Vol. 1047 No. 3
90. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will consider reviewing the wage subsidy scheme for people with disabilities, in particular the fact that the subsidy an employer is paid has not kept pace with the increases in the minimum wage. [54238/23]
Tá mé ag cur ceist ar an liúntas pá do dhaoine le míchumas. This question relates to the wage subsidy scheme and I raised it previously in committee with the Minister for Social Protection. Concern has been expressed that the wage subsidy scheme has not kept pace with the increases in the minimum wage, thus reducing the differential advantage for employers to take on people with disabilities.
The wage subsidy scheme is an employment support to private sector employers, the objective of which is to encourage employment of people with disabilities in the open labour market. There are currently 1,515 employers on the scheme in respect of some 2,436 participant employees. Estimated expenditure on the wage subsidy scheme in 2023 is €24 million.
To claim a subsidy under the scheme, the private sector employer must offer employment to a person with a disability for at least 21 hours per week and up to 39 hours per week. The contract of employment must be for a minimum of six months and the employee should be subject to and have the same conditions of employment as any of the employer's other employees. It should be noted that the subsidy rate contribution under this scheme is not linked to the statutory minimum wage. It is a subsidy provided, subject to certain conditions, to encourage greater employment participation by disabled people.
As part of budget 2022, we increased the rate of the wage subsidy scheme paid to employers from €5.30 to €6.30 per hour. This gives a potential total annual subsidy of €12,776 based on a 39-hour week. The Department is currently undertaking a review of the scheme under the comprehensive employment strategy for people with disabilities. As part of this review, an extensive public consultation exercise was undertaken. Officials are currently compiling the analysis from the consultation and working on completing the report, which we expect to be finalised over the coming months. In the meantime, in anticipation of recommendations in the review, we have made provision in budget 2024 to decrease the minimum hours from 21 to 15, which was a key issue raised by stakeholders in the consultation. I expect this change to be operationalised in the first half of next year.
This is an important scheme. It creates an incentive for employers to take on people with disabilities and reduces any costs that might be associated with same. It makes it easier for employers to take on people with disabilities, which is important given the unemployment rate among people with disabilities. There are lots of obstacles to employment, some of them cultural and others more structural. We have very low employment rates and schemes like this are a very important part of the solution. They are not the whole solution but are certainly part of it.
We welcome the fact that the minimum weekly hours threshold is being reduced from 21 to 15. That makes sense and is a good move but there is no mention of the subsidy rate being increased. The Minister of State has said the rate is not linked to the minimum wage but it probably should be. The minimum wage is currently €11.30 but will soon rise to €12.70, which is an increase of €1.40. The subsidy is €6.30 so we are effectively eating into that by €1.40. That is effectively what is happening because it is not keeping pace. The advantage to employers, which is important to encourage them to go out and find people with disabilities and take them on, is substantially reduced if it does not keep pace.
We had a four-week consultation process in June with people with disabilities, employers and the public and received over 1,000 submissions. As part of the budget we allocated an additional €3.7 million to expand the scheme. This will reduce the minimum number of hours required. The increase in the previous budget was a significant one and we are now in a situation where employers are getting almost half of the minimum wage, which is substantial. I expect that increased awareness of, and improvements to, the scheme on foot of the review will increase the demand from employers in 2024. The additional funding allocated will be required to meet the extra demand. Administrative and IT work is under way to implement this change in quarter 2 of 2024. Any further revisions to the scheme will be carried out in the context of the recommendations contained in the final report.
If we are hoping that employers are taking long-term decisions when they decide to take on people with disabilities, which we should be, then we need to offer them a certain amount of predictability. I know the subsidy is not currently linked to the minimum wage but the Government should consider linking the two. I appreciate that the subsidy is not small and that it was increased. It should be noted that it is not just employers who are concerned about this issue. Organisations representing people with disabilities are quite concerned about it as well and have raised it with me. The fact is that employers who have taken on people with disabilities are very obviously €1.40 per hour less well off than they were under the previous minimum wage. That is statistically the case. Surely the Minister of State will accept that the differential advantage has been eroded. Is this going to be examined over the course of the next 12 months? Will the Department consider linking the two? It would be logical that they should keep pace and that the advantage and incentive remains the same.
It is important that we look at all barriers that people with disabilities face in trying to access employment. The wage subsidy scheme is an important assistance to employers and employees to get through some of those barriers. The Department recognises the additional challenges that some people with disabilities may experience in securing and maintaining employment and contracts a specialist employment service, called EmployAbility, to help to address this. A job seeker with a disability who is working with his or her Intreo employment personal adviser may be referred to the specialist service if it is agreed that he or she will benefit from the type of service and support provided. Under EmployAbility, the person works with a job coach who provides both pre-employment and in-employment support and assistance. Providers also deliver a recruitment and job matching service for employers.
