Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 14 Nov 1995

Vol. 458 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Empolyers' PRSI Exemption Scheme.

M. J. Nolan

Question:

19 Mr. Nolan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the circumstances in which persons in receipt of disability benefit, invalidity pension and disabled persons maintenance allowance can participate in the PRSI exemption scheme or education programmes; and the number of persons in receipt of these payments who are currently participating in such employment or schemes. [16762/95]

The employers PRSI exemption scheme provides an incentive to employers to create full time job opportunities for the unemployed, lone parents and also for young people under 23 years of age taking up full time employment for the first time. Subject to certain criteria, employers are exempted from paying their share of the PRSI contribution in respect of additional employees for the first two years of the employment. Recipients of disability benefit, invalidity pensions and disabled person's maintenance allowance can also qualify for the scheme provided they are registered with the National Rehabilitation Board.

The current scheme commenced on 6 April 1995 and 1,900 employees have been approved for exemption. A total of 3,465 employees were approved under the 1994-95 and 1995-96 scheme. Statistics of the number of disabled persons who have availed of this scheme to date are not readily available. I hope however to have such figures available shortly and I will convey the information to the Deputy.

Access to the educational schemes such as the vocational training opportunities scheme and the third level allowance scheme is restricted to lone parents and the unemployed who have been in receipt of an unemployment payment for at least six months. Just under 4,000 have been approved for VTOS for the 1995-96 academic year with 2,019 approved for the third level allowance. Under a recent arrangement with the National Rehabilitation Board my Department will consider granting exemption from the rules of behaviour to persons in receipt of disability benefit or invalidity pension to facilitate their attendance at education courses including second and third level. No statistics are available in my Department on the number of persons who have availed of this concession.

Patrick J. Morley

Question:

20 Mr. Morley asked the Minister for Social Welfare in view of the recent EU Commission report on Europe's welfare systems which highlighted the fact that Ireland ranked third from the bottom in terms of spending per capita on welfare payments, the plans, if any, he has to attempt to remedy this lowly welfare ranking. [16760/95]

Séamus Hughes

Question:

50 Mr. Hughes asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the recent comments by SIPTU on the inadequate level of social welfare payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16752/95]

Ivor Callely

Question:

148 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Social Welfare the measures, if any, that he considers appropriate to support the question of funding social welfare improvements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16895/95]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 20, 50 and 148 together.

The improvements in the social welfare area, which I introduced in this year's budget, will cost £90 million in 1995 and £212 million in a full year. Considerable progress still remains to be made and my views on the inadequacy of the basic rates of social welfare entitlements are already on record. I consider that they need to be greatly improved.

The EU Commission report, to which the Deputy refers, describes the social protection systems operating in the member states of the European Union. The report aggregates spending on health care, housing benefits and social welfare payments in calculating the per capita spend on social protection. One reason the resulting per capita spend is lower in Ireland than elsewhere is the relatively small growth in retirementage population compared to other member states.

In 1986, the Commission on Social Welfare set out a range of minimum adequate income rates and recommended a priority rate as an interim target to be put in place pending the implementation of the minimum adequate rates. The programme, A Government of Renewal, includes a commitment to carry out a review of the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The Economic and Social Research Institute has started working on this and the review will be completed by mid 1996.

The completion of the ESRI review will coincide with the tenth anniversary of the publication in 1986 of the report of the Commission on Social Welfare and will thus provide a timely opportunity to assess objectively the extent of the progress that remains to be made in this area.

The review will consider the adequacy of the rates of social welfare benefits and allowances. The study, with other reviews of the social welfare systems, such as that of the expert working group on the integration of tax and social welfare, will form the basis for the formulation of proposals for improvements in the social welfare system in the years ahead.

The question of funding any improvements will be considered in the light of the resources available when the extent of the requirement is quantified and in the context of the commitment in A Government of Renewal to maintain and develop the social insurance system.

As the ESRI, and others in earlier reports, have identified families with children as being at greater risk of poverty, I have taken a significant step towards addressing that issue in the 1995 budget. The increase in child benefit accounts for 38 per cent of the cost of the 1995 budget improvements and almost 50 per cent of the full year cost.

