Small and Medium Enterprises
1. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment the measures he is taking to ensure that small- and medium-sized businesses can access affordable credit and avoid being burdened with high borrowing costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51024/25]
Will the Minister outline the measures he is taking to ensure small- and medium-sized businesses can access affordable credit and avoid being burdened with high borrowing costs? Access to affordable credit is a significant barrier to our SMEs that want to expand and grow their market share. As they try to navigate their way around all of the challenges they face, they need access to credit.
I thank Deputy Conway-Walsh for this very important question. I firmly commit to ensuring that small- and medium-sized businesses have access to affordable credit. My Department has developed several loan guarantee schemes, the first in 2012, that have enabled participating lenders to offer loans at interest rates below their standard commercial terms.
The scheme currently open to SMEs is the growth and sustainability loan scheme. This is a €500 million initiative developed by my Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, underpinned by a partial guarantee from the European Investment Bank Group and the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI. The SBCI also operates the scheme. This scheme offers long-term loans ranging from €25,000 to €3 million, with terms of up to ten years, to SMEs, farmers, fishers, and small mid-caps. Loans of up to €500,000 are available on an unsecured basis, making finance more accessible for SMEs.
Interest rates under the scheme are determined by each participating finance provider, in accordance with its own credit policies. However, all rates must reflect the benefit of the EU-backed guarantee and SBCI support, ensuring they are below standard commercial lending rates. In practice, participating lenders offer discounts ranging from 1% to 4.86% compared to their equivalent SME loan rates, making credit more available. A minimum of 30% of the scheme's lending is targeted at environmental sustainability and climate action, with the remainder supporting productivity and competitiveness. Loans for climate-related purposes also benefit from an additional interest rate discount.
As of the end of June, 1,930 loans had been approved, amounting to €432 million, by my Department and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We are negotiating with the EIB Group and the SBCI on the potential to extend the duration and expand the capacity of the loan. I plan to bring proposals to the Government in the next three months.
I welcome these initiatives but last year, in 2024, we saw no real growth in Ireland's SME bank debt, with continued low demand from applicants and an overly cautious approach to risk from the banks. SMEs with any form of credit challenge find it difficult to access credit from the traditional financial institutions, even more so since the departure of Ulster Bank and KBC from the market. These are the sources where most small and retail businesses go to look for credit. Despite what the Minister says he is doing to make credit more accessible for SMEs, a recent report from IBEC revealed that 63% of SMEs still consider the application process to be overly complex and lengthy. Many SMEs do not have the knowledge and expertise to navigate the overcomplicated process of securing finance, even more so now that the banks have automated their application processes and removed all human interaction with local bank managers who would have traditionally advised and assisted a struggling applicant.
To go back to the evidence, if we look at the first scheme I referenced, which was the growth and stability loan scheme, we have at this point in time almost used up the €500 million allocation. This demonstrates that SMEs are using it and drawing it down. We also increased the Microfinance Ireland loan scheme for our smaller SMEs, up to €50,000 from €25,000, and it is supporting approximately 12,000 jobs in the economy. We have had a succession of schemes, including the Ukraine guarantee scheme, the future growth and loan scheme and the Brexit loan scheme. A huge amount of low-cost finance has been provided. We are also renegotiating to extend the €500 million and increase its capacity and keep it competitive.
I also point out the Department of Finance recently conducted a survey of SMEs and only 6% of them cited the cost of finance as an issue in terms of getting support. We are reducing the conditionality of all schemes to make it easier for SMEs to go through the application process. This is very much to the forefront of my mind in doing things simpler, lighter and faster.
I welcome this. The problem sometimes is that many of these systems are automated and somebody may not have an absolutely clear record. There can be many reasons for this which are explainable, and at one time people could have gone in and sat down with the bank manager to explain the reason something happened and they could come to an agreement. This was also the case for people with good creditworthiness. This is something that needs to be looked at.
With regard to the length of time it can take to draw down credit, I wonder whether any analysis has been done on situations where all of a grant is drawn down by one cohort of people while another cohort of people, such as those coming to our constituency offices, find it very difficult. We need to be conscious of this and ensure we bring all businesses with us and ensure the sustainability of all businesses.
I am very happy to work in this regard. The critical thing I am trying to do is make these supports available to our SMEs and family businesses, which employ two thirds of the people throughout our economy. I am very aware that the average SME does not have a finance director or a HR director. A lot of the great work is done around the kitchen table. This is why we are working with the centre of excellence at Enterprise Ireland and those who craft the schemes so we are reducing red tape and the administrative burden. Particularly for some of the lower-scale grants, such as with regard to digitalisation or sustainability supports, which can be less than €10,000, we should be able to turn them around in 24 hours. This is my target for the agencies. We are working to deliver this. There are other methodologies we can bring in to get efficiencies and ensure we are really supporting them at the forefront. The cost of doing business advisory forum is working with a lot of the regulators and their interoperability among the sectors. What they ask of various applicants may already have been asked in other areas and we want to get a floor under this and reduce the administrative burden.
Export Controls
2. Deputy Sinéad Gibney asked the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment whether there are concerns in his Department regarding due diligence on the granting of licences for dual use goods, particularly in light of plans to expand Ireland's role in the dual use market, per the Action Plan on Competitiveness and Productivity; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50822/25]
In the Action Plan on Competitiveness and Productivity the Minister outlines progressing the interests of Irish SMEs in the dual-use area, specifically citing defence research and development and the European Defence Fund. Is the Department equipped to deal with an increase in licence applications and the due diligence required to facilitate the dual-use licence system?
I thank Deputy Gibney for her question. The Department is the national competent authority with responsibility for the control of exports of dual-use and military items under EU and national legislation. The primary focus of export controls is not to block trade or exports but to enable the free movement of legitimate goods while ensuring that certain sensitive categories are subject to appropriate regulation. These controls are designed to manage risk, uphold international peace and security, and ensure Ireland's compliance with its international obligations.
The bulk of dual-use exports from Ireland are mainstream business ICT products, both hardware and software, including networking, data storage and cybersecurity. They are categorised as dual-use items as a consequence of fact that they incorporate strong encryption for ICT security purposes. All export licence applications are considered by departmental officials in accordance with criteria set out in the relevant dual-use and military EU and national regulations, and with Ireland’s international obligations and responsibilities as a member of non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements. Each application is assessed individually, considering the nature of the items, the destination country, the identity of the end-user and the intended end use. The Department also consults with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on each application.
Under the Action Plan on Competitiveness and Productivity, the Department of Defence has committed to continuing to progress the interests of Irish SMEs to facilitate growth and ensure deeper engagement in the commercial dual-use area, both nationally and at EU level. I understand from my colleague, an Tánaiste and Minister for Defence, that while his Department will look to develop a more structured approach to enhance engagement with Irish SMEs in the area of dual use, the methodology around this support is being developed.
I thank the Minister of State for the detail. My key concern in this area is that while the Department continues to emphasise dual use as, including perfectly legitimate ICT products, it also emphasises military applications and plans to extend this industry in Ireland. I welcome that applications are risk assessed but with this emphasis on military and defence applications of these goods there is a natural increase in risk and in the number of applications that need additional scrutiny to ensure the end use presented to authorities is appropriate and accurate.