In July 2022, Intreo commenced an early engagement process targeted at young recipients of a disability payment. Early engagement involves the public employment service actively engaging with people with disabilities at the earliest opportunity on a voluntary basis, importantly, to offer the above supports to assist them in achieving their employment ambitions.
91. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will ensure there will be a guarantee that no claimant will receive less under the new pay-related jobseeker’s benefit than he or she would currently receive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [54132/23]
Will the Minister of State ensure there will be a guarantee that no claimant will receive less under the new pay-related jobseeker's benefit than he or she currently receives?
The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, recently secured the approval of the Government to proceed with design proposals for a new pay-related benefit for jobseekers. This represents a fundamental reform of the social welfare system and will ensure that people with long work histories will receive enhanced benefits if they lose their employment. The pay-related benefit will be available to newly unemployed employees who have a strong and recent attachment to the labour market, and who are available for and genuinely seeking employment.
The weekly rate of payment for people who have at least five years of paid PRSI contributions will be set at 60% of previous earnings, subject to a maximum of €450, for the first three months. After that, the rate will reduce to 55% of earnings, subject to a maximum of €375, for the following three months. A further three months will be paid at the rate of 50% up to a maximum €300 payment. For persons who have between two and five years of paid contributions, the rate will be set at 50% of previous earnings, subject to a maximum of €300 per week, and will be of six months' duration. The duration of payments is the same as what a person would get under jobseeker’s benefit. A minimum weekly payment of €125 will apply to the scheme.
For those who are already on a jobseeker's benefit payment, the intention is that they would remain on that payment rather than transferring to the pay-related system and, as such, their payment rate would not be affected. In line with current arrangements, under the pay-related scheme, a person will be able to opt for the means-tested jobseeker’s allowance if he or she would be financially better off on that scheme. I trust this clarifies the position for the Deputy.
I asked for a guarantee but I did not get it. The Government has made much of the increased payments that will be made to higher paid workers but it has not been so loud about the fact that those on the lowest pay will be worse off. A worker on €400 a week with two years of contributions will be €20 a week worse off under the Government's proposal, a worker on €300 a week with five years of contributions will be €40 a week worse off, and a worker on €250 a week with two years' contributions will be €47.30 a week worse off. Who will be hit the hardest by this? Part-time workers, those who reduce hours to care for dependants, and young people and immigrants who have not built up their contributions. Why is the Minister of State supporting a scheme that will reduce the social welfare entitlements of the lowest-paid workers?
I disagree with the Deputy's assertion. I will make two key points regarding the caps and the new benefits. Earnings are subject to a maximum of €450 for the first three months, the rate will reduce to 55%, subject to a maximum of €375, for the following three months, and a further three months will be paid at a rate of 50% to a maximum of €300. Those caps will ensure that the benefit is pushed down to those who are lower paid. As is the case with jobseeker's benefit at present, there will be situations, although a minority, where people will sometimes be financially better off, depending on what the benefits are, taking jobseeker's allowance rather the benefit. That could be the case for people with this new payment, although I expect it will be in a minority of situations.
I note the fact that the Minister of State has spoken about a floor of €125 per week. Other Ministers have said that what we are doing is catching up with the EU in pulling ourselves up to the EU norm. I do not think that stands up to scrutiny. In France, pay-related benefits last for two years, between 57% and 75% of a person's income is paid, and there is a floor of €212 per week. That is nearly €100 higher than the Government's proposed floor of €125. In Sweden, 80% of income is paid for the first three months before dropping to 70% and the floor is €316 a week, which is nearly €200 a week higher than the floor the Government proposes. Its floor of €125 per week is not the European norm. It is an attack on the lowest social welfare payment. How can the Minister of State expect anyone to live on €125 a week in this day and age?
That characterisation is inaccurate in terms of the expectation that people will be on €125 a week. The bottom level is €300. There are other aspects to the system as well. The logic of this is to follow European norms where we can avoid a cliff edge as regards the drop in income people face, if they are unlucky enough to lose their jobs. A recent classic example of that is the issue of Tara Mines, whose workers, unfortunately, will not benefit from this, but the scheme will improve situations for workers in general. I go back to the point I made regarding the ceilings we set. It will make sure that the resources being put into this are pushed down to those who are lower paid. Some €5 million has been provided for the scheme's introduction in the second half of next year. Overall, the benefit will be seen clearly by low-paid workers because of those caps we have put on the different levels of payment that will accrue over periods of time.
