I want to acknowledge, first, that the tragedy in Creeslough overshadows all other issues and matters that we are going to deal with in this House today.

However, I would like to raise the plight of many thousands of people across this country, who work for independent non-State agencies in the care, community and voluntary sectors. I refer to section 39, section 10 and section 56 workers and all of those in the community sector who need a pay rise. They are among the heroes of Irish society, filling the gaps left where the State has been incapable of providing. It is no exaggeration to say that without their work, many of society's most vulnerable members would be left disconnected from communities. We know they provide vital services across the State, supporting those suffering from mental health crises and extending a helping hand to people who have lost their homes. Without a winter eviction ban, there may well be more of those people needing their help. Such workers give support and advice to those victimised by sexual and domestic violence. Yet, despite their immense value to society, care workers are not valued as they should be. Many have not seen a pay rise since 2008, nearly 15 years ago, and too often lip service is paid to them with no material improvement to their pay and conditions.

Many of us stood in the streets and applauded vital health and care workers during the darkest days of the Covid pandemic, but we know that applause will not pay their bills. Indeed, they are among the 100,000 non-HSE staff who still have not been paid the Covid bonus promised to them in January, in recognition of their work on the front lines of Ireland's pandemic response. Nursing Homes Ireland, NHI, handed in letters to the Department of Health at 12 noon today, looking for their payments. It is just not fair that they have still not received those payments. Their work is comparable to that of workers who are directly employed by the State, but unlike trade union members in the public or private sector, care workers in the voluntary sector have no way to negotiate a pay increase at present. Up and down the country, in recent months, they have taken to picket lines to highlight this inequality and disparity in treatment. Because their contracts are not made directly with the State, Government Ministers have been able to claim, repeatedly, that the dispute and the issue around pay and conditions has nothing to do with them.

We, in Labour, want to address that inequality to ensure that there is redress for those workers who are providing such vital care and community services. Tomorrow, we will bring forward a motion proposed by my colleague, Deputy Duncan Smith, to reverse the policy which excludes these care workers from mechanisms like the public sector pay agreements. We are calling on the Taoiseach and his Government to support our initiative. We are asking for Government Deputies to back this important motion to see equality for those providing vital care and community services. Indeed, I raised the issue with the Tánaiste last Thursday and he said then that €100 million in once-off funding for section 39 organisations would cover the cost of pay rises. I ask the Taoiseach to confirm that workers will get pay rises in accordance with that, and in line with their colleagues who are working directly for the State.

First, I thank the Deputy for raising this issue. At the outset, that Labour's motion is very broad. At times it is not clear who, specifically, it is targeting. At one leap, it is almost as if every voluntary and community organisation would be made a public sector organisation, if one were to follow the entirety of the motion through to its logical conclusion. As the Deputy knows, quite a number of these organisations are private, appreciate their autonomy and would not necessarily want to come under public sector ownership or remit. We need to think this through. I acknowledge that there is an issue here. That is the first point. There is certainly an issue in terms of section 39 organisations or those that have a direct relationship with the State. The section 39 organisations are privately owned and run and have terms and conditions of employment for staff and so on.

Those arrangements would traditionally have been between the employer and the employee. However, we know that, in some instances, they are contracted with the State for the services they provide. Their employees are similar to those employed by State organisations, so that creates an issue in terms of the differential in pay. In acknowledgement of the particular difficulties they are facing this year with inflation, we have allocated up to €100 million to support section 39 organisations and nursing homes, as well as section 38 organisations, excluding acute hospitals. That is additional funding to help them cope until the end of the year with the crisis and cost-of-living issue.

Section 10 organisations deal with homelessness and housing authorities. They are separate organisations, not State organisations. The money that the State provides through section 10 funding goes towards the cost of services provided by front-line NGOs. The Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage provides the framework that governs how those housing authorities operate. Additional funding of €21 million has been allocated this year, bringing the total to approximately €215 million.

The Labour Party motion also covers Tusla-funded organisations. Section 56(2) of the Child and Family Agency Act requires that Tusla determines the maximum funding it proposes to make available during the course of each year under each arrangement and the level of contracted service it expects to receive in return for that funding. Tusla's funding allocation has been increased for 2022.

The overall point is that we are talking about a vast number of people and organisations. The situation is not as simple as is being portrayed. That said, the Government will enter a process, as happened in 2019 at the Workplace Relations Commission. We anticipate getting into some process to try to sort this out once and for all.

I thank the Taoiseach for the response and for acknowledging there is an issue here, which there clearly is. As the Taoiseach has said, a large number of people are involved, including a large number of service users, people who are relying on the vital services provided by these care workers and community workers. The service users need to know that the services which enable them to live their lives will continue in the future. We need a Government commitment to multi-annual funding. We need to know what the €100 million is to be targeted at. Is it to be targeted at pay rises or the cost of living? Fundamentally, we need to know that the services provided will be capable of being continued because they are vital to our communities across the country.

I am glad to hear the Taoiseach say the Government will be entering a process. Will the Government support our motion tomorrow? Will it engage with the unions, those representing workers in the sector, to ensure these vital services are continued? SIPTU is holding a press conference as we speak in Buswells Hotel, calling for justice for those in the care and community sectors who are providing the same services as those provided directly by individuals employed by the HSE. They are providing the same services, albeit through contracts with different organisations.

I thank the Deputy. In the health sector in recent years, for example, upward adjustments have been made in the pay of some eligible section 39 workers, following a process led by the Department of Health and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform at the Workplace Relations Commission in 2019. That resulted in funding being made available for pay increases for a pilot scheme involving 50 agencies. In 2021, there was further engagement by the Department of Health at the Workplace Relations Commission, which resulted in funding being made available for pay increases for cohorts of staff in the remaining 250 agencies identified in 2019. This decision was final in respect of the number of organisations that were to be funded. That is an illustration of an earlier process to deal with an earlier, parallel situation similar to the one we have now after Building Momentum and the recent public sector pay agreement, which was negotiated and voted for by the social partners. In my view, some process has to entered into.

I caution that the Labour Party motion is of such a breadth as to almost be indeterminate as to which organisations would be covered. It is vast. However, we need to get into some process to get the issues resolved for these organisations.

A wide range of services is involved.