Figures from the Minister of State's Department reveal that the value of these exports has trebled since 2021 and that the number of licences went up by 28%. How is the Department addressing the need to increase our regulatory capacity to ensure that Irish companies are not negligently or purposefully selling these dangerous goods, which can then be used to commit crimes such as those war crimes we are now seeing in Gaza and Ukraine?
I thank the Deputy for her question. I know she has raised this matter on a number of occasions before. I too take this risk incredibly seriously. I will speak to officials in the Department in detail in this regard.
The Department of Defence currently only facilitates Irish SMEs during their initial interaction with initiatives such as the European Defence Fund. This interaction is primarily administrative in nature, assisting entities to navigate the bureaucratic requirements associated with the collaborative EU programmes. My officials will continue to engage with current and potential exporters regarding their responsibilities under export control including via a webinar being hosted this morning to raise awareness among relevant stakeholders of their responsibilities under export control legislation. The bulk of dual-use producers from Ireland are, as I have said, mainstream businesses producing ICT products and so on. Their applications are assessed individually. The Department of Defence currently only facilitates Irish SMEs during their initial interaction with initiatives such as the European Defence Fund.
As I said at the outset, I take these risks incredibly seriously. I am keeping a very close eye on this and I am working collaboratively with the Minister for Defence on the issue.
I hope that is the case because, even in the previous answer to Deputy Conway-Walsh, we hear this emphasis on streamlining and making more efficient the administrative burden on businesses. However, this is a really serious area and one that needs to go in the other direction. In data released to me in answer to a parliamentary question, figures showed significant increases in the value and number of export licences granted since 2021. The Government's competitiveness plan indicates that the Government wants more dual-use products sold abroad by Irish companies, directly linking the productivity and competitiveness of Irish SMEs to funds for military research and development. Logically, that means more and riskier dual-use exports to be assessed for licences. How can any Department do more work and more complex work without additional resources allocated to ensure that everything is above board? When it comes to this conversation, we keep hearing about chips and ICT products but these goods can also be parts for drones such as those that are attacking humanitarian workers on the Sumud flotilla and civilians in Gaza right now. It is an incredibly serious topic and I and others need reassurance that the Minister of State's Department is taking its duties regarding this matter seriously.
Applications for dual-use licences in respect of exports to any country are assessed on a case-by-case basis in line with the assessment criteria set out in the regulation and the eight criteria set out in the European Council Common Position 2008/944/CFSP defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology and equipment. In addition, my officials seek real-time geopolitical observations from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in respect of any applications. These views inform the final decision to grant or deny a licence. The assessment process is rigorous. My officials carry out a series of checks to ensure, insofar as they can, that the item to be exported will be used by the stated end user for the stated end purpose and will not be used or diverted for any other purpose.
Departmental Schemes
3. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment the means by which existing grant and support schemes are being simplified to make them more accessible to small and medium businesses; the steps his Department is taking to cut unnecessary red tape and reduce the administrative burden on small businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51025/25]
The previous question is a very important one. Will the Minister outline the means by which the Department is simplifying access to existing grant and support schemes for our SMEs and the steps he is taking to reduce the administrative burden for those businesses? The administrative burden on small and medium-sized enterprises is a major impediment for business owners around the country at the moment, sucking vital resources away from businesses that could be better deployed elsewhere. By no means am I suggesting reducing the needed scrutiny in the context of the previous question.
I thank Deputy Conway-Walsh for her question. I am happy to inform the Deputy that my Department is making significant progress in simplifying the application process for enterprise grants, particularly those administered through the local enterprise offices and Enterprise Ireland.
Following instruction from my Department through the recently established small business unit, the Enterprise Ireland LEO centre of excellence has completed a comprehensive review of application requirements for each of the LEO grants. This has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of questions across multiple grant schemes. For example, the number of questions regarding the priming and business expansion grants has reduced by 47%, the green for business grant by 30% and the feasibility grant by 28%. Work has already commenced with the online application service provider to make the recommended changes and to merge the application processes for the digital for business and green for business consultancies with the respective follow-on grants: grow digital and the energy-efficiency grant.
Enterprise Ireland is also driving this process through major initiatives. The service delivery transformation programme will introduce a new operating model, along with advanced technology and data capabilities, to deliver service excellence. The start-up Ireland programme is focused on creating a better journey for start-ups and entrepreneurs, strengthening ecosystem co-ordination and enhancing both national and international connectivity. Together, these programmes will help to deliver greater impact and support for Irish enterprise.
Work is also under way with the National Enterprise Hub to examine how it can be utilised to reduce the administrative burden for SMEs applying for Government supports. Scoping work is taking place to identify common data points in applications, starting with agencies under the control of my Department, and to consider how the National Enterprise Hub can be further developed in line with the "once-only" principle of data provision.
The issue is that we still have too many people coming into our constituency offices who cannot get the help and support they need to access grants. I hope that any grants announced in the budget will be thought out properly. The way to do that as regards the design of the grants is to have small businesses involved at the design stage of these grants because they will be able to see what impediments may arise that would prevent them from accessing the grants. You often find that the businesses that least need a grant can get it while those that really need it cannot access it either because of the criteria being too tight or the administrative burden being too large. This significant time and effort could be redirected to other business and substantial costs could be saved if compliance and regulations in public authority reporting could be eased. Again, I am in no way suggesting deregulation. We only have to look at the issue of defective concrete blocks to see the results of deregulation in this country.
We are not really talking about regulation here but about the administrative procedures for small businesses to get the funding they need to develop online platforms, to become more sustainable and to meet their objectives. What we want to do is to make that process easier. This is not a significant risk to the taxpayer. Many of these grants are particularly small and many genuine enterprises just do not have time because time is their scarcest resource. We are working through the process with Enterprise Ireland. We have made significant progress on our LEOs and the users should now be seeing the benefits of that. On design and policy, our SME test has now been brought to our State agencies. We are really looking at thinking small first. How do changes, whether a statutory instrument or the design of a scheme, impact on the smallest businesses that do not have the resource base to go through very significant administrative processes? We are doing a huge amount of work on that. That is on the policy side. That is how you change how the scope is determined across government.
Will the Minister think about this? In Sinn Féin's manifesto and over a number of years, we have envisaged the establishment of a mol gnó, a new Irish enterprise agency focused specifically on scaling existing Irish businesses. This would be a strong agency for non-export focused start-ups and established companies. It would specifically cover the void in support from existing agencies like Enterprise Ireland and the IDA. Enterprise Ireland and the IDA do a really good job but we are not using the space we have at the moment to address over-reliance on foreign direct investment. Although we absolutely need and thrive on foreign direct investment, we have to bridge that gap.
In setting up a new agency – I hate the idea of a new agency – we must ensure it is something with specific targets and aims for that area to increase our indigenous businesses rapidly in the space they have been given.
I appreciate the feedback and ideas because we all need ideas to come forward. Along with Enterprise Ireland and the LEOs, I am particularly focused on making things more accessible and trying to reduce the administrative burden. I am trying to establish a new accelerator programme for our country. The Deputy will be aware of PorterShed in Galway, Dogpatch Labs in Dublin, the NDRC and issues around it. We need to ensure that we have a stable landscape for those businesses that are part of the indigenous economy so that they can thrive. It is to be hoped we can bring that forward through the capital allocations we have received.
