Vol. 632 No. 6
6 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No. 47 of 14 December 2006, if he has brought forward proposals and an implementation strategy on the lone parent proposals for the Government’s consideration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7980/07]
60 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when he expects to complete his consideration of the proposed new package of reforms of State aid for lone parents; when he expects to bring forward specific proposals; if such proposals will be included in his budget package; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7910/07]
166 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs further to Parliamentary Question No. 47 of 14 December 2006, if he has brought forward proposals and an implementation strategy on the lone parent proposals for the Government’s consideration; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8201/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 60 and 166 together.
Last year's Government discussion paper, "Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents," put forward proposals for the expanded availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents, the extension of the national employment action plan to focus on lone parents, focused provision of child care; improved information services for lone parents and the introduction of a new social assistance payment for low income families with young children. The paper also proposed the abolition of the cohabitation rule as a condition for receipt of the proposed social assistance payment.
One of the proposals in the report was that the upper income limit for the new social assistance payment should be set at €400 per week. Last year, in budget 2006, I increased the upper income limits on the one-parent family payment from €293 to €375 per week, moving a substantial way towards this limit. In this year's budget, I completed this element of the proposal by increasing the upper income limit for the one-parent family payment to €400 per week, provision of which is contained in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2007 currently before the House.
The new social assistance payment, currently being developed by officials in my Department, will have the long-term aim of assisting people to achieve financial independence through supporting them to enter employment — the avenue that offers the best route out of poverty. Any proposed new payment can only be introduced when the necessary co-ordinated supports and services are put in place by other Departments and agencies. This is why the Government has instructed the senior officials group on social inclusion to draw up an implementation plan to progress the non-income recommendations in tandem with the development of the legislation required in my Department to introduce a new payment scheme.
Work on the development of this implementation plan is progressing. Issues including access to child care support, education, training and activation measures are being discussed with the relevant Departments and agencies. The development of legislation to introduce the new social assistance payment has been prioritised in my Department and work on this is at an advanced stage. To further inform the process, my Department, with the co-operation of FÁS, the Office of the Minister for Children and the Department of Education and Science, will test the proposals in both an urban and rural setting. These tests will focus on identifying and resolving the practical and administrative issues that might arise in advance of the scheme being introduced. The tests will allow for operational and logistical co-ordination between the relevant Departments and agencies to be considered and developed and will facilitate the development of the new scheme.
The Minister provided us with a great deal of new information.
Before the Deputy proceeds I remind him that there is a time limit of one minute each for supplementary questions and the Minister's replies.
Has the Minister brought any proposals and an implementation strategy to the Government for its consideration? Can the Minister give a timescale for the action he outlined to happen? We were led to believe it would happen by the end of last year but it did not. Can he give us more information about the tests he mentioned? What does he mean by tests? Will people be involved in them and when will they happen?
The Cabinet cleared the discussion document which we published. We have had a number of discussions recently on my proposals. The legislation is being prepared in the Department. The implementation group is doing its work as we speak and I hope the tests can start this year. The tests are to assess in an urban and rural setting how the new payment might work. This involves removing the cohabitation regulation, abolishing the lone parent payment and replacing it with a family friendly payment for low income families. An enormous amount of technical work must be done to ensure the schemes add up and are integrated, and that work is progressing. I hope the legislation can be advanced as soon as possible.
Will the Department or FÁS be responsible for the activation measures on work advice and education and training opportunities? Has a decision been made on that?
FÁS will do it. Does the Deputy mean when we move to the new payment?
Yes.
We will use the activation process that FÁS has already. That is the present intention.
Will there be changes?
This is rehearsed in the lone parents document. It is suggested in that document that there would be more facilitators, who would work alongside FÁS in giving advice to lone parents who wish to get back into the workplace. FÁS would have a central role. Whether we can develop other facilitators alongside it is one of the issues being examined by the implementation group.
This was discussed in great detail at a big meeting in Farmleigh. Various organisations dealing with lone parents, as well as the Labour Party, put forward their proposals. Emanating from this, what steps are being taken to put in place adequate child care provision to enable the core of lone parents to return to work? It will only be pie in the sky unless child care provision, preferably community-based, is put in place that is cheap, efficient and effective.
