Vol. 686 No. 1
1 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the measures she has taken, in co-operation with other Departments, to move people from welfare to work; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25547/09]
The national employment action plan, NEAP, operated jointly by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and FÁS, is the main welfare-to-work measure for jobseekers. The plan's process is fundamental in addressing the progression needs of those on the live register. It provides a stimulus to job search and affords an opportunity to explore, under professional guidance, the full range of employment and training services offered by FÁS.
Under the plan, all persons between the ages of 18 and 65 years who are approaching three months on the live register are identified by the Department and referred to FÁS for interview with a view to assisting them in entering or re-entering the labour market. The referral capacity under the plan has nearly doubled for 2009 from 6,500 cases per month to 12,250. In addition, the Government is now providing, through FÁS, a total of 128,000 training and activation places for unemployed people this year. There are also some 147,000 places available in further education programmes in 2009. This is a substantial increase on the number of places previously available. In response to the downturn in the construction industry sector and in recognition of the special difficulties faced by apprentices who are being laid off, the Department and FÁS are working together to facilitate them in finishing their apprenticeships.
The recent supplementary budget outlined a joint approach to activation by the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Education and Science. I introduced a package of measures relating to the Department's back to work enterprise allowance and back to education allowance to facilitate better access to supports. The package put together by the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Education and Science has some 11 proposals to provide 23,435 extra employment and training scheme places.
With the increasing number of people who are unemployed, the Government is continuing to develop and put in place new programmes to enhance the work experience and training opportunities for them. Two such initiatives, the work placement programme and a pilot short-time working training programme, were announced recently. Under both initiatives, participants will continue to receive their existing social welfare entitlements from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. These new programmes, together with those already in place, demonstrate a substantive commitment on the part of the Government to create and implement initiatives that support and assist those finding themselves without work.
Regarding the new initiatives announced by the Minister and the Tánaiste in recent weeks, is the former satisfied with the sufficiency of the number of places? The work placement and short-time working programmes consist of approximately 2,277 places over a 52-week period whereas 3,375 jobs are being lost every seven days.
I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions regarding referrals to FÁS. The total number of referrals has almost doubled. While this sounds fantastic, looking behind the figures for the results shows a pathetic situation. Last year, the Department of Social and Family Affairs referred 60,000 people to FÁS. Some 41,000 were interviewed and 7,846 were placed in jobs, training or education. According to the Minister, 21,000 were interviewed but not placed in jobs, training or education. What occurred to those 21,000 people and what of the 12,000 who formed part of the original 41,000? They have just gone.
The figures for the first quarter of this year are even more worrying. Of those sent to FÁS, only 7% were placed in jobs, training or education. Last year, the figure for people with a successful outcome was 13%. What follow-up does the Department carry out after people are sent to FÁS to ensure that instead of just sending people for a short period or an interview, we are sending them to get something out of the opportunity? In the current climate, 7% for the first quarter is pathetic.
The recent announcements should be viewed as a package of measures. The Deputy asked about the 2,000 work and graduate placement places. It is a new initiative and there is nothing to say that, once it is up and running and people have registered with it, we should not be able to extend it. An initial number of 2,000 places is worth the effort. They will last for six months. Some 1,000 will go to graduates and 1,000 will go to other workers, 250 of which will be reserved for people under the age of 25 years. Since it is being done through FÁS and both jobseekers and participating employers can register, a number of issues must be teased out to make sure that there is no job displacement, that is, killing off existing positions. I would welcome the programme's expansion.
While I do not want to repeat myself, additional places have been made available in the further education sector. The Deputy did not mention the recent announcement on the expressions of interest being sought from the third level sector in a part-time course that will make 2,500 places available. They all add up.
Not to much.
The Deputy asked about people who are referred to FÁS. It is always interesting to note that, as soon as people get a letter about being called for interview, they leave the live register. Some 12% left immediately. They did not even go for their interviews. It could be a control measure, that is, they might not have believed that they had been on the live register legitimately. Perhaps they found other opportunities.
The Deputy asked about this year's figures. I am also disappointed that so few people have been placed in education and training. However, it was not the time of year to place people in either. For example, were one looking for places in further or higher education, one would not find them in March, April or May. I hope that the programme's take-up will increase in September when people who have been interviewed can be guided into the places in question. We must obviously keep an eye on this matter.