A new national accelerator programme will bring those strands together and ensure that prime space is kept for businesses which need it in order to give them the opportunity to grow and scale. We know at this point in time that we are very challenged by the US. The EU has been left behind in the growth and scaling of companies, in particular on the tech side. We are far behind at this point in time and have a huge amount of work to do in this area. I am also open to ideas from colleagues and look forward to working with the Deputy.
Wage-setting Mechanisms
4. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment when subminimum pay rates for young workers will be abolished; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50574/25]
In the run-up to last year's general election, the Government promised to abolish subminimum wage rates for young workers. When will it do it? Will this turn into another broken promise to workers and young people, alongside a week's sick pay and the promise of a living wage?
I am not aware of making any such promise. I want to be very clear on that. The National Minimum Wage Acts allow for lower or subminimum rates of the minimum wage for employees aged 20 years and younger. Those aged less than 18 years can be paid 70% of the full minimum wage rate, while those aged 18 and 19 years can be paid 80% and 90%, respectively, of the full rate. As the Deputy is aware, the Low Pay Commission recommended the abolition of subminimum rates in March 2024. The commission highlighted in its report that this is a very complex issue. It said the Government will need to give its findings and recommendations detailed consideration and deliberation and highlighted the potential need for the Government to take its own legal advice on the matter.
It is important to acknowledge the challenges the enterprise sector has faced over the past number of years. We know that the use of subminimum youth rates is largely concentrated in the accommodation, food and retail sectors, and these sectors have reported facing considerable cost pressures. As part of the measures designed to bolster business resilience and support competitiveness, earlier this year the Government agreed to defer a decision on the subminimum rates until 2029. The decision should be considered in the context of the recent significant increases in the minimum wage which show that the Government continues to commit to fair wages for the lowest paid workers in our economy, but also in the context of the Government's introduction of a range of measures to assist workers, including a statutory sick pay scheme, the right to request remote working and other supports.
It is also important to highlight the very real progress we have made in raising the national minimum wage over recent years. Since 2020, the national minimum wage has increased by 33.7%, from €10.10 to today's rate of €13.50. In 2024, there was a significant uplift of 12%, or €1.40, in the minimum wage. This year, the minimum wage increased by 80 cent, an increase of over 6%. These increases were well ahead of inflation and projected wage growth in the economy and have brought about substantial and real wage growth for the lowest paid workers in our economy.
Did I hear the Minister correctly? Did he say he will not do it until 2029? Is that what he said?
This is not an over and back exchange. The Deputy can make his contribution.
It is an over and back exchange. That is the nature of the format. The Minister said the rate would not be changed until 2029 or he would consider it at that stage. I ask him to clarify that. It is incredible. We introduced a Bill to get rid of this legalised superexploitation of young people in 2022, which was passed on Second Stage. It would have gotten rid of the rate in 2023, with a timed amendment. The Government said at the time that it had to wait for a report from the Low Pay Commission. The report came out in 2024 and was absolutely clear and unanimous that the Government should get rid of the superexploitation.
At that stage, I remember at a committee meeting the Government said it would produce an economic impact report. Last September, the committee was told it would take six to nine months, but there is still no sign of the new economic impact report. The Government is kicking the can down the road. The Minister is now saying that this will now be changed in 2029, and will not even give a commitment to do it. A 19-year-old cannot pay 90% of their rent to their landlord. An 18-year-old cannot pay 80% of their grocery bill. A 17-year-old cannot pay 70% of the price of petrol. It is scandalous.
The Government's commitment is to defer the decision to 2029. We will publish the data behind that shortly. It should be noted what the commission actually said on subminimum rates. It is not exactly what the Deputy quoted. It stated:
The Low Pay Commission recommends that sub-minimum wage rates for employees who are 18 and 19 years of age should be abolished no sooner than 1 January 2025.
Contrary to what the Deputy said at the very outset, I did not make any commitment to abolish the subminimum rates. It is important to be aware that approximately 5% of 19-year-olds receive subminimum rates. The majority of workers in those cohorts are above the level of the minimum wage. Critically, the increases of recent years have been ahead of wage growth in the economy and ahead of inflation. That is combined with support from the statutory sick pay scheme, an increase in the minimum wage, banning zero-hour contracts, the introduction of legislation on tips and the introduction of auto-enrolment from 1 January.
In another question, the Deputy asks about increasing the minimum wage to €17, an increase of approximately 30%, which is six times the growth rate of wages and our economy. When combined with auto-enrolment and other increases, it would leave this country without any jobs. Deputy Murphy does not have an iota of what it takes to run the enterprise economy. He does not know what it means to employ people. He does not know the value of the 2.81 million people who are going to work in our country every single day. The policies the Deputy brings forward would close down the enterprise economy.
The Minister's bluster will not disguise what is a viciously anti-worker and anti-young person policy. The Minister is saying that 19-year-olds, 18-year-olds and 17-year-olds do not deserve to get the minimum wage - the inadequate minimum wage - in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. The Minister is saying that people who go to work and do the same work as the workers next door to them, who happen to be a little bit older, are not entitled to the minimum wage. Some 15,000 young people are affected by this. The Minister is telling them there is no chance of getting the minimum wage until 2029. That is scandalous.
I will repeat the point. People who are 19 years of age cannot pay 90% of their rent. People who are 18 years of age cannot pay 80% of the grocery bill. People who are 17 years of age cannot pay 70% of the price of petrol. The Minister thinks it is okay for employers to superexploit young people by paying them less than the minimum wage. The Fine Gael agenda has been exposed. It is an absolutely disgusting policy.
I am proud of the role the Government has played in improving the rights of employees. The Deputy spoke about rhetoric. Every decision he puts across to us is binary. He does not consider the potential impact such decisions would have on education pathways for young people and the unintended consequences. He does not consider training. He referred to 19-year-olds and 18-year-olds. I can tell him right now that 5% of 19-year-olds are on subminimum rates. That shows us the opportunity in our economy and the pathways currently available. Everything has to be taken in the round. I can demonstrate to the Deputy that there was a 12% increase in the minimum wage rate last year, ahead of wage growth and inflation. Subminimum rates also increased last year. We plan to continue the trajectory of improving conditions for workers. I also have a responsibility to make sure those jobs are there. A corner shop in a small village may be struggling with costs, but the Deputy wants to increase its wage costs to €17 per hour.
This question is about subminimum rates.
That is what the Deputy's proposal will do. Let us be clear about it. He would close down every small business in the country if he had his way and he was running the country.
If they cannot afford to pay the minimum wage, they should not be in business.
The Deputy does not have any balance. He does not know what it means to keep good high-value jobs in our economy.
5. Deputy Rose Conway-Walsh asked the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment when the action plan on collective bargaining will be published; the timeline for publication of the underpinning legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51026/25]
My question relates to the publication of the action plan on collective bargaining that underpins the EU directive on an adequate minimum wage. When will we see the contents of this plan? What is the timeline for the delivery of the legislation underpinning that?
There is a commitment in the programme for Government to finalise this action plan by the end of 2025. It will be October next week and the Minister is running out of road in this regard.