The regiment for FÁS training programme will have to change to enable people to get to work. Schemes will have to take place at 8 o'clock in the morning or in the evening at 4 o'clock to facilitate people.
Does the Deputy have a question?
Yes, that is the question. We have 18 minutes and three questions are being taken together.
It is actually two as one of them is a written question.
The Ceann Comhairle always allows us to debate the question. This is an important topic. I will not be stifled by people telling me what to do.
Is the Minister aware that his proposal would create new poverty traps? Is he happy with that? Unless the Minister deals with the question of poverty traps and child care, he can tear up the proposals. The cohabitation rule should be scrapped. Too many inspectors are used by the Department of Social and Family Affairs knocking on doors checking welfare recipients. No matter how often we tell them particular situations arise, they still carry out their investigations. Will the issues raised at Farmleigh be addressed? We knew anyway that we would not see it this side of an election.
The Deputies know this is a complicated area. The Government's policy is clear in that it is committed to removing the cohabitation rule, replacing the lone parent's allowance with an allowance that is targeted at children who live in low income families rather than focussing on the make-up of a family. That principle is generally supported across the House. We are working on the logistics because it will have implications for other schemes and supports.
Lone parent groups have made it clear to me that they are only interested in this provided there is joined-up Government and that child care, educational, training and activation supports are implemented at the same time. The implementation group has been charged with the task of ensuring these other supports are introduced in tandem. I am confident that whoever is appointed Minister after the next election, he or she will see these reforms through. These proposals have been examined for many years. I did not invent them but I gave them a push. They are grounded in good research and sensible policies.
Will the Minister accept that low-paid jobs are not necessarily a good way for lone parents to take their families out of poverty? Part of the problem is down to the quality of jobs they are offered. I have been informed that lone parents under this scheme would be given priority access to county child care committees. However, there is no system in place in prioritising these committees. Is this part of the work to be done in the next several months?
There will be some degree of priority for lone parents. The statistics show that poverty is more prevalent among lone parents.
There is no protocol to prioritise one group.
We must ensure they are fully informed of this option. As poverty is more prevalent among lone parents, they would have substantial priority in the child care area. Other measures already exist, such as the extra €1,000 payment, and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has increased the number of child care places available.
I am concerned that the quality of jobs available to lone parents needs to be improved. Two thirds of lone parents are working but in jobs that pay a little above the minimum wage. This is why these reforms are being introduced. Training and educational supports will increase lone parents' skills. With more child care provision, they will be able to come up on the employment ladder and get better quality jobs.
7 Mr. Wall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the percentage of the population regarded as being in consistent poverty; when the 2% target which was set for 2007 in the ten year anti-poverty strategy launched in 1997, will be reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7894/07]
23 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the consistent poverty target in the NAPinclusion 2007 to 2016 is less ambitious than that of the national anti-poverty strategy and agreed programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7963/07]
46 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the basis on which he believes that the UN poverty index is misleading; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7901/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 23 and 46 together.
The new national action plan for social inclusion was launched last week with an overall goal to make a decisive impact on consistent poverty. This is underlined by the fact that a new target is being set, using an updated set of indicators, which is more realistic and in keeping with living standards today. The new target is to reduce the number of those experiencing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016, under the revised definition. The new target reflects experience and advice that it may be difficult to bring consistent poverty down to zero, due in part to the subjective and sensitive nature of the survey questions used to identify deprivation.
The consistent poverty measure was developed independently by the ESRI in 1987 using indicators of deprivation based on standards of living at that time. This measure identifies the proportion of people, from those with less than 60% of median income, who are deprived of one or more goods or services considered essential for a basic standard of living. The target set in 2002 was to reduce the numbers of those who are consistently poor to 2% by 2007 and, if possible, to eliminate consistent poverty, as then defined.
A major discontinuity between the living in Ireland survey, previously used for monitoring progress against the target, and the new EU survey on income and living conditions, introduced from 2003, means that it is not possible to compare trends in consistent poverty between the two surveys. However, continuing low levels of unemployment and the substantial resources devoted to social welfare and other social services support the view that the downward trend in consistent poverty, from 8.3% in 1994 to 4.1% in 2001, would have continued and the target would have been reached by 2007 using the living in Ireland survey method. The first three years of EU survey data indicate the overall consistent poverty rate reduced from 8.8% in 2003 to 7% in 2005. Some 250,000 people, including 100,000 children, have been lifted out of deprivation since 1997 as a result of concentrated and targeted measures and supports.