Ba mhaith liom céad míle fáilte a chur roimh na daltaí agus roimh na múinteoirí atá thuas staighre. Nollaig shona daoibhse.
92. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide an update on the pay claim submitted by the rural social scheme and Tús supervisors to the Department for pay parity with community employment supervisors. [54239/23]
This might be a bit peculiar, but I may be able to offer some clarity on the previous question. Deputy Barry might be interested. My understanding is that people would still qualify through a means test for jobseeker's allowance and would be awarded whichever is the higher payment. If they were not disqualified by means test, which lower and middle-income workers would not be, they would qualify for jobseeker's allowance at the full amount because they are always awarded the higher amount. Am I right in saying that?
I will let the Minister of State pursue that in a minute.
I am trying to be helpful inasmuch as I can.
I am trying to be helpful too because there are people with questions.
I will ask my question. It relates to the rural social scheme. The issue of community employment supervisors has progressed, which is welcome. At that stage, the Minister of State said there was a need to look at all schemes, which would include the rural social scheme and Tús. There is currently a pay claim with the Department in respect of people on the rural social scheme, who are on 15% less than those on community employment schemes.
If the Minister of State chooses to clarify the other matter, it is entirely up to him.
I will take Deputy Ó Laoghaire's question first, but I will address the other matter.
My Department operates a number of employment support schemes, including community employment, CE, Tús and the rural social scheme for long-term unemployed persons and low-income farmers. At the outset, I acknowledge the important role that Tús and RSS supervisors play in providing valuable opportunities to participants, and in supporting the delivery of key services to local communities throughout the country. It should be noted that Tús and RSS supervisors are employees of the individual implementing bodies, or local development companies, which are funded by the Department.
Earlier this year, union representatives and employers agreed, with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission, WRC, and the support of Department officials, a wage increase of 5% for supervisors employed on Tús, RSS and CE schemes. Officials in my Department hold regular meetings with the supervisors' representative associations to discuss issues in relation to the delivery of all employment programmes. In recent meetings, the representatives raised the issue of pay parity for Tús and RSS supervisors with CE supervisors.
It is important to note that there are differences in the work undertaken by CE supervisors compared to that undertaken by Tús and RSS supervisors, relating, for example, to the preparation of individual learning plans. As a consequence, we would expect the service fees paid to the service providers to reflect this difference in scope. Subject to that consideration, the Department, in its role as funder of the programmes, will continue to work with the implementing bodies and staff representatives to try to address any concerns they may have. It is important to note that any changes to the fees paid, or the funding model, will require the approval of the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.
On the previous question regarding pay-related benefit, the jobseeker's allowance option is still there.
Whichever payment is the higher can be claimed. That was my sense of it as well. I am sorry for that unusual intervention but it just occurred to me. I wanted to reassure myself.
I appreciate that the Minister of State has acknowledged, correctly, that the schemes are different in nature, although there are certain similarities. Having said that, I understand the rural social scheme and Tús supervisors have been in discussion with the Department and the Irish Local Development Network, ILDN, in the last three years through a tripartite forum. I believe the forum has agreed a work proposal that would broadly match increases in pay. I understand the principal officer dealing with the matter has presented the proposal to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for its consideration. While I would not say it has conceded in principle, the Department has at least a certain sympathy for this point. There is an understanding that pay parity would not be easy to achieve in one single claim but there is a need to bridge the gap in pay in a meaningful way. A meeting was due on 21 November but that date was pushed out. When will the next meeting take place?
The Deputy is right that the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform has a key role in this. The Deputy provided some detail. I am not sure some of it is correct in terms of what has been agreed. There is a willingness on our side to discuss the issue. I do not want to get into negotiations on the floor of the House on what is doable or not. We had to postpone the previously scheduled meeting but I expect the rescheduled meeting will take place before Christmas. That is my expectation and intention. It is important to reiterate that the roles are different. The roles of community employment supervisors, Tús supervisors and RSS supervisors are not exactly the same. In many respects, we treat them as one group and they do valuable community work and support people in their placements in a similar way but there are differences. That is key, and I underline that.
I accept that the roles are not the same. This is being dealt with as a separate line item. I apologise if I am misunderstanding the position. It is not a deliberate misrepresentation but may be a misunderstanding. Perhaps that can be clarified. Before I come back to that issue, I first want to address the point that this is very important work regardless of slight differences or whatever. It is invaluable in providing community supports in every county in the State. People who are close to the rural social scheme and Tús are concerned they will lose or be unable to attract staff. That is also a challenge with community employment.