I thank the Deputy for the question, which I appreciate. It concerns a very important area for us as a Government and one that under the programme for Government we have committed to finalising the action plan on the promotion of collective bargaining by the end of 2025, in line with the EU directive on adequate minimum wages. Work on developing the action plan in conjunction with our social partners is currently ongoing. Under Article 4, the directive aims to promote collective bargaining on wages in all member states. Each member state in which the collective bargaining coverage rate is less than a threshold of 80%, as is the case in the majority of member states, including Ireland, shall provide for a "framework of enabling conditions" for collective bargaining and shall also establish an action plan to promote collective bargaining by the end of 2025.
The European Commission expert group's report on transposition of the directive is clear that the design of the framework of enabling conditions and the content of the action plan is entirely up to member states, in consultation with the social partners. A technical working group has been established in the Department with officials and the social partners to examine what will be considered for inclusion in Ireland’s action plan, and the group has met regularly this year. The work of this group is now at an advanced stage and is essential in developing the content of the action plan. It met as recently as last week and will be meeting again shortly. I expect the action plan on collective bargaining to be published over the next couple of months once this work has been completed.
We were also very clear regarding the case coming forward in relation to the adequate minimum wage directive. I made it very clear that irrespective of the result of that we are pressing ahead and will have our plan together. In relation to the consultation open from 14 April to 12 May, I note we received about 80 valid submissions, to which we have responded. Working with our social partners and through the Labour Employer Economic Forum, LEEF, is very important. There will also be challenges from both sides as the plan is being worked on, but I want to get the best plan we can by the end of the year and I am very committed to achieving that.
This is absolutely critical because we are at a juncture regarding how we will shape our economy going forward. We cannot have an economy without workers. We need to stop viewing it as workers versus employers because the benefits of collective bargaining are huge. I commend the campaign in this regard which is being run by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, in particular, and the presentation yesterday in the audiovisual room. People will be surprised to see that although there is a constitutional right for people to be part of a union, there is no legal obligation on the employer to engage with that union. We have an imbalance there that needs to be addressed. Investing in SMEs and microbusinesses to rescue jobs and protect our communities should be a priority for all our parties. It is certainly a priority for Sinn Féin.
I thank Deputy Conway-Walsh again for her comments on the matter. As I said, it is one area that through the programme for Government we are very much committed to. The Deputy quite rightly spoke about participation in the various forums. Deliberations will be ongoing on that and how we can address it in our action plan. We will be doing that. We have got a lot out of the LEEF structure in terms of the social partners. It is a good mechanism to air these issues. We will not solve everything, however. I can be absolutely honest about that. We will, though, give our best effort to this plan to build confidence and show the Government's capacity regardless of the uncertainty that was there through the legal challenge. We have committed to pressing ahead. I think that is an important statement on how we value workers and value their right to collective bargaining and how we want to give people that opportunity and put in place the conditions where that can grow.
Six of the top ten FDI companies enable union representation. We know for a fact that it increases respect for management. It increases as union recognition increases. We need to take heed of the good jobs Bill in the North as well, because that is really making inroads in this area in terms of union recognition. As a party, Sinn Féin has long stood in support of trade union recognition and the fundamental right of workers to be represented by their unions. I acknowledge the work of my colleague, Deputy Louise O'Reilly, in this area, as well as the work of my former colleague, a former Senator, Paul Gavan, with regard to the support and progression of trade unions and trade union representatives. We on this side of the House are committed to the rights of workers right across this island. Again, this speaks to the all-island economy. We need congruence of workers' rights across the island too.
I absolutely agree that quality jobs are so important in our economy. I think this will be one of the areas we will focus on during our Presidency of the EU in the second half of next year. That will give us a key opportunity. We must remember that in the action plan and under the adequate minimum wage directive, MEPs from my party, including Regina Doherty and others, played a huge role in really working on that directive and getting agreement in the European Parliament. We are, therefore, very keen to try to bring forward the best possible plan that we can. When our EU Presidency term does come, we are also very keen to focus on high-quality work, because this is what our economy should be about. This is why we are very focused on it at all times. I have been part of the past number of Governments and I know the huge improvements we have had for lower-paid workers. That must be acknowledged. When people challenge us on what areas there have been improvements in, it must be acknowledged we have banned zero-hour contracts, which were totally wrong, brought in tips legislation to protect vulnerable workers and we now have a sick pay scheme. Additionally, we have auto-enrolment, which will future-proof people and their retirement plans. The State will be stepping up to the mark over the next number of years. Those are key improvements in the economy, including watching out for lower-paid workers, while also trying to enhance the capacity to get more high-quality jobs into the country, because this will be critical for us all to realise our ambitions in life.
Business Regulation
6. Deputy Albert Dolan asked the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment the action he is taking to simplify business regulation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51027/25]
Red tape is a huge issue for small businesses. When I am out meeting business people, one thing that comes up consistently is red tape. What is the Minister of State doing to cut through red tape and simplify business regulation?
I thank the Deputy for his really important question. This is something we all hear about regularly in our constituency offices. The action plan on competitiveness and productivity - a commitment in the programme for Government - recently published by the Minister, Deputy Burke, is a whole-of-government strategic response to the challenges that Ireland is facing. A key focus of the action plan is improving Ireland’s regulatory environment under the theme "Regulating for Growth and Controlling Costs". Measures under this theme include introducing a red tape challenge across Government to reduce regulation for SMEs, undertaking a public consultation to identify areas of high burden and all Government Departments applying the SME test to all measures, and in particular to policy initiatives where it is proposed to increase costs on small business.
In terms of my Department, there is an ongoing commitment to ensuring the regulatory environment is proportionate and fit for purpose. This includes the conduct of regulatory impact analysis and the systematic application of the SME test, which has been designed to invite consideration of less stringent compliance requirements for smaller companies, where appropriate and proportionate. My Department has also established a small business unit which has been tasked with ensuring that the needs and issues of small businesses have a dedicated focus and are recognised and acknowledged across Government.
In terms of legislative change, the Companies Act 2014 was updated through the Companies (Corporate Governance, Enforcement and Regulatory Provisions) Act 2024, which introduced a range of practical reforms consistent with ensuring that Ireland's regulatory framework provides flexibility and is fit for modern business operating in an increasingly digital and virtual environment. Work is ongoing to modernise and reform a range of other legislation, including the co-operative societies Bill and legislation relating to limited partnerships and business names. The foregoing complements work ongoing at EU level, where there is a particular focus on simplification. This is what this all boils down to - simplification. I know the Minister has been a huge champion of the simpler, faster and lighter approach in terms of bureaucracy for small businesses.
Go maith agat. I really welcome all that is being done in the Department to try to simplify business regulation.
From my dealings with the Department, that is definitely the thinking. It wants to make life better for businesses. It wants to make Ireland a better place to operate a business. To reiterate how important this point is, the IBEC CEO Survey 2025 ranks sensible regulation as the third most important issue that CEOs across our country face. As Fianna Fáil spokesperson on enterprise, I want to make sure that we continue with that train of thought. SMEs suffer the brunt of overregulation. They do not have the scale and capacity to subsume a lot of the burden. What will be done for the SMEs to ensure that they will have smoother operations, that they can deal with State agencies better and, ultimately, have greater longevity.
The red-tape challenge will be introduced across Government to significantly reduce regulation for SMEs, because we have to get the balance right. I am glad the Deputy stated that regulation is the third most important issue. Companies and CEOs recognise the importance of regulation without killing businesses with additional burdens. The red-tape challenge will include a review by each Department to identify regulations to be removed or reduced without impacting on policy objectives, and a public consultation to identify areas of high burden or where burden reduction could be launched is a focus of the Government.
