for medical certs. We pay the doctors for the medical certs, obviously, for people who are off sick. We also pay An Post for the services it delivers on our behalf. When I am in here with my rural hat on, everybody wants everybody in the post office to collect their payments, and I support that too. There is a price for that but it is well worth it.

As to why the one-parent family payment went down, sometimes the children get older and then fall out of the payment, but there are many one-parent families going back to work. That is a good thing.

The Deputy asked me about was the disability allowance. An additional €215.2 million is required for that. It is driven primarily by the range of lump-sum payments which will be provided for 2024, including October and Christmas bonus double payments, the €400 long-term disability lump sum, the €200 living alone lump sum allowance and so on. An additional €56 million is required to fund an emerging overspend of the scheme due to a higher-than-estimated number of recipients. The scheme is demand-led and there have been a higher-than-estimated number of claimants in 2024. Our population is getting bigger and we can expect to see increases in these different schemes and the number of people who apply for them.

The additional needs payments have increased because more people are moving into their own homes. That is good because they are getting into houses and we are helping them to meet some of the costs they incur when they move into a new house. I remember being in the credit union and, unfortunately, the first person who sometimes arrived with the new house was the boy with the magazine and the apparently low rate of payment. Sometimes it was the moneylender and they were signed up. It is great that we are in the position to help people to buy some of the white goods they need. I always felt it was important that social welfare get in there and talk to people who move into new houses in order that they do not put themselves into debt. I saw what happens when they get themselves into huge debt and cannot repay those loans. It is not a nice place for people to be. MABS has always played an important role too in advising them, but here again I am happy that we can support them with those additional needs payments.

Have I answered all the Deputy's questions?

I asked about the job initiative as well. It is a relatively small number of people - 308 participants, I think - who work in 37 JI schemes. This is according to the answer to the parliamentary question that I received from the Department. They are on very low pay. It would take very little money to close the gap on that.

They get double the allowance the others get, so if they get back into work, we do pay them extra.

I wanted to ask a couple of broader questions as well. As regards the issue of a second-tier means test for child benefit, I know Deputy Ó Cuív has particular views on means testing, but the ESRI has strong views on this and how effective it would be in tackling child poverty. It is probably not something a Minister can do in the last budget of a Government, but I want to know whether the Department is looking at this seriously in terms of costing it. The double payment on the child benefit is fine - it will be welcomed by many people - but we have not seen an increase in the base rate of child benefit for a long time. I wonder whether that was in the mix. Similarly, the baby boost is extremely welcome. It is only a pity I missed out on it with my own fellas. It is such an expensive time. That is really welcome. Again, however, I wonder whether we are looking at that basic rate increase for it.

Then there is a very thorny issue around fuel allowance as we roll out the warmer homes scheme, the retrofit scheme. There is an awful big difference between how far fuel allowance goes if people are in an A- or a B-rated home and how far it will go if they are in an F-rated or a G-rated home.

I do not have an answer for this, but it is about how we arrive at a position of equity in ensuring people are adequately provided for, how we are going to make the fuel allowance more flexible in that regard or whether we are gong to deal with it at all. That is probably a much longer-term project. Has the Minister any thoughts on any of those broader questions?

On the last question, we are going to look at a review of the means test, which is fair enough. As for trying to target the fuel allowance at the type of house a person has, God bless us that would be an awful job as we tried to decide who would get it and who would not. The child benefit payment was mentioned, but the minute you bring in a means test there will be winners and losers. There will be somebody €1 or €2 over the limit and the Deputy will be in here saying, "Ah now, aren't you awful mean?". The universal payment means everybody gets it. We have the qualified child payment, or as I call it now, the child support payment. I have increased that considerably, so a person on a low income will get €62 per week for any child they have aged over 12 and €50 per week for any child under 12. That, in itself, is a very targeted measure for low-income families, and I mentioned the working family payment earlier. That is getting in there where it needs to get. What we would be talking about then is introducing a third layer and the Deputy knows, as I know, that the more layers we have the more complicated it gets. The ESRI talked about the second tier of child benefit. Such a payment could reduce poverty by 25% at a cost of €700 million. However, the institute also acknowledged detailed scoping would be required on the feasibility of such a payment and it would require careful consideration and analysis to ensure unintended interactions with other components of the tax and welfare system are minimal, so it is not straightforward. The ESRI also found social transfers targeting children, especially child support payments and the working family payment, have the greatest effect on alleviating poverty.