I wish to clarify this. Am I to understand that even if the two Departments are not necessarily on the same page, the Department of Social Protection has advanced some sort of document or proposal to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform for its consideration? Notwithstanding whether the latter is in agreement with that or not, has some sort of document been communicated? Will the Minister of State clarify that? When is the meeting that was due on 21 November likely to take place?
I have done specific work to ensure community employment supervisors got their pension and gratuity over the last couple of years and, in particular, on the 5% across-the-board pay increases for CE, Tús and RSS supervisors. We now have this additional ask. While it is not without merit, we have to look at it carefully. We are amenable to discussing and talking.
The Deputy asked a specific question about when the next meeting will be held. I do not know. That is the honest answer but my understanding is that it will happen before Christmas. I do not want to nail that down as a certainty. It depends on people's availability between now and Christmas. That is the main issue blocking it. There is no reticence on our part about discussing the matter further.
To my knowledge, a document has not gone to the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform but there certainly has been communication. Obviously, in any negotiations around pay and conditions that Department holds the purse strings.
I thank the Minister of State.
93. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will review the decision not to include long Covid as an occupational illness; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [53874/23]
I am persisting with the issue of recognition of long Covid and Covid as a prescribed illness. I fully accept that, under the terms of our occupation illness scheme, if this recognition is provided, it will lead to just a handful of claims, if any, coming forward. Its recognition will, however, have significant implications for medical assessments for illness benefit, invalidity pension and disability allowance, and the entitlement to disablement benefit.
The Government acted early and without hesitation to support all workers who contracted Covid-19 during the pandemic. Workers could avail of an enhanced illness benefit payment and eligibility criteria were set to include the largest cohort of workers possible, including the self-employed. The scheme paid some 578,000 claims at a cost of over €350 million.
A temporary scheme of paid leave was developed by the Department of Health for certain public health sector employees who were unfit for work after a Covid-19 infection. This scheme has been extended until 31 March 2024. Special leave with pay for Covid-19 was also introduced for public sector workers.
The European Commission has made a non-binding recommendation on the recognition of Covid-19 as an occupational disease. The Commission did not make a recommendation in relation to long Covid. The decision regarding recognition is for each individual member state. It is important to note that recognition of Covid-19 in Ireland would not encompass long Covid and would only apply to new claims for new cases of Covid-19. It would not benefit those who contracted Covid-19 during the pandemic.
A recent report, which we have published and laid before the Oireachtas, found that Covid-19 does not meet the criteria for recognition as an occupational illness under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Specifically, presumptions about workplace transmission would not be sustainable on a general basis in the current environment when infection rates are low. The statutory criteria for occupational injuries benefit specify that the disease or injury was caused as a risk of the person’s occupation and is not a risk outside of that profession. Community transmission became dominant by the summer of 2020. Therefore, it has not been possible since then to establish with confidence a general assumption that the disease has been contracted through a person's occupation and not through community transmission.
The Department continues to provide a suite of income supports to those who cannot work due to illness and disability, including long Covid. I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
The difficulty is there are quite a number of contradictions here. If we look to other EU countries, every other EU country has recognised Covid as an occupational illness except Ireland and Greece. The Department of Health and the HSE have recognised long Covid for anyone who was infected up to 15 November 2021, which is a full year and three months after the threshold the Minister of State has just spoken of. At the moment, there are 143 healthcare staff who have been in receipt of payments for in excess of 28 months, recognising long Covid as an illness within the health service. The difficulty for anyone in the health service who contracted Covid since 15 November 2021, and all other front-line healthcare workers, is that their long Covid illness is not being recognised. We are treating employees very differently depending on where they were doing their front-line work.
I cannot comment on the Department of Health scheme that covers healthcare workers, as I do not know the ins and outs of it. However, we all agree that healthcare workers faced specific dangers and vulnerabilities that were different from those faced by many other workers who, we suspect, contracted Covid mainly through community transmission. Covid, as the World Health Organization has recognised, is now endemic. It is an illness similar in status to the flu, for example, in that it causes significant problems but we have a degree of control over it. It is important to say that.
Having discussed this with officials, the advice I have received is that Covid simply does not fit under the Social Welfare Act in terms of eligibility illnesses.
Figures provided to me by the Department show that up to last June, approximately 750 workers who contracted Covid and were out of work for over 12 months were in receipt of a social welfare payment. This does not include those who made a recovery from Covid and subsequently had a relapse of long Covid. We are only seeing the tip of the iceberg as regards this condition. This condition needs official recognition and needs to be defined as a prescribed illness.
If we continue to officially brush this illness under the carpet, then people will be denied the legitimate supports they need and we will not put in place an effective strategy to ensure as many of them as possible can return to work. That needs to be our priority.