The Government, in setting the new poverty reduction target, has accepted the advice of the ESRI to use an updated set of deprivation indicators, which focus to a greater degree on items reflecting social inclusion and participation in society. This will see the current measure, based on lacking one or more items from an eight-item index, changing to one based on lacking two or more items from an 11-item index. This revised set of indicators will be used to measure consistent poverty over the course of the new NAPinclusion. The current rate of consistent poverty using the new measure is 7.0%.
While the consistent poverty measure is the official Government approved poverty measure, other poverty measures highlight different aspects of poverty. The at-risk-of-poverty measure is the best known and quoted as it affords some comparisons with other countries. However, it does not measure poverty as such, but rather the proportion of people below a certain income threshold. I have previously expressed my strong concerns regarding the use of this measure by the UN when creating its human poverty index.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Furthermore, the UN Development Programme, in an article last year in the prominent journal, Development and Transition, restated the problems inherent in using the at-risk-of-poverty indicator for international comparisons, concluding that the results too often belie common sense — the at-risk-of-poverty label sends the wrong signal to the public and policy makers — and the risk-of-poverty logic does not lead to effective national policy. While the latest EU-SILC results do show that our at-risk-of-poverty rates are falling, from 19.7% in 2003 to 18.5% in 2005, I continue to believe that this measure gives a misleading impression of poverty as at-risk-of-poverty levels are affected by increases in incomes generally. I am confident that the new NAPinclusion will build on the achievements of the last decade and deliver greater social inclusion and a society in which remaining consistent poverty is finally eliminated.
Is it not clear that the 1997 social inclusion programme failed? Is it not clear that we have failed to reduce the level of consistent poverty to 2% by 2007? The 7% figure means 300,000 people are considered as being in poverty. Is that not the position? Did I not argue here four years ago that the figures used by the ESRI were outdated, outmoded and in need of modernisation? Were they retained because they showed that consistent poverty was falling, when we all knew that not to be the case outside? Surely it is hard to argue against the UNICEF report to which Deputy Boyle referred, which ranked us 22nd out of 25 countries. Does that not reflect what emerged when factors evaluated to assess consistent poverty were upgraded and modernised? Is that not the problem?
I acknowledge that we have made progress, but it is not nearly as impressive or worthy as some have tried to portray it. Should we not all hang our heads in shame that such a significant proportion of people remain in poverty, particularly children? What policies does the Minister have to tackle that? Will this part of the social partnership be addressed and ensure that the objectives set out therein are achieved?
We should be conscious from the taxpayer's perspective that welfare payments have doubled in five or six years, from €7 billion to €15 billion. That is a considerable investment by the taxpayer in tackling poverty. It is not only a question of income, since other Departments are also involved. Recent budgets were to a large degree targeted at tackling child poverty, which we dealt with in earlier questions.
The target of 2% that we set out in 1997 has been reached. However, I acknowledge that it could be challenged. I explained that the old method was the Living in Ireland survey, which in 2003 was replaced by the EU survey on income and living conditions, SILC.
Consider the continuing low levels of unemployment, the substantial resources put into doubling social welfare benefits, and the downward trend in consistent poverty. In 2001, we were at 4%, and welfare spending has almost doubled since, not to mention the fact that we have had economic growth of 4% or 5% per annum. The Department does not disagree with my contention that we would almost certainly have reached the figure of 2% by 2007 if we had still been using the old measure. As we are no longer doing so, no one will really know. If we were at 4% in 2001, I am confident that, six years later, with all the resources applied and the economic growth, the figure will be at 2%. Therefore, the Government has met its target of 2% by 2007, which it set in 1997.
Is the Minister telling the House that no one is experiencing poverty? Is it almost gone, so that we can forget about it and turn our backs on it? Perhaps the Minister has been spending too much time removed from reality behind the tinted windows of his Mercedes. Who is responsible for dealing with poverty in Ireland? Where does the buck stop?
When it comes to moving long-term recipients of welfare and disability benefits into training and employment under the national employment action plan, I understand that lone parents and those with disabilities do not have access to the activation measures. Does he have any plans to change that?
