I accept everything the Minister said. I am talking about a small cohort of people. They are the mothers of children with profound disabilities, intellectual disabilities or mental health issues who are in a training centre or in full-time education. They are out of the home for more than 18.5 hours a week because they are at school or at the training centre. There is no issue in relation to care or the need for care. If that person can avail of education or additional employment - there is already a means test cap…

I will raise it tomorrow morning, early.

What I am looking for here is a small bit of discretion with the social welfare officers rather than having the 18.5 hours set in stone. We are probably speaking about maybe 15 or 20 people in total across the State who would avail of this where their son or daughter is in full-time education or training, he or she is picked up in the morning and dropped home in the evening and for the rest of the week the parent provides full-time care. None of us here can question the level of care and I know that is not what the…

This question has come up consistently at our Oireachtas committee from people who are involved in the caring profession such as home support workers, home helps and staff such as those. They find it very difficult to get staff to take on these roles and the social welfare rules, where someone can only work for up to three days per week, acts as a barrier.

The problem is that this concept of working three days per week comes from when I was in short pants. The reality is someone can work up to 24 hours per week and still receive a social welfare payment if he or she does it over three days. However, if someone works two hours per day as a home help for five days per week, he or she cannot get it. The difficulty is that if he or she is working less than 19 hours per week, they are not entitled to the family income supplement either and so are caught on both sides. The…

The fact is that under the social welfare code as it stands a person can work for eight hours per day, three days per week - that is, 24 hours of work - and still receive a social welfare support under the jobseeker's payment. However, a person cannot work for four hours per day, five days per week. He or she is denied it even though they are working four hours fewer per week as a result of that. This model was designed in an era of full-time employment. We have an awful lot more people who are working flexible hou…

I would not mind doing a bit of canvassing as well.

I commend the Minister's announcement during the summer, in the Hodson Bay Hotel, down the road from me, regarding the work and access programme. It is a very positive development that we are trying to actively engage with employers to put the supports in place to increase participation by people with a disability within the workforce.

I commend the initiative. Someone on a disability allowance payment can receive up to €165 per week in employment. That is the incentive provided under the initiative. My concern is that once people go over that threshold, they will be taxed at 50%. The wealthiest people in this country are not taxed at 50% but we are taxing people on disability allowance who go out to work. They include, for example, people with intellectual disabilities and so forth. If they earn more than €165 a week, we will tax them at 50%. I …

However, the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, sets the 50% rate under the scheme and it is that with which I have an issue.

I wish to speak about amendment No. 4, in my name, and also the amendments of the Minister of State. I thank the Minister of State for her engagement on this issue. It dates back nearly to the time of the original nursing home support scheme, which dates from 2009. Very soon after the enactment of the legislation on the nursing home support scheme, we found an anomaly concerning family businesses and family farms. A huge financial burden was being placed on families as a result. We are all well aware of cases in th…

Chair, I wish to raise a point of order.

We are on a point of order.

On a point of order and to clarify, the frustration here is that this Bill is on Report Stage. On Report Stage, we can only discuss the content of the amendments in front of us. If the Bill were on Committee Stage, which we had a few minutes ago, the-----

-----colleagues could have contributed within order during that time, but they did not. The issue before us is relevant to a number of older people who are in long-term nursing home care, causing huge financial hardship to them and to their families. They are watching tonight to find out what is happening on this matter, rather than to hear about buses. They are in a desperate situation.

I ask the Deputies to listen to what I am saying.

The Deputies had their opportunity ten minutes ago to bring these matters up.

With all due respect to the Deputy, if he actually listened to what I said-----

I wish to say to my colleagues that I was not trying to cause annoyance earlier. There was a lot of scope given. Committee Stage, which took place here just after 7 p.m., would have facilitated that discussion. The reality is that I know of an older man in long-term nursing home care - he is watching these proceedings - who is in a desperate financial situation because of an amendment we brought forward. All of us campaigned for that amendment for over a decade to ensure family farms would not be infinitely include…

Ireland's digital connectivity strategy is aligned with the EU digital decade targets and aims for all populated areas to be covered by 5G no later than 2030, but this is based on population coverage, which ignores 750,000 people who live in rural areas and cannot get 5G coverage. This does not have implications for just mobile phone coverage, but for 5G services and emergency services as well. What happens if someone is on one of our greenways, breaks a leg but has no mobile phone coverage?