When people return to the live register, they are interviewed after a further three months. It is not as if they are just left there. The process is ongoing in conjunction with the education sector and FÁS. As the Deputy stated, the local employment service network, LESN, is on board throughout most of the country and is providing training and education for people who might not be picked up by other services. The LESN is running literacy, preparation for work and preparation for college courses. It is a valuable service.
Even if the figure is not 7% by the end of the year, 87% of people referred to FÁS last year did not jump off the live register when they received their letters. What is occurring in respect of that large number? Having a referral system is easy, but the outcomes are important, as I am sure the Minister agrees. Judging by these outcomes, the system is failing.
Given the Minister's statement that people are signing back on, when will she deal with the issue of people doing short-term FÁS courses signing off and signing on? This situation causes more queues and difficulties for her Department and the people themselves.
Has it been suggested to the Department's facilitators that they should get involved in fraud control measures? It has been put to me that facilitators have been asked to spend one day per week on fraud control as opposed to facilitation work. Is this is the case?
Of the people referred this year, 36% left the live register. Some 15% did this after their interviews and 12%, the control measure people, did not turn up for their interviews. Only 9% were placed in jobs, education or training, which is the matter on which I share the Deputy's disappointment.
The Minister should address it.
I hope that the figure will pick up later this year.
The process is being streamlined. People who leave the live register to take on short-term work or FÁS training will have their re-applications to the social welfare system streamlined. This is important because it will free up staff and reduce queues.
I am unaware of facilitators being asked to work one day per week as described. Everyone is on the alert for reasons of fraud control. I will check out whether facilitators were asked to do that specifically.
2 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps she is taking to deal with the long waiting times for the processing of claims in her Department; the target waiting period which she has set for the processing of jobseeker claims; and when she expects to meet that target. [23438/09]
The number of people on the live register almost doubled between May 2008 and May 2009 to a total of nearly 397,000. The average processing time for claims decided in May was 3.4 weeks for jobseeker's benefit and 6.4 weeks for jobseeker's allowance. These are averages and I appreciate that waiting times are longer in some areas. In other areas they are shorter than the average.
The Government is determined to ensure that people who have lost their jobs or been put on shorter working weeks can get access to their entitlements as quickly as possible. To that end, productivity in local offices has increased, claim processing procedures have been improved and extra staff have been put in place. In the five month period to May 2009, over 222,500 claims for jobseeker payments were decided in local offices, up from 133,000 in the same period last year.
As a result of staffing reviews in 2008 and again in recent months, some 300 extra staff have been assigned to local offices, new central support units and the Department's inspectorate since May 2008. These include 90 temporary staff who have been appointed to local offices around the country pending the assignment of permanent staff. Arrangements are also in train to allocate a further 24 inspector posts.
The processing target for jobseeker's benefit is 90% of claims processed in three weeks. In May, 60% of jobseeker's benefit claims were decided within that time. For jobseeker's allowance the target is 90% in six weeks and 65% of claims were decided within this time in May. It is not possible to predict when these targets will be met while the live register continues to increase to record numbers but I am conscious that people need to get access to financial and other supports as quickly as possible and we will continue to work hard to bring processing times back in line with targets.
Deputies will be aware that anyone who is under financial pressure while awaiting a decision on their claim for a jobseeker's payment can apply for supplementary welfare allowance which is subject to a means test and other qualifying conditions.
To say people can get supplementary welfare allowance while waiting to get their claim processed is incorrect. They cannot do that because there are waiting lists to see community welfare officers. The failure to tackle the waiting lists within the Minister's Department is putting enormous pressure on the community welfare service and organisations like MABS and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. People are going without food and other essentials because the services cannot cope with the demand. The Minister quoted figures but the reality is that no improvement has taken place in waiting times, the most recent figures have shown that 39 offices have waiting times of over two months for jobseeker's allowance.
Whatever about jobseeker's allowance, what about jobseeker's benefit, which is a simple matter of checking a person's social insurance record? Although no means testing is involved, waiting times in some offices are more than nine weeks. How can that be explained?