The overarching objective of the action plan to which I referred is to maintain and improve Ireland's position as a competitive and productive economy capable of withstanding shocks, building on our strengths and developing the indigenous enterprise base while continuing to attract investment and talent from abroad. The action plan contains 85 actions for enhancing Ireland's competitive and productivity performance, with 26 of these identified as priority actions. I hope that provides some detail for the Deputy.
Part of what will make our business environment better to do business in is something that falls within the Minister of State's brief, namely digitisation. Ultimately, the question the Department needs to be asking is whether every grant application, licence permit, etc., can be processed by it digitally? It is important for every Department to look at this because if somebody cannot easily deal with a Department in person, they will still be able to deal with an official online if they encounter any difficulties. That is the way to think about it.
I have read many times about Estonia's digital-first policy and how innovative it is. The reality is that Ireland is home to the biggest tech companies in the world. The Government need to show both leadership and that we want to be a digital-first nation. Of course, we want to make sure that nobody gets left behind. We need to show leadership, however, because when all of these companies are investing in Ireland, they want to see that we are tech-minded, that we are tech leaders and that we want to see success for their businesses and this country.
I agree wholeheartedly with what the Deputy said in terms of digitalisation, and that is not to take away from Deputy Conway-Walsh's point that there are businesses which will struggle with that. That is why the Department launched the digital charter, which is a call to action for bigger companies that are digitally proficient to buddy up with smaller businesses across the country to help them get on the digitalisation train. AI will be transformative and will bring us to a new level. I am looking forward over the coming weeks and months to us planning the AI summit, which will be part of Ireland's EU Presidency. In all of that, we need huge co-operation from the bigger companies to assist smaller companies where possible. They are willing to work with the Department and have been doing so up to this point.
Poverty Data
82. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is aware that the measurement 'consistent poverty' obscures the full number of people both at risk of poverty and in material deprivation; if he is aware that 'consistent poverty' fails to account for housing costs; if he will consider using both 'material deprivation' and 'at risk of poverty after housing costs' as alternative measures for future national child poverty targets; if he will ensure all research commissioned on the topic of child poverty utilises both 'material deprivation' and 'at risk of poverty after housing costs' when measuring poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50375/25]
In keeping with my form, this question is fairly straightforward. It is to do with the use of the measurement of consistent poverty, which obscures the full number of people both at risk of poverty and in material deprivation. I hope the Minister tells me he will do what I am asking, which is to consider alternative measures. We all have an interest in tackling poverty but we cannot do that unless we are measuring it properly.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as a ceist. Reducing child poverty is a key priority for the Government. I agree with the Deputy that it is important to use data that is complete, accurate and can be tracked over time. The data on poverty used by my Department is the official data the Central Statistics Office, CSO, publishes in its annual survey on income and living conditions, SILC. The headline measure produced by this survey is consistent poverty, which combines income poverty and material deprivation. The CSO also presents at risk of poverty data on a before and after housing costs basis and by tenure status.
These indicators, together with indicators on material deprivation, are relied on by my Department and reported annually in our social impact monitor, which tracks progress against the national poverty reduction targets. The Department also utilises the data from the minimum essential standard of living reports of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. We fully fund the partnership to produce those reports.
While there is no one measure that adequately captures all facets of poverty, the use of the headline consistent poverty measure is useful in that it combines both those at risk of income-based poverty and those facing deprivation through a lack of basic necessities. This dual approach gives us a valuable insight into the level of social inclusion in Ireland. That is why the consistent poverty measure has long served as the national poverty benchmark. It has been endorsed by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, and is used for the national poverty target in the cross-Government social inclusion strategy, the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025.
As the Deputy knows, we recently announced a new child poverty target utilising the consistent poverty measure. I will be making the delivery of the new child poverty target of 3% or less, down from its current level of 8.5%, a key objective of the new roadmap for social inclusion action plan to be published in 2026. I am also currently prioritising measures to address child poverty in consideration of budget 2026. I hope that clarifies the position for the Deputy.
The problem is that the level of children in consistent poverty is currently 8.5%, that figure having doubled since 2024. However, the consistent poverty measure, in and of itself, does not account for housing costs. The Minister and I both know that for reasons of Government policy, housing costs are out of control. People who are at risk of poverty or living in consistent poverty are not having the extent of that poverty measured because housing costs are not included in it. These are people who are forced to pay among the highest rents in Europe. If we look at the study from Barnardos, the parents are saying that by the time they pay for housing, in particular, and energy, the cost of which, again, is among the highest in Europe and we are told no energy credits are coming, they have nothing left at the end of the week. If the Minister is not taking housing into consideration, he is missing that key measurement. He said these measurements are relied on by his Department for the actions it takes. It needs to be measuring all the things that contribute to kids living in poverty.
I absolutely agree with the Deputy that we need accurate figures. We have long used the consistent poverty measure as the national poverty benchmark.
The recently agreed child poverty target of 3% or less is based on the consistent poverty measure, which is the critical measure of child poverty because it captures income-related and deprivation-related aspects. In addition, we use CSO data on the financial burden of housing costs, while poverty rates by tenure status are reported annually in our social impact monitor. That also tracks progress against national poverty reduction targets. Any approach to measuring poverty rates after housing costs should take into account the supports available through HAP and rent supplement.
We are preparing a new roadmap for social inclusion for 2026 to 2030 and considering the inclusion of CSO SILC data on the at-risk-of-poverty rate before and after housing as an indicator for the new roadmap. I am happy to engage with the Deputy and the social protection committee as we finalise that documentation for publication in early 2026.
Is that the dashboard that will be published in early 2026?
No, it is the new roadmap for inclusion.
Maybe when he comes back in, the Minister can tell me when the dashboard, which will allegedly contain a number of child poverty measurements, will be available. I know it will come from the child poverty unit so is not, strictly speaking, the Minister's Department, but I am sure it will be involved in it. Here is my difficulty. The consistent poverty rate for children is running at 8.5%, double what it was in 2024. When we add in housing costs, we find that 17.6% of children were at risk of poverty in 2024. The Minister is missing a key part of what he should be tackling. I welcome the fact the Minister is open to considering housing costs. They have to be considered. When looking at the whole picture, of course any supports available will be included in that. The doubling in the figure from 8.5% to 17.6% means there is potentially a significant number not being captured.
I will revert to the Deputy on the dashboard. There is huge work under way to make it as inclusive and measurable as possible. The unit is open to suggestions on what should be part of the dashboard. It is crucial it be used as a cross-governmental measure. We are looking at the whole area of housing costs. Depending on tenure and on whether a person owns or is renting, it can have a different impact on the figures. We are going through all of that with a view to making a decision on it as we prepare the social inclusion roadmap. That should be published in the first quarter of 2026.
Social Welfare Appeals
83. Deputy Mark Wall asked the Minister for Social Protection to provide the number of requests for an oral hearing over the past four years; the number of oral hearings that have been held virtually, in-person and over the phone, in the past four years, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50021/25]
I think we can all agree on the importance of oral hearings as part of the social welfare appeals process. To that end, I ask the Minister to set out the number of requests for oral hearings over the past four years, and the number of oral hearings held virtually, in person and over the phone.