The extent to which I or any Social Welfare Minister can improve social welfare rates further will depend on the willingness of the public to support such increases.

The Minister must find it exasperating to have to indicate that the basic rates of social welfare entitlements are inadequate, but what social welfare recipients want to know is what is he doing about this at the Cabinet table. Is he making any progress in securing the extra 5 per cent which we read about in the newspapers over the weekend so that social welfare recipients can look forward to a reasonable increase in the next budget?

I do not propose to discuss the Estimates or budgetary matters today.

Is the Minister proud of the fact that after his first year in office Ireland still ranks third from bottom on the European Union league table?

The report covers the period during which the Deputy's party was in Government.

I am seeking to elicit some information. Will the Minister be able to improve the position of the least well off in society, those in receipt of social welfare? A commitment was given in A Government of Renewal that the ESRI would be commissioned to conduct a study. The Minister has informed us that he expects to receive its findings in mid-1996. As those living in poverty cannot wait that long, will he treat this problem with more seriousness and expedite the findings of the review?

I take it that the Deputy was referring to the report in the Sunday Business Post, which as usual was a figment of the particular journalist's imagination and did not bear any relationship to discussions or facts of any kind. I have improved the position of those in receipt of social welfare. The reason for the massive increase in child benefit was that families with children have been identified as being at greatest risk of poverty. The Government is updating the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare so that they relate to the reality of life today and realistic targets are set, not ones which are ten years out of date. A national anti-poverty strategy has been devised based on the commitments given at the social development summit in Copenhagen to ensure that all governments and state agencies have regard to the effects of policy on poverty. This has been the most active Government ever in tacking and alleviating poverty.

Does the Minister agree that his performance has been dismal? Social welfare rates were increased in the budget by only 2.5 per cent. That was the worst performance by any Minister for Social Welfare in 30 years. This time last year he gave a solemn commitment when negotiating A Government of Renewal that the ESRI would be commissioned to conduct a review. He has informed us today that the poorest of the poor can look forward to receiving its findings in mid-1996.

I do not know if there is any point in pursuing this matter further with the Deputy as he is not prepared to listen to what I have to say. The commitment to conduct a review of the rates is being honoured. I have indicated when we expect to receive the ESRI's findings. In the meantime we will continue to operate on the basis of the commitments given in the programme for Government and try to ensure that the poor are not placed back in the hands of the heartless, dirty dozen Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare.

The Minister is trying to give the impression that the social welfare system has only been improved since he took office. The child benefit scheme accounts for only a small fraction of the total cost of social welfare. Does the Minister agree that the increase in the last budget of 2.5 per cent was the lowest in 30 years?

It is pointless for the Deputies opposite to continue trying to reheat old arguments. The statistics show that Fianna Fáil in office granted lower increases. While considerable improvements were made in the social welfare system by the former Fianna Fáil Minister, Deputy Woods, some of the greatest damage was done by another Fianna Fáil Minister, Deputy Charlie McCreevy.

Will the Minister give one example?

Is the Minister aware of the comments of Father Seán Healy of the Conference of Religious Superiors in regard to the fact that the gap between rich and poor has become wider this year in particular?

I am aware of the remarks made by Father Seán Healy. He made them previously. There are different ways of measuring poverty. Father Seán Healy chooses to base his measurement on the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid. There are other ways to measure poverty. The Commission on Social Welfare put forward the view almost ten years ago that to enable people to avoid poverty, those dependent on social welfare payments should be in receipt of no less than £50 per week and possibly as high as £60 per week. That is another measurement.

I have given credit to the former Minister, Deputy Woods, for bringing those rates close to the lower end of the Commission on Social Welfare recommendations but, as has been said, other aspects of the social welfare system need to be addressed. There are poverty and unemployment traps. The biggest problem of poverty, as study after study has found, is in families with children. The most effective way of dealing with that in the short-term is by increasing child benefit and I have increased it in a full year by £100 million. That is not an insignificant advance in child benefit and in dealing with poverty. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever claimed to suggest, that in the 11 months I have been in the Department I would expect to have achieved the elimination of poverty. That may well take a generation, but during my tenure in office and the tenure of this Government, the issue has begun to be seriously addressed.

Top
Share