There is still poverty in Ireland. I made the point that the target of 2% that we set has been reached, and I stand by that. We have changed the measure, and one does not need too many studies to see that there is poverty among lone parents, some older people, the unemployed and so on. There is still unacceptable poverty, particularly child poverty, which has no place in Ireland in the 21st century. The answer is to target the money available through the welfare system, something very much true of the recent budget, and co-ordinate across the Government policies on education, health, welfare and employment. The last-named is ultimately the best way to attack poverty. All those are powering ahead, and we have set new targets under the new measure.
Regarding activation, I am not sure that I understand the question. Lone parents are not currently subject to the FÁS activation programme, and neither are those on disability benefits. However, both cases are being closely examined, the former in the context of our previous discussion on lone parents, and the latter in a general examination of how we can lend more support in training and education to those with disabilities.
Where does the buck stop? Who is responsible?
Is the Deputy asking who is responsible for poverty?
For eliminating or dealing with it.
I assure the Deputy that I do not claim that title.
Who will do so? Is anyone responsible?
Successive Governments have had a special responsibility to seek to eliminate poverty. However, we must be honest about this. Some measures of poverty are allied to lifestyle. We cannot give everyone the same lifestyle, but we can seek to remove poverty. I seek to ensure that we no longer have in our midst what the Deputy and I would have known in our childhoods — good, old-fashioned poverty. There is no place for that, however we measure it. Certain indices are lifestyle measures, for example, how many holidays one gets in a year, how many friends one has around, and so on. Some are the subject of debating societies.
So inequality is a good thing.
On all sides of the House, we have a responsibility to eliminate poverty.
They should not listen to the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, on inequality being a good thing.
Is the Minister's near obsession with the 2% figure not an exercise in spin, giving the impression that 2% poverty exists, with 98% of people not in poverty? Poverty is not an absolute measure but about lack of opportunity and societal disparities in wealth. Ireland remains one of the most unequal societies in Europe and is getting worse. What other measures has the Minister put in place to tackle those areas? Even if the Government reaches its 2% target, that does not end disparities in wealth or the lack of opportunity that so many people suffer. Those are the real measurements of poverty, but I do not see the Government tackling them.
I am not on a mission to ensure that there are no disparities in wealth in Ireland. If that is our policy objective, I do not know where we will finish.
Can we make Ireland more normal or average?
We have disparities in wealth, like most other countries.
Yes, but the effect of the Government's policies is to make them wider.
I agree with the Deputy, in that my objective is to ensure equal opportunity for everyone in the country, with access to education, training, health and an absolute safety net to ensure that no one falls below a certain level of income support in Ireland. That is the first set of objectives I must meet, and we are making solid progress in that regard. I acknowledge that there are still people under enormous pressure, and policies are being implemented to tackle that.
8 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of people who registered for the homemakers’ scheme due to not being automatically entered on to the scheme in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7991/07]
31 Mr. Neville asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of people currently registered on the homemakers’ scheme; the number registered with the scheme in 2004, 2005 and 2006 respectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7990/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 31 together.
The homemakers' scheme was introduced in 1994 to protect the social welfare pension rights of those who take time out of the workforce for caring duties. The scheme allows up to 20 years from 1994 to be spent caring for children or incapacitated adults to be disregarded when a person's social insurance record is being averaged for State pension contributory purposes. Provision is also made for the award of credited contributions in the year in which a person commences or ceases to be a homemaker. The homemaker's scheme does not, of itself, qualify a person for that pension, as the standard qualifying conditions relating to the type and number of contributions paid or credited must also be satisfied.
The residency conditions of the scheme were changed in March 2005 so that, in effect, it is no longer necessary for a homemaker to reside with the person for whom he or she cares. In addition, the deadline to register as a homemaker has also been extended for those homemakers from 6 April 1994 to 31 December 2006, and applications will be accepted until 31 December 2007.
People in receipt of child benefit are automatically registered under the homemaker's scheme, as is the majority of applicants for carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite care grant. A total of 15,034 people have been registered under the scheme since its introduction in 1994. In 2004, some 1,760 people were registered, 1,569 people in 2005 and 1,055 in 2006. The majority of these are people who did not qualify for the means-tested carer's allowance scheme or who had no entitlement to credited contributions under that scheme.