The Minister must get the finger out and get moving. There is a deluge of applications and people are being left to wait for a payment of any kind. They simply cannot survive in those circumstances. It is unacceptable that a basic public service such as social welfare is not accessible to people when they need it.
I want the Minister to tell the House exactly how many additional posts have been sanctioned for the Department. She mentioned 300 posts. Are all of those 300 in place? How many additional staff will be needed and how many have been sanctioned by the Department of Finance to date?
Can the Minister pinpoint where exactly delays exist in the Department? Are they in means testing, in assessing habitual residence or at the frontline? Where are the blockages? The Minister must be specific as she goes about tackling this problem because her efforts to date have not been sufficient.
The Deputy drew attention to a number of issues. There are only two offices where there is a nine week wait for jobseeker's benefit, both of them in the Cork area. In fairness to the others, one might mention those offices where it can be done in less than a week or in two weeks. In the vast majority of offices, claims are processed in a much shorter time. I appreciate jobseeker's benefit can be done more speedily because it is based on the record and I hope the arrangement that started in the Dundalk office, where decisions were being made on the day on claims, can be extended to the rest of the country. Unfortunately the CPSU stopped that even though it was in everybody's interest, staff and applicant alike, because it can be done quickly.
The longest delays are in branch offices. Agreement was reached with the branch officers in April 2008 that they would be able to make decisions locally. At the moment, they take in the applications, which are then taken from them and given to the local office. Because local offices have their own demands, to date they have not given priority to branch offices. Agreement was reached with them in April 2008 that they could make their own decisions but the CPSU will not allow that because it claims it is outsourcing. We cannot cope with the flood coming from branch offices to local offices but this would free up staff in local offices and would benefit people.
Those are two key issues where we could have far greater cooperation. The Deputy asked about the third area, the community welfare officers. The sooner we can have an integrated process with the CWOs coming into the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the better. Again this has been blocked for years but it has been referred to the Labour Relations Commission and we expect a date for hearings shortly. SIPTU has agreed to participate, although so far IMPACT has not, and I hope we can secure agreement on the idea. That will lead to better service for everyone because it is not right that people should have to wait.
The 300 staff were put in place between May 2008 and May 2009. Some of those have been put in place in the last few months. At the start of the year we indicated that we wanted 300 staff this year so we will be looking for another 150 staff. Those staff are on their way from other Departments, there is no question of any blockage, but they must be trained and deployed in the right places.
How many of them?
We have also established the central units that are working effectively. They have no front of house contact but are solely making decisions on claims. The next central unit will open in Tallaght on 6 July. Huge progress has been made and the productivity of the staff has really improved. From January until May this year they processed 250,000 claims while in the same time last year they processed 146,000.
Through the establishment of the central units and the efforts being made all round to ensure applicants can be dealt with as speedily as possible progress is being made, although I appreciate there are delays in some areas.
If there are industrial relations issues it is the Minister's responsibility to deal with them swiftly. Whatever about problems within the Minister's own offices, the suggestion that the problem lies with the need for the community welfare officers to transfer into the Department of Social and Family Affairs is entirely wide of the mark.
No, it is not.
What difference will it make if they come under a different Department? If there are not enough staff, there are not enough staff, irrespective of what they are called. The Minister should deal with the industrial relations issues and stop hiding behind them.
Tell that to the CPSU.
How many additional posts have been approved over and above the 300? When will they be in place?
Last year the Department of Social and Family Affairs had one of the highest rates of absenteeism, with an average of 15 sick days per year. What is the current situation and what steps is the Minister taking to deal with that?
The transfer of the community welfare officers is central. They spend the Department's money and the Department pays the Department of Health and Children to pay them to pay the money. That is not an efficient, integrated system. The Department has no difficulty in getting staff from other Departments but there is a difficulty in the HSE, even though they have had extra places sanctioned. There are issues there, however, related to back-filling. However, although extra places have been sanctioned for the HSE, issues arise over backfilling or some other phenomenon. I am not quite sure about the intricacies of the process. It is not quite relevant here. Undoubtedly, were the officers to be part of our Department, we could ensure that we would be able to fill any vacancies if staffing difficulties arose. This is because we have powers of sanction.
I indicated at the beginning of this year that we need 300 additional staff. One hundred and fifty of those are currently in place and we expect to get the other 150. They have been placed in local offices and the central units.