I thank the Deputy. Oral hearings on social welfare appeals can be held virtually, in person or by phone. In 2024, there were 432 oral hearings, comprising 120 in person, 53 by phone and 259 virtually. The figure has fallen considerably in recent years but that has to be set against the backdrop of a number of things. When a case is assigned to an appeals officer, the officer examines the documentary evidence presented and considers if the appeal can be properly and fairly decided by way of a summary decision. Where there is a conflict in the evidence provided that would materially affect the question under consideration, the appeals officer will consider if the conflict could be resolved at an oral hearing and will make the arrangements for that hearing to take place.
Appeals officers are statutorily independent in the exercise of their powers, including with respect to whether to hold an oral hearing. However, in order to increase transparency around that, the social welfare appeals regulations 2024 came into effect on 28 April 2025. They established for the first time the legal right of an appellant to request an oral hearing. Appeals officers must consider these requests. Where it is decided not to hold an oral hearing, the appeals officer must provide reasons in writing as to why this is the case. The ability to request a hearing and to be provided with reasons as to why a hearing is or is not being held did not exist prior to these regulations.
The new appeals functionality on MyWelfare means appellants can now easily transmit documentation and evidence to the relevant scheme area and the appeals office electronically. This can mean that evidence that previously would not have been available to an appeals officer until an oral hearing can be provided earlier in the process and is resulting in appeals officers being able to decide a higher number of cases on a summary basis.
I thank the Minister for the reply. My concern is that a reply to a parliamentary question from my colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith, stated that social welfare held 5,397 oral hearings in 2018 and the Minister has confirmed that the 2024 figure was down to 432. I am sure the Minister gets many requests for appeals. I know my office does. One of the mechanisms my office has used is the appeals process, in particular the oral hearing, because it gives the appellant the chance to meet somebody in person and face to face, to see the whites of their eyes and make sure every part of the evidence they can get out gets out. We seem to have gone back to a reliance on virtual interactions, which is a backward step. I ask the Minister to assure us oral hearings will continue and that where a request is made, even under those regulations, no obstacles to oral hearings are being put in place by the Department.
I can absolutely assure the Deputy that oral appeals will continue. The regulations are now there for people to request them. However, things have changed and the functionality available on MyWelfare.ie gives much more information earlier in the process, which leads to a situation where the oral hearing is not as important as it may once have been. I assure the Deputy oral appeals will continue to happen and I will continue to monitor the figures. My main focus at the moment is working with the appeals office to get through any backlogs. We have appointed 20 new appeals officers this year and are getting through the backlog.
I have to disagree on the importance of oral hearings. Much as virtual contact is good and modern, I deal with many people who cannot come to terms with that new technology. I used to attend 30 to 40 oral hearings. I am sure other Members of the House used to attend them as well. I have hardly attended one in the past two years because of the lack of oral hearings being held. When you are sitting beside somebody and they are putting across their case, they have an independent person - it has to be an independent person who is not medical - and that person sees what the appellant has gone through. That is the importance of oral hearings. That is why we should allow oral hearings in every case where a request has gone in. Virtual is great but, unfortunately, for a large proportion of the people who come through my office, it is not good enough and they are not in a position to use the virtual part of MyWelfare. Oral hearings had and still have a huge part to play in the social welfare appeals process.
I do not disagree. We have all done oral hearings and they are very important. As the Deputy said, it is about seeing the white of a person's eye and having that interaction. There is a mix of the traditional oral hearing and the other options available to get a decision quicker and get through the process quicker. I assure the Deputy I do not intend to discourage the use of oral hearings. They are an important part of the process.
School Meals Programme
84. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of schools under contract to a supplier (details supplied) under the hot school meals programme; the number of these schools that exclusively cater to additional educational needs; the number that are DEIS schools; the number that are DEIS+ schools; his plan to provide parents of children affected by the cessation of the services with a stipend while a new contractor is being procured; the options for school meal provision for children affected in the meantime; if alternative cold lunches will be subsidised or provided by the Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50376/25]
The question relates to the sudden cessation of an element of the hot school meals programme. I am specifically interested in the number of schools impacted that are DEIS schools or that exclusively cater for children with additional educational needs. The Minister has to be aware that this news came as a bolt out of the blue for parents. It seemed there was no contingency in place when it happened. Will the Minister outline the steps taken and the contingency that will be in place for the future?
I thank the Deputy. As she knows, the hot school meals programme was established to ensure that children across Ireland have access to safe, nutritious meals during the school day. It is a core Government commitment to support children’s health, well-being, and educational outcomes. The programme is being made available to all primary schools before the end of this year. This will allow 3,200 schools, which cater for approximately 550,000 children, to avail of hot school meals currently provided by 300 suppliers are across the country. Those suppliers are a diverse group of organisations from the large national supplier and regional suppliers to local restaurants and food outlets, as well as Meals on Wheels groups, which we will get the chance to discuss later. The advice my Department has given to schools is that they can procure school meals from any provider they wish as long as they meet the standards set out in the procurement documentation. The evidence is that the vast majority of small school meals suppliers are capable of meeting these standards.
The companies referred to in the Deputy's question, The Lunch Bag and Fresh Today, withdrew their school meals service at very short notice from 79 schools. Four of these schools are special schools and 38 are DEIS schools. It is highly regrettable that the providers acted in this manner, giving virtually no notice to the school communities. The Department immediately contacted the affected schools. They were sent information on 4 September advising them of the options open to them, including procuring a new hot school meals supplier quickly or serving cold lunches in the meantime. Many of them have already procured alternative suppliers, while others are in process. The Department is engaging with the schools that have not responded, to provide support. The programme is designed so that meals are provided by contracted food business operators. This ensures responsibility for food safety and legislative compliance is placed on those professional providers and not on the schools. This also ensures children benefit from a reliable, high-quality service while protecting schools from having to take on responsibilities more appropriate to the food business operators.
We have known for months that at least one in five parents skip meals or reduce their own portions to ensure their children have enough to eat. That underlines the importance of this programme. The Minister's colleague, An Taoiseach, Deputy Micheál Martin, has said he will personally intervene in the case of one school in Cork. I have just read a newspaper article in which he confirms that. I do not think a nationally available hot school meals programme is appropriate for that type of parish-pump politics. Deputy Calleary, as the Minister, should be intervening directly to ensure that where kids are not getting a hot meal, it is made available. The Minister said his Department is engaging to provide support. Will he outline in his next response what form that is taking and if extra funding has been provided? My understanding is this information was available to the Department in advance of it being available to parents and that there was something of a time lag. Will the Minister outline that? Given that we know there are children living in poverty, and consistent poverty, access to a hot school meal is more important than ever before.
We are agreed that access to a hot school meal is vital, and that is what we are trying to secure. My Department officials have worked incredibly hard since we were informed by the school communities that the companies were withdrawing. We have set up a new process. My officials are regularly in touch with the school communities involved. Many of them have secured a replacement supplier, because there are other suppliers who approached my Department to say they would step in. There are other schools where it is harder to get a replacement provider, but my Department is working with school communities to make the replacement procurement process as easy as possible and in the interim to provide a cold meal. That is not the optimum. I want hot school meals to be provided. It has also given us an opportunity to further pursue Deputy O'Reilly's suggestion from a previous round of questions regarding local providers, such as community food providers, Meals on Wheels and others. Some schools are working with that as well. Ultimately, the aim is to ensure the legislative responsibility for food safety is paramount. That needs to be the responsibility of the operator, not the school community. That is why we have had to make some of those changes.