We will leave it to the next Government but I would not fancy the job of trying to figure that one out. It might sound good on paper but in reality I know there would be winners and losers and there would be problems there.

I thank the Minister. Do any members want to come back in? Deputy Ó Cuív is indicating.

These are the quick fire questions now.

I am a sitting duck so.

I noticed that if it had not been for the one-off payment and the fuel allowance the Minister's underlying Estimate was €2 million more generous than required. That is significant because for the second year in a row the Minister has been bang on. An amount of €2 million is not much in the greater scheme of the maths being done here. It shows relaxing the means test on the fuel allowance did not create a tsunami and if anything the Department was a little bit on the generous side when estimating what it might cost. Even with the relaxation of the means test for the carer's allowance, that allowance is coming in just €12 million over the estimate in a budget of €1.4 billion or something. Put into simple terms, that is €12 out of €1,400, which is very small. It proves the fear of a means test being relaxed opening the floodgates is unjustified because it is not happening when we do that.

On the carer's allowance, how many people get the carer's support grant who do not get the carer's allowance? Supplementary to that, how many who are getting carer's allowance are getting the full rate of carer's allowance and how many are getting a reduced rate because of means? I am not talking about a half rate because they got another payment but a reduced rate because of means.

I understand 6,700 carers get the carer's support grant.

There is no means test on that.

Thus, on the face of it, it looks like if we opened it up with no means test, we would have 6,700 more. How many are getting the carer's allowance?

It is 93,000. Of those, how many are getting-----

That is including half rate and full rate.

It does not matter. How many are getting one that is not reduced by means?

I said earlier it is 90%.

That means 81,000 get the full amount.

At the minute, but if we widen it there might be more who qualify.

The Minister is widening it faster than the cost-of-living rise, which is very welcome. She would expect a fair number of those recipients would come up to the full amount again. Is that not right?

However, it has not exceeded her Department's expectations, because the budget was bang on target at within €12 million of €1.4 billion. The point I am making again is that it does not seem this would open the floodgates, from looking at the figures. Why would anybody who could get €2,000 and who is disqualified on means grounds not take the €2,000?

That is fine and that is based on what we know, but there are people who say we should get rid of the means test altogether for carers. Based on current figures we reckoned that would cost €600 million. Then it could increase up to €2 billion based on the number of people who said they are in a caring role in the census.

However, the evidence on the ground is not too many people are going to leave €2,000 behind them.

Maybe not everyone is aware of the carer's support grant and that they can get it.

Then the Minister should start publicising it.

We do publicise it, but it is amazing how may times we say something and people still do not apply.

I appreciate that, but I will watch with interest whether the further relaxation of the means test, which is quite considerable, is going to cause this projected tsunami. I predict the Minister is going to come back next year and say the figures are bang on target because this is not causing a tsunami and is not the cause of the increase in carers. There are lots of people caring who have full-time jobs or are doing more than 18 and a half hours per week, but on the census form they are going to put down that they are caring and they are right. Any way, time will tell. It just goes to my theory all the time that relaxing means tests does not have the tsunami effect people think it does.

I agree with the Deputy there, but I cannot-----

I have to work within the envelope I get.

I have a final question, since it comes down to money. The CE supervisors got some arrangement on the pensions.

I understand there was a recommendation made and it is floating around somewhere between the Minister's Department and the Department of public expenditure in relation to Tús and RSS supervisors.

I will have to check that because I am not sure. I know about the CE supervisors. We are talking to them at the minute. They are looking for a pay increase. We are talking to them any way. We always talk to them.

As the Minister knows, those working on the RSS and Tús are paid considerably less and they did not benefit from the package put together for the CE supervisors, to my knowledge. I understand it is in the system. There was a recommendation made but it did not get through.

I am not aware of it, but I will follow it up.

I ask the Minister to.

I will get back to the Deputy on that.

All right. It is a matter that will keep festering until it is settled.

We sorted the pensions out, thanks be to goodness.

Only for the CE workers, not for those on the RSS. Of course, it was always going to be a knock on. I could not understand why the lot could not have been dealt with.

That is why it takes a long time sometimes to sort these things.

It was always going to be a knock on that RSS supervisors were going to say, "Me too", and they are right to say that.

I will check that out.

Are there any further questions? No. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir. That concludes the committee's business in public session. The joint committee will meet in private session at 11.45 a.m. I thank members for participating in today's meeting.

Top
Share