When does the Department expect to have the other 150?
They are being recruited all the time as they are freed up from other Departments.
What about absenteeism?
I do not have up-to-date data on absenteeism but if the Department has it, I will facilitate the Deputy.
3 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action she has taken to persuade lenders, other than members of the Irish Banking Federation, to sign up to the new IBF-MABS Operational Protocol: Working Together to Manage Debt; the reason she did not ensure that sub-prime lenders were made aware of and included in discussions on the new protocol; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25548/09]
The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, provides assistance to people who are over-indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems. The regulation of financial institutions, including the banks, sub-prime mortgage lenders and the credit unions, is part of the statutory remit of the Financial Regulator. Legislative issues in regard to the Financial Regulator are dealt with by the Minister for Finance.
Under the statutory code of conduct on mortgage arrears published by the Financial Regulator, all financial institutions, including the banks and sub-prime mortgage lenders, must, where circumstances warrant it, refer a borrower in difficulty for guidance to his or her local MABS office or an appropriate alternative.
The new protocol, IBF-MABS Operational Protocol: Working Together to Manage Debt, is the result of almost two years of work by MABS NDL, the national support company for the MABS network and the Irish Banking Federation, IBF, the main representative body for the banking and financial services sector. The protocol sets out an agreed process by which IBF members and the MABS money advisers will approach debt problems experienced by clients. The protocol includes a commitment that no legal action will be taken as long as there is compliance by the client with an agreed repayment plan. Thirteen financial institutions, including the main banks and building societies, have to date signed up to the protocol.
With regard to those other lenders that are not members of the IBF, such as sub-prime mortgage lenders, the MABS advisers will continue to negotiate with these creditors on an individual basis to secure better terms for MABS clients in managing the repayment of the debts.
I am encouraged by the response to the MABS-IBF initiative and the willingness of lenders, not just those who are members of the IBF, to support the protocol. In the subsequent media reports and correspondence I received, other lenders have indicated that they would be happy to support the protocol. I urge all lenders to adhere to the best-practice procedures set out in the protocol. I have asked MABS NDL to follow up on the correspondence I have received and to explore further the possibilities for other lenders.
MABS NDL has initiated work with the Irish League of Credit Unions with a view to developing a similar operating protocol with its members that would set out best practice to support MABS clients in managing debts owed to credit unions.
At the launch of the MABS protocol on 3 June, the Minister was critical of the fact that the sub-prime lending companies had not signed up to it. Her Department finances the operation of MABS and the lenders come under its auspices in that sense. Did the Minister not believe, prior to criticising the sum-prime lenders, that it would have been better to have them involved or to ask MABS to get them involved? The main group with a high rate of personal borrowing and other financial difficulties comprises those in the sub-prime area. The highest rate of interest being paid is being paid by those in this category. Therefore, having the sub-prime lenders involved is of the utmost importance.
Research that the IBF presented to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs yesterday shows only 40% of borrowers find debt management easy, which means 60% do not. Most of these can manage if they are careful but 15% of the 60% have cause for concern or a real problem. This problem will grow. What discussions has the Minister had with the sub-prime institutions and will she ensure that they sign up to the protocol? While they got an easy buy-out by virtue of the fact that they are not regulated, they are licensed and need to be very involved with the protocol.
I accept they should be involved with the protocol. When launching it, I suggested this. In fairness, within two days one sub-prime lender wrote to me indicating it would sign up.
They have never been asked to do so and they do not know about the protocol. It is very hard to sign up to it if one does not know about it.
The IBF is a regulatory body. All the groundwork was done with the IBF and this means there is an established protocol. A financial institution that is not a member of the IBF indicated immediately that it would sign up to the protocol. Any institution can sign up to the protocol within days now that the work has been done on it. This is equally the case with the credit unions, but one should remember MABS has a very positive relationship with the credit unions anyway.
The Deputy was correct about the extended loans people have and the difficulties they face in managing them. It is very worrying to consider the average debt people have incurred. This, in itself, has increased. This time last year, it was €12,500 while it was €7,500 just before that. Now the figure has risen to €14,500. Therefore, the people who are contacting MABS this year have more extended debt in all sorts of areas than those who were doing so even last year or the year theretofore.