I will give the Minister another chance to tell me what the timeline was regarding when the Department knew about the service withdrawal and when the parents knew. This came as a bolt out of the blue. When you are living on a low income or a fixed income and you are trying to feed kids, you plan ahead. Parents had planned ahead on the basis that their kids would be getting a hot meal in the middle of the day. That has not happened for many. I am interested to know the details of the timeline between when the Minister's Department found out and when parents found out. Many parents had absolutely no warning and no chance to put contingency arrangements in place. Indeed, there was possibly no money to finance the kids to bring food to school. If the Minister does not have it, his Department should provide, in writing, a clear timeline and an explanation of why parents got absolutely no warning. I would also like to know what is being done to ensure this does not happen again, since we all agree on the importance of kids being able to access a hot school meal in the middle of the day.
I do not want to give the Deputy inaccurate information. I will provide her with the timeline. I can assure her that there was no delay. We were not informed by the supplier; we were informed by school communities. As soon as we became aware of it, we put the processes in place. The members of the team in the Department of Social Protection are continuing to work incredibly hard, for example by making phone calls very late into the evening. I want to thank them. I will provide the Deputy with a timeline. I have asked my officials to look at the make-up of those suppliers to ensure this situation does not happen again. This is not the Department's fault or the school's fault. These companies withdrew at very short notice. I will provide the accurate timeline, but the notice to school communities was a matter of days. In that context I have asked that we look at the contract documentation so this situation does not happen again, and school communities, teachers, boards of management and especially parents and children are not left in this situation again.
Programme for Government
85. Deputy Liam Quaide asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to introduce a cost of disability payment to help address the significant additional costs of having a disability; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50570/25]
Will the Minister provide some detail on the Government's commitment to introduce a permanent cost of disability payment to help to address the significant additional costs that come with having a disability and impose financial hardship on many of our disabled citizens?
I thank the Deputy. The programme for Government includes a range of commitments in relation to support for people with disabilities. This includes a commitment to introduce a permanent annual cost of disability support payment with a view to incrementally increasing this payment. As we know, addressing the cost of disability is not a question of income support alone. The delivery of and access to services is also key. We need all Departments and agencies of Government to work together to address the issue in a comprehensive manner. This is why the Taoiseach has established the Cabinet committee on disability with its own dedicated programme office in the Department of the Taoiseach. In addition, the recently published National Human Rights Strategy for Disabled People 2025-2030 takes a whole-of-government approach. The publication of this strategy sets out specific actions being led by named Departments, including, for my own Department, the responsibility to lead a strategic focus network on the cost of disability. The work of this network, which will include people with disabilities and advocates, will inform the approach to be taken in delivering on the programme for Government commitment. I have asked my officials to expedite this work with a view to bringing a proposal to the Government in the first half of next year.
In the meantime, I am engaged with my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Jack Chambers, to explore what might be feasible in the forthcoming budget. As the Deputy will be aware, the last number of budgets included some specific measures to assist disabled people with the rising cost of living. As part of budget 2025, for example, a €400 disability support grant for people in receipt of disability allowance, invalidity pension or blind pension was paid in November 2024 together with a €12 increase in the maximum personal rate of weekly disability payments from January 2025. We have taken a range of other measures to help people with disabilities to secure and maintain employment. We are continuing to work through our commitments in the national human rights strategy for disabled people.
I thank the Minister for his response. A recent report from the Economic and Social Research Institute and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission shows that the additional costs faced by disabled people are now estimated to be between 52% and 59% of disposable income. For those with more severe disabilities, that rises to as much as 93%. These costs arise across essential areas, including transport, medicines, specialised equipment, the need for personal assistance and care hours.
The report also highlights how traditional poverty measurements underestimate the levels of deprivation experienced by disabled people as they fail to take account of these unavoidable additional costs. This is a stark reflection of how far behind we are in providing meaningful support to disabled citizens.
I urge the Minister to take the evidence seriously and to introduce a specific cost-of-disability payment in the upcoming budget. People with disabilities cannot be expected to wait any longer.
That is a programme for Government commitment. As I said, we are looking at the best way to implement it and we will be working with people with disabilities and their advocates to assess it.
I have looked at the ESRI report. As the Deputy said, it estimates that the average cost of a disability ranges from €25,376 to €28,860 depending on the severity. That is much higher than other reports. We are trying to work with the ESRI to understand how it reached that figure. The most important people in this conversation are those with disabilities and their advocates. I want to engage with them in order that I can understand what will work best for them. I will see to it that this payment is implemented during the lifetime of the Government, and we will seek to ensure it is adequate.
We are continuing our other work in this space. I am focused on assisting people with disabilities who want to get back into employment and on assisting employers to support their employees with disabilities. We are looking at wage subsidies and income supports as well.
The introduction of a cost-of-disability payment has been proposed but not acted upon for far too long. Detailed research and costings were carried out by the National Disability Authority as far back as 2006 and updated in the comprehensive Indecon report of 2021. Both reports clearly demonstrated the significant additional costs that come with living with a disability. These findings have been consistently echoed by the Disability Federation of Ireland, which has long advocated for a permanent payment that recognises these unavoidable expenses.
A cost-of-disability payment would represent a structural long-term recognition of the daily additional costs of disability, covering such areas as transport, heating, medical needs, equipment and more. This is a matter of basic fairness and equality. I call on the Government to set out without delay a firm timeline for the introduction of a cost-of-disability payment and to make provision for it in the upcoming budget.
I have given the Deputy a sense of the timeline and of the work that is under way. This is priority work in our Department. I hope to bring a firm proposal to the Government in the first half of 2026. As I said, I am engaging strongly with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, about budget 2026 provisions in the meantime. I do not intend to do nothing in this budget. We are working with the Minister, Deputy Chambers, around that. I can absolutely guarantee that there is no point in our publishing a human rights strategy for disabled people which takes a whole-of-government approach, without implementing measures that make a difference. A cost-of-disability payment is one of those measures. It will be implemented during the lifetime of this Government. However, it is important that we do not impose a model on those who will be in receipt of it. I want to engage with and hear directly from people with disabilities and their advocates about exactly what kind of model will work. I will put that work and time in. I assure the Deputy it is a priority for me to introduce this payment.
Pension Provisions
86. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of former An Post employees whose initial applications for pensions were refused in each of the past ten years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51086/25]
There are major problems with pensions at the moment. People have to fight for their pensions. Aer Lingus pensioners come to me who are still not being paid their full pensions. Pensioners come to me who say that 70,000 of them have received letters stating they may have been overpaid on their pensions. They are living in fear about that. This question relates to An Post pensioners who have been left in limbo about their pension rights. A High Court case is coming up, which seems like it is looking to deny them the income they should have as pensioners. How many pensioners are in that situation? When will it be resolved?
The contributory State pension is funded by contributions paid into the Social Insurance Fund. In general, people will qualify for the contributory State pension if they are aged 66 or over and have between 520 and 2080, or more, reckonable contributions, of which 520 must be full-rate pay related social insurance, PRSI, contributions. There are no issues relating to An Post employees who meet the qualifying conditions for the contributory State pension.