As part of the new social partnership agreement Towards 2016, the Government is committed to producing a Green Paper on pensions. The homemaker's scheme will be reviewed in the context of the review. It is expected that the Green Paper will be finalised by the end of March 2007 and published thereafter. A consultation process will then take place and the Government will publish a framework for future pensions policy on foot of this discussion.
Is the Minister satisfied that the scheme is being utilised to its maximum potential, given that the numbers he cited seem to have fallen in recent years? How does the Department advertise the scheme? Does the Department have figures on women undertaking home-making duties before 1994 who are unable to benefit from the scheme? Are there any estimates of the cost of the scheme to the State? What are the procedures for automatically registering people on the scheme?
Many of these issues, including policy issues, are being examined in the context of the Green Paper. The residency condition of the scheme was changed in March 2005 when new legislation was introduced to bring it into line with the carer's schemes. A person can now qualify as a homemaker once he or she satisfies certain non-residency conditions. In effect, this means that it is no longer necessary for a homemaker to reside with the person for whom he or she is caring. I do not have a cost figure off-hand for the Deputy but I will see if I can obtain one for him. I take the Deputy's point and think the scheme could be used more. We will continue to promote it. A stay-at-home father who, for example, is caring for a child under 12 might consider registering. Any persons providing care to an incapacitated person aged 12 or over, and who has not claimed carer's allowance, carer's benefit or respite care grant, may also register as a home-maker.
We need to promote the scheme more and I am undertaking to do so. The Green Paper review will have to deal with some of the more medium and longer-term policy issues surrounding this scheme.
Can people who looked after children under 12 in the home before the introduction of the scheme, qualify for the years after the scheme was introduced? Does the Minister have any plans to make the scheme retrospective to take into account people who took up home-making duties before the scheme was introduced? How many people looking after children at home do not currently qualify because they did not enter the scheme in time, in 1994?
I do not think the latter figure, concerning the number of people who did not apply, would be available to me. As regards backdating, that precise item is being examined in the context of the Green Paper to see whether some backdating is possible. The question has been raised with me on several occasions.
If the means test was abolished, is a carer's credit being considered for people who work a minimum number of hours per week along similar lines to the home-makers scheme? If so, it would give people an opportunity to have a credit so that when they reached pension age they would qualify for it based on their appropriate contribution rates.
Is the Deputy referring to credited contributions for those who are in receipt of carer's allowances?
Yes, ultimately.
That policy issue has been examined several times. I am in favour of trying to improve that situation whereby credits can be more available. It is one of the issues that I have asked my officials to look at in the context of the Green Paper.
What is the Minister's opinion on the recent OECD report which suggested that the tax allowance for staying at home should be removed? What would the consequences be in terms of social welfare for people who choose to stay at home and care for their families or relatives? It is an important part of our tax system and the Minister should have a view on it.
I have many views on many issues.
I would have thought it has consequences for the social welfare budget.
Yes, it has, but that OECD report dealt particularly with tax credits, which is a different subject. I will revert to the Deputy on that.
9 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the Government has made a commitment to increase the State pension to €300 per week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7907/07]
40 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to index link the State pension to both 40% and 50% of the gross average industrial earnings respectively; the cost of same respectively in 2007; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7967/07]
164 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the cost to the Exchequer of increasing the basic State pension to €300 per week. [8164/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 40 and 164 together.
Since taking office the Government has made the needs of older people a priority with the inclusion of several commitments in the Programme for Government aimed specifically at this group. I am pleased to say that we have delivered on the most recent of these commitments, which was to increase the non-contributory State pension to €200 per week by 2007.
The contributory State pension has passed this mark and now stands at €209.30 per week. Pension increases have been well ahead of inflation, thus ensuring that they are significantly improved in real terms. Since 1996, and including the recent budget increases, pensions have increased by almost 119% or about 57% in real terms. The Government has not committed itself at this stage to any particular rate of pension for the future. Rather, I am determined that we will build on the success achieved in this area and, as part of the social partnership agreement Towards 2016, it was agreed to work with the social partners over a ten-year period to enhance pension provision and income supports generally. This will include further enhancements of social welfare pensions over the period and a commitment to build on the now achieved 2007 target of €200 per week.