When one examines this debt, one notes it is not generally constituted of loans from the main mortgage lenders, as we often believe, but of personal loans. Personal credit is the main form of debt and I accept it is much more difficult for people to manage than other forms of debt. MABS is doing a very good job in this area.
I am delighted at least one sub-prime lender and another financial institution immediately took up the invitation to sign up to the protocol. We will work to ensure that the others do so also.
While the Minister is delighted the institutions took up the invitation, should MABS not have contacted them in advance to ensure that they would sign up?
The Minister will probably be aware of the comments of the Master of the High Court. He still expects an avalanche of claims. The figure in this regard has trebled since he made his comment in February. Will the protocol be sufficient? The Master of the High Court is listening to what is being said every morning. He hears the stories of the people affected, many of whom have no legal representation, and he believes the worst has yet to come in terms of repossession cases in his court. Will the protocol prevent this? Are the comments the Master of the High Court made this week correct?
The protocol will go some way towards preventing it, particularly if the sub-prime lenders sign up. It is not necessary that they be part of the negotiation because it is easy to formulate a protocol with one regulatory body, which is what the IBF is.
In the first quarter of this year, there were nine repossessions of owner-occupied homes. While repossession is extremely traumatic for the families concerned, there has not been the avalanche about which people talk. Where orders for repossessions have taken place, they have not necessarily been in respect of residential homes, nor have the orders been enforced.
That is because people sold their houses to pay the debts. People are still losing their houses.
I hope that as a result of this protocol, which has been devised after much negotiation, repossession will only occur as a last resort. As long as people make a genuine effort to stick to the repayment plan devised for them by MABS in conjunction with the credit institution, we will not see this happening.
4 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she is satisfied that the assessment procedure for social welfare benefits and entitlements is working effectively; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25549/09]
The Department of Social and Family Affairs, through the wide range of services it provides, touches everyone's life at some stage. Our overall goal is to provide people with the information, financial support and other services they require in a timely and customer-friendly way.
The Department administers 2 million applications for 50 different schemes each year. Last month alone, it cleared some 207,000 claims. We are committed to ensuring that claims for payment are processed and that decisions on entitlement are issued as expeditiously as possible, having regard to the eligibility conditions that apply. These conditions vary from scheme to scheme and may involve, among other criteria, the need to establish the person's social insurance record; verification of his or her medical incapacity to work; confirmation of his or her place of habitual residence; and, where appropriate, the assessment of means. Additional information may also have to be sought. These factors, along with a significant increase in the claim load of a particular scheme, can affect processing times.
There are specific performance targets set for each scheme and these are monitored closely and action is taken where appropriate. I appreciate there are delays in some areas and I have outlined to the House on another occasion the steps we are taking to improving processing times, for the jobseekers' payments in particular.
Investment in our staff and modern information communications technologies is central to improving the quality of the service we provide to the public. Our new website and text messaging service have made it easier for people to access information at a time that suits them. The Department's website recently won an e-government award for accessibility. We are also working to ensure a high quality service continues to be available by telephone, in our local offices, through the citizens information centres and by post.
There is no doubt the significant rise in applications for some schemes is presenting major challenges for the Department. I assure the Deputies that we are committed to meeting the needs of the increasing number of people who rely on our support, while also providing a high standard of service.
I will deal with the issue of processing times later in respect of my other questions. I tabled this question because of the high rate of appeals to the Department. I am concerned about the high rate of successful appeals because if the system operated effectively there should not be such a high rate. I will cite three examples from last year. More than half of all appeals for the carer's allowance were upheld in 2007 and 2008 but the people who appealed had to wait six months for the appeals to be granted, on top of their initial application time; 40% of appeals for jobseeker's allowance last year were upheld and the people had to wait five months; 54% of appeals for disability allowance were upheld and those people also had to wait six months. What is going wrong in the initial assessment of those claims? It is not a question of medical reports because they are not all health related. That would not apply in the jobseekers area. Where are the mistakes in the initial assessments in those three examples? There are many other examples. Approximately 60%, of the areas covered by the Department have a high rate of successful appeals. What is going wrong? The processing times in the first place are a problem and so are those for the appeals as half the people who are entitled to the payments must wait several months.
