Jan O'Sullivan
Question:111 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when she will publish a national carers strategy. [34877/08]
Other Questions.
National Carers Strategy.
Joe Carey
Question:142 Deputy Joe Carey asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when the national carers strategy will be published; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34769/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 111 and 142 together.
The development of a national carers strategy is a key Government commitment in both the national partnership agreement Towards 2016 and the programme for Government. A working group chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach is working on developing the strategy. My Department provides the secretariat to the working group, which also includes representatives of the Departments of Finance, Health and Children and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, as well as FÁS and the Health Service Executive.
Developing the strategy involves consultation with other Departments and bodies not represented on the working group. The Department has met with a wide range of organisations, including the Equality Authority, the Combat Poverty Agency, the Citizens Information Board, the National Council on Ageing and Older People, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the National Disability Authority. A request for submissions from the public was published in regional newspapers in early March. The closing date for submissions was Friday, 18 April. There was a good response from individuals and organisations and the submissions received are being examined.
Towards 2016 commits the Department to hosting an annual consultation meeting of carer representative groups and relevant Departments and agencies. Such a meeting was held on 23 January 2008. Representatives of 12 groups and nine Departments and bodies attended. The theme was the national carers strategy and groups were given an opportunity to comment on the draft terms of reference and to raise other issues considered relevant in the context of the strategy.
I was pleased to launch the report, Listening to Carers: Report on a Nationwide Carer Consultation, produced by the Carers Association in partnership with Caring for Carers Ireland and Care Alliance Ireland on 30 June this year. The issues raised in the report are being considered as part of the development of the strategy.
The commitment to the development of a national carers strategy also includes a commitment to appropriate consultation with the social partners. An update on the strategy was provided to the social partners' plenary session in February. The first of two consultation meetings with the social partners was held on 8 May. Key issues raised were recognition for carers and their work, access to suitable health services, income support, training, gender issues and balancing employment and care. We are working on bringing the carers strategy to completion.
There has been considerable slippage in the delivery of the Government's undertaking. Is it a case of the Government not giving adequate priority to the work of carers? The programme for Government states: "Ensure a National Carers' Strategy focusing on supporting informal and family carers in the community will be developed by the end of 2007." That is a delay of ten months. It would be easy to come to the conclusion that the Minister, who is new to her Department, is not giving adequate priority to the issues of carers. The country depends on the vast number of people providing care to ensure that people can remain in their homes and that the cost to the Exchequer does not go through the roof entirely.
What is the reason for the ten-month delay in delivering on the undertaking given in the programme for Government? At what point is the publication of the strategy expected?
The Deputy will be well aware that, according to Towards 2016, the strategy was due for publication by the end of 2007, but there was a particular pressure on the Green Paper on Pensions at the time.
It was also a commitment.
Simultaneously, the new arrangements for payments for nursing homes were being worked out.
The Government knew that when it drew up the programme for Government.
Yes, but it was not possible for the same officials——
So the programme for Government is meaningless.
It seems that it slipped off the Minister's desk.
——to work on everything, particularly something that needs the care and attention of a carers strategy.
Did the Government not know that when the programme was drawn up?
Why promise it?
The commitment was given in Towards 2016.
For 2007.
It was stated in the programme for Government that the strategy would be published by the end of 2007.
The Minister without interruption.
I would be quite happy to tell the House why it did not occur, but perhaps the Deputy might be more interested to know what will occur.
I want both questions answered.
Certainly. Last year, one group of officials was working on two major items, namely, the carers strategy and the Green Paper on Pensions. Work was also ongoing in respect of nursing homes, a matter in which the Department of Social and Family Affairs had an input. That the paper and the carers strategy were not published at the time did not take from the Government's commitment, as shown in last year's budget, which dealt with half-rate carers, substantial increases in respite care and the introduction of large income disregards.
My question relates to the carers strategy. When can we expect it to be published?
It is not an indication of a lack of commitment on the part of the Government that the strategy has not yet been published——
There is no sign of it after ten months.
Significant provisions have been put in place to recognise the important work of carers in society. Since then, work has been ongoing on submissions, meetings and consultations. That work is now drawing towards completion. It involves not only my Department but also the Department of the Taoiseach and, in particular, the Department of Health and Children. Most carers have concerns, for example, in regard to supports available from the Health Service Executive.
It is pathetic to discover that staff in the Minister's department can work on only one project at a time. The programme for Government contained a commitment to devise a national carers strategy and to introduce a Green Paper on pensions. We are currently awaiting the White Paper on pensions. Is the Minister now saying there will be no progress in this regard until the carers strategy is completed? The Civil Service has grown by tens of thousands in the period in which Fianna Fáil has been in government. It is pathetic that it can only work on one strategy at a time.
