Mary Harney
Question:9 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of people currently in receipt of payments under the pre-retirement allowance scheme.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Pre-retirement Allowance Scheme.
The pre-retirement allowance scheme, which I introduced in 1990, is for people who are aged at least 55 years who are getting long term unemployment assistance and who regard themselves as retired from the workforce. Those who opt for the pre-retirement allowance no longer have to sign on the live register and are paid by a book of payable orders which can be cashed weekly at a post office of their choice.
There are currently 15,472 people in receipt of the allowance. From July of this year these recipients will benefit from a higher rate of personal payment of £59.20 per week, together with an adult dependant allowance of £35.50 and a child dependant allowance of £12.80.
I am attempting to find how many people have been removed from the live register under this scheme. Will the Minister agree that people in this scheme should remain on the live register? We need to know where we stand. The 15,472 people who have been ushered off the live register into this scheme represent a large number of unemployed people. In the interests of transparency, would it not be more fair and honest to show them as being on the live register? I note an increase of 35 per cent in the Estimate for this scheme. Do the increases to which the Minister has referred account for this 35 per cent or does he envisage an influx of people into the scheme or a changing of conditions?
There are two elements. One is the increase in the budget and the other relates to the additional people who came into the scheme last year when the age was reduced to 55. The full year cost this year increased the Estimate very substantially. Regarding the live register, it covers people who are fit for work, available for work and actively seeking work. In 1990 I became aware that people aged around 60 have very little likelihood of getting employment, and in any event their health might not be good. These people might have to travel, for instance, from Coolock to Dublin to claim unemployment assistance with all that entails, the cost of travelling, etc. I thought that in the context of the dignity of these people they should have an option. That is why I introduced this and the Government agreed to it. The fact that they are no longer on the live register is incidental. This was introduced to facilitate the people I see in my community and clinics. People are free to take up this option if they wish to do so. People are also made redundant, have a small pension, get a partial payment from the Department and have said they are not in the market for work. However, this is a means-tested scheme and not open-ended in terms of expenditure.
Let us not forget that we are dealing with a clearly statistical question.
I do not dispute the value of the scheme. I just wondered whether it would be clearer if everybody knew these people are still really unemployed as this is a manipulation of the live register.
I know that political arguments can be made in relation to all these things. However, I have to deal with people. I really do not care about the political argument.
You are not a politician at all.
I am concerned with people and, at the end of the day, they probably recognise that. If we support people where the resources are available to do so, that is the best way to go about things.
You are massaging the figures.
What these people are saying in effect is that they are not interested in employment or they do not feel they can get employment.
The Minister is saying they cannot get employment, not that they are not interested. My question is philosophical rather than political.
The question is statistical, Deputy.
I will take a philosophical approach to the statistics. Will the Minister not agree that while the scheme has merits we are in a sense telling a certain age group that they have gone beyond the era of work? At the age of 55 people can qualify for the pre-retirement allowance. However, are we not telling people that when they reach the age of 55 they are removed from the workplace? Is there not a certain negative vibe emanating from the scheme? Are we not literally trying to write off another generation in regard to the workplace?
We are moving into the area of policy now, I am afraid.
The simple answer is no, that is not true. I know Deputy Bradford is quite a young TD and representative of the country as a whole. Some of these people may undertake a small amount of work and we do not want to stop them doing that. Under the legislation inspectors are chasing them just as if they were the same as everybody else, they are not, especially if their health is not good. They have the option of coming back to the system if a decent job is available to them. Otherwise, they have the option of not being corralled, policed and pursued by the system which would be the case. They are happy about it even though the Deputy might not be. Philosophically, the Deputy can sleep easily because these people have opted into the scheme and are glad to have it.