Each scheme is different and has different requirements. Where medical evidence is required it will take some time. To get the carer's allowance one must show that the person for whom one is caring is in need of full-time care which involves a medical certificate. It quite often happens that an application is made with insufficient information on means or household income and that can give rise to an appeal. The Deputy mentioned some instances where different information would be sought.
As a control measure it is probably just as well that not everyone gets everything on the first go. We try to ensure the processing times are quite quick. It is easy to focus on the jobseekers in the first instance and say that is where there are delays but given that the Department receives 2 million applications each year, some are very speedily dealt with, many within one or two weeks. The appeals and the processing times can be two separate things but there are problems in appeals too and going to oral hearings, etc.
I would not accept in any sense that this is a good control measure because more than half the people who appealed in those three instances were found to be entitled to the payment which means that there was no issue of fraud or of trying to pull the wool over the Department's eyes. These people were entitled to the payment and had to wait the initial application time, which could have been 19 weeks in Boyle, and then had to wait five months in the case of jobseeker's allowance.
The medical documents for the carer's and disability allowances are not a problem because most people would have proved on application that the person was entitled to the benefit. I would like some figures from the Minister on why these appeals are being granted. She may be able to supply them afterwards. I do not think insufficient information accounts for all those successful appeals. Anyone in the House could give the Minister examples of appeals they have lodged for people that have nothing to do with insufficient information. It is a substantial number and it is very unfair that these people are being asked to wait.
The Minister has not answered my question about the breakdown of the initial assessment because while there are different types of payments, the people in the Department who deal with carer's allowance deal exclusively with that payment, and likewise the jobseeker's and disability allowances. They are experts in their areas so it is not a question of being a different type of payment. They know how to deal with the applications and there must be a breakdown for such a sizeable success rate in appeals. This needs to be dealt with.
That there is an appeals mechanism in place is very important.
I agree.
The ones the Deputy mentioned involved medical certification.
Jobseeker's allowance does not.
The disability, illness and carer's allowances do. The problem with the jobseeker's allowance is that the means testing can take time.
A total of 40% of appeals are successful. That is the point of the question.
The point of an appeal is that it allows people the opportunity to give further information or medical evidence or go to oral hearing.
To find the Department's mistakes.
A total of 59% of appeals last year went to oral hearing. People got the opportunity to come in and make their cases, whatever the information was. I accept that the appeals system works and I know the Deputy is asking why the application does not work in the first instance but there can be a wide range of reasons it does not work.
That needs to be examined.
We are examining some of the areas where there is a high success rate on appeals to find the cause.
5 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason for the delay in the publication of the long-term pension framework; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25550/09]
Since the Green Paper on pensions was published in October 2007, the Government has been progressing policy in this area. We have also responded to meet the immediate difficulties facing employees, especially those in defined benefit schemes, who saw both their companies and pension schemes facing difficult situations. The collapse in equity values and the economic situation combined to create severe difficulties for people who saw significant reductions in their potential benefits as a result.
The Government moved to protect people's entitlements through measures announced last December and the recent legislation passed in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2009. These include the establishment of a pensions insolvency payment scheme, a reordering of wind-up priorities, provision for restructuring of pension benefits and stronger regulation with regard to remittance of pension contributions. Where decisions have been required to protect people's entitlements, the Government has moved quickly to assist pension scheme members. We have also been engaged in discussions with the social partners on key issues, including pensions.
The Government is aware that the wide and long-term pensions policy issues require a comprehensive and co-ordinated response. Following the conclusion of the successful consultation process last year, we have been considering several options to address the challenges facing our pensions system and which were raised in the Green Paper process. These issues relate to social welfare pensions, the sustainability of our pension system generally, the adequacy of current provision, and other complex issues around regulation, public sector pensions and retirement age.
As I have previously said in this House, it is the intention of the Government to deal with all of these issues. Over the past year, the economic environment has changed considerably and we need to ensure any decisions we make in the pensions area are robust enough to withstand new and unprecedented challenges. It is entirely appropriate that the Government takes the time to arrive at sound decisions about the future of our pension system, given the potential of such decisions to impact significantly on this and future generations. Our objective is a system which will deliver an adequate retirement income for all which is, at the same time, affordable and sustainable for the State and for those who sponsor and provide pension schemes.