Contributions paid at class B, C or D, that is, those made by public servants recruited before 6 April 1995, are known as modified or reduced-rate contributions. They are not qualifying contributions for the contributory State pension. This is because those contributors pay less in social insurance contributions in return for fewer social insurance benefits. For example, class D contributors currently pay a contribution at the rate of 1% on their weekly earnings up to €1,443 and 4.1% on weekly earnings above that amount. Their employers pay a contribution of 2.45% on all employee earnings. In contrast, class A contributors pay a contribution of 4.1% on their weekly earnings. Their employers pay a contribution of 8.9% where employees' weekly earnings are €527 or less, and 11.15% where employees' weekly earnings exceed €527. Class A contributors have access to the full range of social insurance benefits.
Given that social insurance contributions are paid over people's working lifetime, during which time they may have had multiple, and in some case overlapping, employments, been awarded credited or attributed contributions or paid for voluntary contributions, it is difficult to associate entitlement to a benefit with employment with a particular employer. This information is also not required to assess eligibility for a pension. The Department does not therefore categorise or record applications for the State pension by prior employer name, which is the information the Deputy is looking for.
A pensioner came into my office recently who was one of six workers who started work on 25 July 1994. The rule, which the Minister mentioned, was that anyone who started before 6 April 1995 and worked on a continuous basis in an established position should be on class D PRSI contributions. The State made its decision. The scope section of the Department agreed with the decision. The class D contribution means people were entitled to retire at 60 and receive the full State pension. However, an appeal was made by An Post. Let us think about this. These are workers who committed their lives to the service of An Post. They paid a rate of PRSI which means they are entitled to a decent standard of pension on retirement and a semi-State company is in court fighting this decision. As a result, these pension entitlements are in limbo. The pensioners cannot find out what their entitlements are because of an outstanding court case brought by An Post. How come the Department cannot work out their entitlements? Why are they the subject of a court case? Will the Minister seek to resolve the matter as soon as possible?
I cannot comment on a court case, as the Deputy will understand. An Post operational matters are a matter for An Post and the relevant Minister. I have gone through the reasons we do not keep this information in the Department and how difficult it is to categorise or record applications for State pensions by prior employer name. However, if the Deputy wants to contact me later with a specific request that was not apparent in the question, I will try to address it. I want to be helpful, but I cannot get involved in an ongoing court case. However, I do want to be helpful to the Deputy and his constituent.
I am happy to share any information I have about the constituent, but the question on the Order Paper asks how many pensioners are in a similar situation. This is not a criminal case that An Post is involved in, so I do not see why the Minister cannot give a view about the entitlement and rights of a pensioner. I know of at least 30 pensioners who are in a similar situation to this pensioner. It is my understanding that it might be the case throughout elements of the public service. Perhaps people who are employed by local authorities could be in a situation where there is confusion about what pension entitlement they have. This is a serious situation. For example, as part of the court case, papers have been requested from An Post to help the case and An Post is refusing to provide the papers, which is slowing down the case.
These workers - men and women - are getting older. This is a live situation that has to be resolved. It cannot be allowed to meander and languish in the High Court for years.
I have outlined the position regarding that information. The Department does not categorise or record applications for State pensions by prior employer name. Issues relating to An Post are a matter for the Minister for communications, who has political responsibility. It is our role in the Department to lay down the rules, set out how it can be done and make payments in relation to pensions. It is a role we take very seriously, but specific issues as to how companies deal with their employees are a matter for individual companies. I am happy to try and pursue this further for the Deputy, but, equally, whether it is criminal or civil in nature, it is not the role of the Oireachtas to get involved in a court case.
Social Welfare Code
87. Deputy John Paul O'Shea asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans for phasing out the means test entirely for the carer’s allowance during the lifetime of this Government, as per the programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [51028/25]
This question relates to an issue that goes to the very heart of compassion, dignity and fairness in our society, namely the support we provide for family carers. Across Cork North-West and, indeed, every parish in Ireland there are countless people who quietly dedicate their lives to caring for a loved one, whether that is a child with additional needs, an elderly parent or a partner who requires daily support. Will the Minister provide an update on the programme for Government commitment to phasing out the means test entirely for the carers allowance during the lifetime of this Government?
We all acknowledge the valuable role that family carers play. The Government remains fully committed to supporting carers in that role. The carer's allowance scheme is the main scheme by which the Department provides income support to carers. This year, expenditure on the carer's allowance scheme is estimated to be over €1.24 billion. There are currently almost 102,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance.
The programme for Government contains a commitment to significantly increase the income disregards for carer's allowance in each budget with a view to phasing out the means test during the lifetime of the Government. This is a major change to the carer's allowance and to the Irish social welfare system generally. It is important that we make progress in a sustainable manner without limiting our scope to support other vulnerable groups in society.
Recent progress was made in July when the weekly income disregard for carer's allowance increased from €450 to €625 for a single person and from €900 to €1,250 for carers with a spouse or partner. This amounts to cumulative increases to the disregards of €292.50 and €585 respectively, or 88%, since June 2022. These increases mean that a carer in a two-adult household with an income of approximately €69,000 can retain their full carer's payment. Even with an income of €97,000, they can retain a partial payment. It is important to note that my Department provides non-means-tested supports to carers, including carer's benefit, domiciliary care allowance and the annual carer's support grant of €2,000.
I assure the Deputy about my work in this area. We will continue to advance the programme for Government commitments in relation to care and, in particular, in respect of the means test. We will do so in a sustainable manner and over the lifetime of the Government.
I welcome the Minister's response and thank him for outlining the plans to phase out the means test for carer’s allowance over the lifetime of the Government. Furthermore, I acknowledge the implementation of increased disregards for the carer’s allowance in recent months. This has assisted many carers to get an increased allowance or, indeed, to qualify for one for the very first time. The phasing out of the means test will send a powerful message that Ireland recognises the irreplaceable work of carers and that we will not place unnecessary barriers in the way of those who give so much of themselves. These carers make enormous personal sacrifices. They often have to step back from work, set aside career ambitions and reconfigure their entire lives around the need of their loved ones. They do so not out of duty but out of love. Their work is immeasurable in human terms but also has undeniable social and economic value. I acknowledge that changes like this take time, that they require significant resources and that they must be implemented carefully. I believe, however, that there is a strong recognition on the part of the general public and the Government of the need to improve support for carers.
I absolutely agree with everything the Deputy said about the work of carers and family carers right across the country. That is why significant improvements have been made and we will continue to make them. I am engaging with the Minister for public expenditure around budget 2026 with a view to progressing further supports for carers.
On the work carers do, the point I would always make is that without that work there would be considerable extra pressure on our health system and on other parts of government. Without the commitment of carers, as the Deputy said, based on love and family, this country would be a lot worse off. That is why we have considerably changed and enhanced the investment in carers in recent years. That is why we have commitment in the programme for Government to phase out the means test which, as I said, is a major change in social welfare policy. I will ensure that is completed during the lifetime of the Government.
I thank the Minister for his commitment today on this very important issue. Budget 2026 will be the start of the process of ending the means test for carers. I very much welcome that. I hope we can work towards that goal over the lifetime of this Government.
The Minister mentioned how there would be an extreme cost to the taxpayer with increased costs to the health system if carers did not exist. The contribution of carers is not something that should be measured by a bank balance. It is measured by the hours of care given, the love provided and the burdens carried for all carers.