The last impression I want to give is that we are brushing this disease under the carpet. Long Covid is very real. I know a number of people who still have it. There has been a significant response to the reality of long Covid from the Department of Health with the opening of a number of clinics and the expansion of clinics across the country to help people deal with it and to find solutions to it.
This Department has a role for people unable to work due to illness. At the moment, that role fits in with our mainstream regular payments, initially illness benefit, which has a significant coverage period. Hopefully not but if it goes beyond that, the disability allowance payment would be relevant. There is a broader suite of payments available to people who cannot work because of illness and that is where we see our role in this challenge.
94. Deputy Marian Harkin asked the Minister for Social Protection to give an update on the progress regarding the pay parity claim by supervisors of RSS and TUS. [54377/23]
I know the Minister of State partly answered this in responding to Deputy Ó Laoghaire but I want a further update on the progress made in the claim for pay parity by Tús and RSS supervisors. This has been going on a long time and people feel they are being stonewalled. The fact there are two priority questions on it this morning gives an indication of how important we think it is.
I again acknowledge the important role RSS and Tús supervisors play in supporting the delivery of key services to local communities across the country and in providing valuable opportunities to participants. I assure the Deputy that my Department is very conscious of the vital role of supervisors within these work programmes.
While RSS and Tús supervisors are employees of the individual implementing bodies and neither the Department nor the State is the employer of this group of workers, officials in my Department continue to hold regular meetings with representative associations to discuss employment-related matters. In 2023, all supervisors employed in our employment programmes received a 5% pay increase. My Department officials have been engaging with the union and employing companies’ representatives in relation to a claim seeking pay parity for Tús and RSS supervisors with CE supervisors.
As I said in my earlier reply on this matter, there is a difference in the supervisor roles: specifically, CE supervisors have a key role in drawing up and supervising individual participant learning and development plans. We would expect these differences in scope to be reflected in the service fees paid to the service providers. As a consequence, my Department, as funder of these schemes, and the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform are considering the complexities involved in addressing this issue. My officials will continue to liaise with the representative groups on this matter.
I assure the Deputy my Department values the work undertaken by all supervisors and the great contribution they provide to all participants and communities throughout the State.
I thank the Minister of State. He stated there is a difference in the scope of the work being done. We recognise the work is not identical but it is broadly similar. I have spoken to a number of supervisors and there is little difference. Many workers from RSS and Tús progress onto CE schemes. A supervisor on a CE scheme after ten years gets about €42,000, while one an an RSS or Tús scheme gets about €35,000. There is a huge difference in pay. Furthermore, those on CE schemes, as the Minister of State mentioned earlier, get a gratuity on retirement, while there is nothing for RSS or Tús supervisors. There is a massive difference in pay and conditions for a small difference in the scope of the work they do. The Minister of State mentioned a 5% increase. That was welcome but it was across the board and does nothing for pay parity.
I am loathe to get into figures, numbers and the details of negotiations. It would not be helpful to anyone. We are talking. We recognise there is an issue. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and I have proven in the past couple of years that CE, Tús and RSS supervisors have legitimate arguments to make on pay rates and the gratuity issue, which has been resolved. I do not want to be seen to be stonewalling. I have tried to keep an open door in relation to issues around pay parity, as have my officials. I cannot go into too much detail on what is going on but talks are ongoing. We have proven ourselves amenable to other processes in the past two years. We will continue in good faith in the discussions.
I am glad to hear the Minister of State continues in good faith but he does not want to speak about figures. I understand that but that is the reality of people’s pay packets. That is what is in their back pocket at the end of the week or month and that is why I and others are asking these questions.
The Minister of State will be aware a number of successful public meetings were held earlier this year. There was one in Athenry, one in Castlebar and one scheduled for Sligo, which was put off in order that these tripartite talks could take place.
I am willing to accept the Minister of State’s bona fides on this but it still seems there is a blockage holding up progress. At this point, the RSS and Tús supervisors feel they are being stonewalled, not perhaps by the Minister of State but by the system. As far as they are concerned, the system is the system. I ask that the Minister of State makes every effort to move this as quickly as possible.
I know there was a meeting scheduled with officials for last month. There was a genuine reason that did not happen. There was no policy decision not to meet them or to wait and hold off. That was not the case. I think and hope, but do not want to guarantee here on the floor, that the meeting will be rescheduled for some time before Christmas. It depends on people’s availability.
I meet with the key officials weekly on CE, RSS and Tús. We are in close communication. There is a reason we are at the table. It is that we recognise the reality of the figures the Deputy mentioned. There is a case to be made but they are not exactly the same roles, notwithstanding the legitimate argument being made.