The Government has responded quickly to the severe difficulties facing defined benefit schemes. We will continue to discuss further reform options for inclusion in the national pensions framework and I expect that this will be published this year as announced in the partnership talks.
I thank the Minister. She may think it entirely appropriate that the Government takes time but it has taken 12 years with little or no progress. There has been a little progress on defined benefit and none on the overall pension problem. I am glad the Minister says the framework will be published this year but on Question Time at the end of April she told me it would be published in a couple of weeks. That was two months ago. A couple of weeks is a fortnight. The end of the year is a long time away. We are only half way through the year. Will the Minister give a more definite date?
The OECD says that 30% of Irish pensioners live in poverty. A year ago when we asked questions about this I said that fewer people were going to want to invest in a pension because of their fears about how they operate and the Minister said that would not be the case. Only a quarter of Irish people now think it is a good idea to put money aside for their retirement. The longer the Minister leaves a decision on pensions the bigger the timebomb she is creating for the country. One million people are due to retire over the next 20 years. By making progress on this issue the Minister can give them some certainty about their retirement. They do not have that now. People are terrified. What she has done so far is nothing compared with what needs to be done. Will the Minister provide the House with a more definitive date? Does she have any idea what is being considered by the Government because an element of private sector workers feel they have been ignored in what has been done so far?
I am aware that I indicated that it might be sooner than now but the Government has decided to give it further consideration and that is its prerogative. However, the paper circulated to the social partners this week indicated that it would be done this year. As I outlined, we have genuinely been working very hard on a number of issues that are most relevant to people today and the fact that publication of the framework will be a number of months later than I had indicated should not delay its implementation because it was never going to be implemented in 2009 or 2010 anyway. I had always indicated that as in the UK it would probably start in 2012 approximately.
The number of people investing in their pensions has increased. Surprisingly, given the way the market has gone there are indications that people have started to provide even more for their future. I know that the particular age group in which we hoped to see an increase to 70% is at 61% so it is moving in the right direction.
The OECD report refers to figures from 2005 and since then the non-contributory pension has increased by 32% and the contributory pension has increased by 28%. The authors of the OECD report recognise that the increase in public pensions since 2005 will have improved the economic position of older people and they recognise that significant progress has been made in those years. As we know, the consistent poverty rate for older people has fallen to 2% from 3.7% in 2005 so progress has been made. The OECD report, while critical, has not taken into account the improvements made in the past four years.
The improvements relate to the State pension; they do not relate to the plethora of other pension areas which have not been improved, rather have seen a disimprovement. The Minister mentioned an implementation period of 2012 and I know she stated that previously but it is much too far away. Either way, the report still needs to be published so people know what will be there and can make plans because the crucial aspects of pensions are planning and time. Does the Minister mean publication at the very end of the year or during the summer? Does she have any idea of a wider timeframe?
I certainly do not mean during the summer but as soon as possible thereafter when we get agreement from the Government. It is crucial and it will impact on private pensions, social welfare pensions and public sector pensions——
The Government has had 12 years. It did not come up last week.
This delay is a disgrace.
The value of people's pensions has been wiped.
It is an absolute disgrace that the Minister is dragging her heels like this on such an important issue.
As I indicated previously, a good lead-in time to the implementation time is required and I hope this will not have been affected by the fact that it has not been published.
The Minister is twiddling her thumbs on a very important issue.
I think that 2012 is a reasonable timescale which would allow people to prepare for it and to have the legislation and structures in place to allow it.
It is an absolute disgrace. The Minister is dodging another important issue.
We will now move on to Other Questions. I must point out that on Priority Questions only the Member who tables the question may ask supplementary questions on it under the Standing Orders.
Are we out of time for Priority Questions?
We are.
The Ceann Comhairle stated that we had half an hour.
I allowed a little leeway but I cannot be expected——
Does Priority Question Time end after half an hour or not?
What happens is that six minutes are allowed to each question and I have the discretion to allow the Priority Question to proceed a little longer to oblige the Members and I did so in the circumstances.
With all due respect, my question was whether Priority Question Time ends after 30 minutes?
Strictly speaking it does——
Thank you.
——but the Chair has the discretion and the power to extend it to facilitate Members and I did so.