According to the most recent data from the Central Statistics Office, gross average industrial earnings were €601 per week in September 2006. On that basis, a pension based on 40% of gross average industrial earnings would be approximately €240 per week, and a 50% pension would be approximately €300 per week.
The estimated additional costs in a full year of bringing all maximum rates for those over 66 up to these levels, while maintaining the current relationship of increases for qualified adults to the personal rates, are approximately €720 million and €2 billion respectively. These estimates are based on the current number of older people in receipt of a pension. They include the cost of increasing payments to qualified adults to maintain their current proportional relationship to the personal weekly rates of payment, but do not include any additional people that would qualify for a means-tested pension.
The Government is preparing a Green Paper on pensions and I expect that this will be finalised by the end of this month. It will include a discussion of all aspects of our pension system, including the contribution of social welfare pensions to ensuring an adequate income for older people in retirement, which is at the same time sustainable in the long-term. Following the publication of the Green Paper, the Government will respond by establishing a framework for future pension policy.
I thank the Minister for his reply. What was the nature of the discussions undertaken as part of the Towards 2016 programme? Were any particular targets set in that regard, or did the social partners address that issue? Was the Minister caught on the hop by the Tánaiste, Deputy McDowell's, solo-run intervention, or was it a naked pitch for the grey vote? It startled everybody across the country and not just the Minister present. Did the Tánaiste give any indication, perhaps via a sneak preview, to his Government partners? In that context, did I understand the Minister to say that 50% of average industrial earnings is measured at €300?
It will only be 36% actually.
The Minister mentioned a figure of €2 billion. Will he expand upon that cost and indicate exactly what it relates to? I know it is election time but with the additional moneys last year, the Minister spent €1.3 billion or €1.4 billion. He thought that was a very good sum, so will this be €2 billion for one area of social welfare?
It was not just the Tánaiste's party conference that surprised me with its announcements — the other two parties currently represented in the House also surprised me with their announcements, but I have been doing the sums. Gross average industrial earnings were €601 in September 2006. On that basis, a pension based on 40% of gross average industrial earnings would be approximately €240 per week. A 50% pension would be approximately €300 per week. The estimated additional costs, in a full year, of bringing all maximum rates for those over 66 years of age to these levels, while maintaining the current relationship of increases for qualified adults to personal rates, are approximately €720 million and €2 billion respectively. This includes the qualified adult allowances, QAAs.
The Minister is referring to additional costs. Can he give us the full cost to the Exchequer of those rates? What is his opinion on the report from the Pensions Board, which has recommended that the State pension be increased to 40% of gross average industrial earnings? Is the level of the State pension currently about 32% of gross average industrial earnings? Will the Minister comment on poverty rates among pensioners with regard to income and other social transfers? What plans does he have to address poverty among older people?
The figures of €720 million and €2 billion are additional costs which must be added to the current pension expenditure to give the total cost.
I was surprised when I heard Green Party announcements on the radio at the weekend because they suggested, almost chapter by the chapter, everything the Pensions Board had proposed in its report.
It must have been our submission.
I asked the Pensions Board to examine these issues and it did so professionally by considering the facts and figures and presenting me with a report which I took to Government. The Government ordered a second report to deal with the mandatory aspect of it and we have already started to implement aspects of the first report. We are committed to flushing out the remaining issues through the Green Paper process and making urgent progress on pensions, particularly the occupational side. Many of the proposals I heard on pensions were familiar to me from the Pensions Board report that I commissioned last year.
The State pension is currently about 35% of gross average industrial earnings.
It is 33% of gross average industrial earnings.
I have a figure of 33.5% somewhere, which is also in the Pensions Board report.
The Minister should be glad that someone reads them.
The level of poverty among older people is below the general level of poverty because of transfers, fee schemes and the fact that most older people do not have mortgages to pay. From a technical point of view, and I stress the word "technical", older people are below the average level of poverty in the country. There is another measure of pensioner poverty that I acknowledge but it is not shown in other measurements because lone parents, for example, tend to experience higher levels of poverty than old people.
Nobody is suggesting those pension increases can be achieved in one year. We should strive for a rate of 40% of gross average industrial earnings after one term of Government, 50% after two terms and the European average after three terms. Would it not be the case that the average increase in pensions in those terms would be in the region of €250 million to €350 million per year?
The Deputy is talking about three terms of Government and that seriously worries me.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