When the document is finally produced, will it include specific targets and timeframes for delivery or will it be merely a grandiose visionary document that proves to be just as meaningless as the programme for Government seems to be?
Last year's budget afforded more recognition to carers than any of its predecessors.
The bodies representing carers have described this year's budget as a bitter blow.
It is important where strategies are being devised, particularly when they involve cross-departmental input, that they are given the care and attention they require. The bringing forward of the budget has put pressure on all Departments and Ministers.
The Minister is making commitments she does not intend to honour.
It is our intention to continue to work on the critically important pensions strategy. We are working towards completing that, as well as the carers strategy.
I will repeat my question. When does the Minister expect to be in a position to publish the carers strategy, which is now ten months late? It is not good enough to suggest that the strategy can wait because the Government is, in the meantime, taking steps to improve the position of carers. That is not the case. The budget for 2009 provides carers with the smallest increase, a mere 3%, out of all social welfare recipients. The programme for Government includes three other undertakings to carers, none of which was delivered in the budget. When will the Minister deliver on these commitments?
I will be pleased to deliver on the programme for Government commitments as soon as the budgetary position allows. I will publish the strategy immediately after I bring it to Government.
When will that be? The Minister has given a ridiculous answer.
Will the Minister indicate in what year she expects it to be published?
Clearly not.
Tax Code.
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:112 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps she has taken to abolish the ceiling on PRSI. [34848/08]
Under the PRSI system, social insurance contributions are compulsorily payable by employers and employed and self-employed workers. In the case of employees' contributions, the amount payable is determined by reference to reckonable earnings in a weekly period and is subject to a range of thresholds and an annual ceiling.
The PRSI exemption on low earnings stands at €352 per week. In other words, incomes at or below that level are exempt from PRSI. In the case of workers who earn above this level, their total income, up to the annual ceiling, is chargeable to PRSI. However, they are entitled to a PRSI-free allowance of €127 per week. Approximately 76% of workers pay PRSI class A and class H at the rate of 4% and accrue entitlement to a range of benefits and pensions under various social insurance schemes.
The employee PRSI ceiling is reviewed annually in accordance with the legislative stipulations of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005. The legislation requires that changes in the average earnings of workers, as recorded by the Central Statistics Office, be taken into account in this regard. In the 2009 budget, the employee ceiling was increased by €1,300 from €50,700 to €52,000, in line with projected increases in earnings for 2009.
The Actuarial Review of the Social Insurance Fund 2005 report, published last year, found that paying social insurance contributions represents good value for money in almost all circumstances. In particular, the report stated that those on lower incomes fare considerably better than those on higher incomes, with persons earning less than the gross average industrial wage paying 35% of the contributions but receiving 66% of the benefits. This finding demonstrates the solidarity principle of the social insurance system whereby contributions paid by insured persons are not actuarially linked to benefits but are instead redistributed to support contributors who are more vulnerable. It is an expression of solidarity between both earning groups and generations.
Any future changes to the PRSI ceiling must be considered in a budgetary context.
I thank the Minister for her contribution. However, she did not reply to the question, which related to any steps she may have taken to remove the ceiling on PRSI. Is she aware that such a removal would amount to an income stream of €334 million to the social insurance fund, thus offering a substantially greater saving than the €100 million to be gleaned by attacking pensioners over 70 years of age? Would such a move not be preferable to attacking, via the 1% so-called levy, low income workers, including those on the minimum wage? It would be far more equitable to go after those who can afford to pay. If the Minister does not agree, will she explain her reasoning?
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on any measures being discussed in the context of the budget. Deputy Morgan referred to what are revenue-raising measures for the Exchequer. However, PRSI contributions go directly into the social insurance fund and cannot be diverted for other purposes. Any changes in PRSI provisions must be made with the agreement of the Minister for Finance. Savings across other Departments do not impact on the fund and PRSI receipts do not impact on the Exchequer.
In her contribution in the budget debate, the Minister told us that expenditure this year in regard to the social insurance fund would exceed income by €200 million and that this shortfall is expected to increase to €900 million next year. Will she explain how it is proposed to plug that hole this year and next? Given the size of the gap, why did the Government not fulfil its undertaking in the programme for Government to lift the ceiling on PRSI? The change announced in the budget is marginal.
The current deficit in the fund can be met in this and for some future years from the accumulated surplus. Therefore, there is no need as yet to plug the gap. However, it will be important to keep the situation under review. We must examine all revenue-raising measures and savings in terms of how they impact on families. This is one of the measures that is kept under review by both Departments. For now, that shortfall can be met from the surplus.
I had a slip of the tongue in referring to the Exchequer. We all anticipate that there will be a significant number of additional social welfare recipients in the coming 12 months. Why would the Minister not want to have at her disposal the additional funding that would arise from abolishing the PRSI ceiling in order to meet the needs of those who will require assistance? Why has she not pressed the Minister for Finance to take this route?
I have not made any comment on discussions that have taken place in regard to the budget. I am not at liberty to do so.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Joe Costello
Question:113 Deputy Joe Costello asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the extent to which living alone is factored into the setting of social welfare rates; the analysis undertaken by or on behalf of her Department which has determined the extra cost associated with living alone on social welfare relative to the costs for a couple; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34876/08]
James Reilly
Question:118 Deputy James Reilly asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on increasing the living alone allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34835/08]
Brian O'Shea
Question:169 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the changes she will make to the rate of the living alone allowance. [34880/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 113, 118 and 169 together.
The living alone allowance or living alone increase as it is now known, is an additional payment of €7.70 per week to people who are in receipt of certain social welfare type payments and who live alone. The increase is intended as a contribution towards the additional costs people face when they live alone. The policy in regard to support for older people has been for many years to give priority to increasing the personal rates of pension in addition to enhancing the household benefits package and other supports rather than supplementing the living alone increase. The objective is to use resources to improve the position of all pensioners to the fullest extent possible.
The results of this policy can be seen in the most recent results from the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions, SILC, which show that the position of older people improved significantly from 2005 to 2006 with the "at risk of poverty" rate falling from 20.1% to 13.6% and the consistent poverty rate falling from 3.7% to 2.1%. This latter result indicates that we have met the target set in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion. Furthermore, the number of people aged 65 and over at risk of poverty was significantly lower than the figure of 17% for the general population. These figures do not take account of the significant increases in pensions in the 2007 and 2008 budgets so the position can be expected to improve further.
In Budget 2009, we have provided for increases of €7 per week in the personal rate of pensions. This is broadly in line with inflation and so will maintain the real value of pension payments and protect the very significant progress we have made in recent years in reducing the poverty risk for all older people. While I acknowledge the overall and positive impact of increasing the resources of all pensions, I am also conscious of the particular difficulties which older people face when living alone. I intend to keep this matter under review.
The Minister has studiously avoided answering my question. The Vincentian Partnership carried out worthwhile research into minimum essential budgets. In this regard, it added up the weekly expenses of people in different categories and measured this against their social welfare income. It found that the cost of living for a single pensioner is equal to approximately 73% of a couple's living expenses. Did the Minister read this research on which many agencies are basing their work? If so, does she accept it? Also, will she then accept that €7.70 per week is not enough to cope with the costs of living alone for pensioners?
The Vincentian Partnership research, which I have read, was a valuable contribution in our consideration of the budget as was the forum which we held with all of the organisations involved. There has been no increase in the living alone allowance since 1996 because the emphasis has been on increasing basic rates of payment. With a pot of €515 million, the amount allocated to the social welfare package in Budget 2009, I had to prioritise and to ensure the basic rates increased for everybody. It was not possible this year to give the same increases as we gave last year. Were I to target even more specifically groups living alone I would have had to take money from other people and perhaps given some of them less than the anticipated rate of inflation and this would not have been fair either. In trying to prioritise, I had to ensure the basic rates were increased. This is the reason for increases such as the €7 per week increase for pensioners. To give to anybody else would have required me to take this increase from them.
The Minister is being disingenuous in what she is saying.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputies Enright and Shortall.
The Minister is doing a great deal of cherry-picking in that she is taking the line of reports which back up what she is saying and is stating other reports which do not agree with her are "interesting". The Minister needs to take on board what the Vincentian Partnership had to say. A person who moves from living in a two person household to a one person household is given an increase of €7.70. The Minister is correct that there has been no increase in this payment since 1996. It has not been increased as long as this Government has been in office.
What does the Minister mean when she says she will keep this matter under review? This to me appears pretty meaningless in a situation where everything but clothes and a little extra fuel must be paid for by one person rather than two.
I call Deputy Róisín Shortall for a brief supplementary.
The Minister is being extremely disingenuous in terms of how she is dealing with this question. I asked her if she accepts the findings of the Vincentian Partnership that the cost of living for a single pensioner is equal to 73% of the cost of living for a couple. Does the Minister accept this? If she does, what is her defence of the fact that the living alone allowance has not been increased for the past 12 years?
The defence is that a social welfare package of €515 million has been provided for under the current budget. In dividing this money, we had to ensure the basic payments this year were as generous as possible. To target this in any other way would have required me to take from other recipients.
The Government had 11 other years during which it could have done something in this area.
Many people living alone also qualify for the fuel allowance which was increased by €2 per week and extended for two weeks.
The point is the relativity between a single pensioner and a couple.
Many people who are living alone also qualify for the fuel allowance and as such are benefiting from that.
The Minister is missing the point.
The Minister is avoiding the question.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.