As Minister for Social and Family Affairs may I start by congratulating Deputies Enright and McHugh on the birth of their boy. Guím gach rath, sláinte agus fad saoil ar an gclann álainn.
Priority Questions.
I thank the Minister.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Olwyn Enright
Question:77 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will increase the fuel allowance to help alleviate fuel poverty and to support vulnerable families who will face enormous heating bills in the coming months; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2056/10]
The Department of Social and Family Affairs assists social welfare recipients with heating costs, through their basic payments, through the fuel allowance scheme and through the household benefits package of electricity and gas allowances.
The household benefits package is payable throughout the year to almost 380,000 pensioners, people with disabilities, and carer households to assist them with their heating, light and cooking costs. This scheme cost approximately €200 million in 2009.
In addition, the national fuel allowance scheme assists householders on long-term social welfare or health service executive payments with meeting the additional cost of their heating needs during the winter season. The allowance represents a contribution towards a person's heating expenses. It is not intended to meet those costs in full and must be seen in the context of the overall level of income available to the family.
In budget 2009, the duration of the payment was increased by an extra two weeks to 32 weeks, while the weekly value of the allowance was increased by €2 to €20 a week, or €23.90 in designated smokeless areas. This compares with just €14 and €17.90 respectively three years ago.
These are in addition to other improvements made in recent years, including a significant increase in the income threshold for the allowance with effect from 2008. A single person aged under 80, with a household income of less than €330.30 a week can now qualify for the fuel allowance. The income limits for couples are €483.80 a week where the qualified adult is aged under 66 and €536.80 a week where both adults are aged over 66. As a result of these improvements, almost 318,000 people benefited from the fuel allowance in 2009 at an estimated cost of €217 million.
In addition to the basic welfare payments, household benefits and fuel allowance payments highlighted above, the Department also provides funding to the community welfare service to assist people with special heating needs. Community welfare officers can pay a heating supplement to people in certain circumstances with specific heating needs due to infirmity or a particular medical condition. They can also make exceptional needs payments to people who do not have enough money to meet their heating costs.
Since the onset of the adverse weather conditions, community welfare officers have provided assistance to people to purchase additional fuel, heaters and clothing. They have also given funding towards the payment of heating bills and for repairs arising from burst pipes. More than €170,000 has been paid out since 1 January 2010 in respect of such claims. Assistance will continue to be provided towards the payment of heating bills for those in need.
Paying a special increase in response to the bad weather would not necessarily represent a good targeting of limited resources. Rather, it is considered desirable to continue to give community welfare officers the discretion and the funding to assist people who need extra financial support.
I find it peculiar that one third of the Minister's answer relates to community welfare officers as a question I tabled for today on the community welfare service was disallowed because it does not come under the Minister's responsibility. To deal with the question in hand, I very much disagree with the Minister. Does she not see and appreciate the difficulty in asking people on low incomes and those in receipt of social welfare to bear the brunt of the type of weather we have had in recent weeks? Certainly, it is unfair to ask them in general — the Minister has not done so — to conserve energy when they do so on such a limited budget.
Was the Minister involved in the emergency committee established to deal with the bad weather? Did the committee consider the difficulties being experienced by people on low incomes and on social welfare as a result of requiring far more fuel than normal? The renewed programme for Government contained a commitment to publish a fuel poverty strategy by the end of last year. This has not been published. When are we likely to see it published? It was decided in the budget to introduce a carbon tax, which will have a significant impact on those in receipt of the fuel allowance. Does the Minister have any plans to alleviate the difficulties that will be experienced by people as a result of this?
I was not involved in the emergency committee and I do not believe it addressed this particular issue, knowing that it was being dealt with by the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the community welfare officers who distribute the money for the Department; that is why I am in a position to answer these questions.
Interestingly, although I know many people had to use fuel almost around the clock during the very cold weather we have not had demand or communication seeking additional help from the major organisations, namely, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Age Action Ireland. However, I expect that when bills for the fuel begin to arrive we will see the real demand. People have not yet received their electricity or fuel bills. Gas and electricity bills will not be received for two months and those who use oil will also see how much has been used. I anticipate greater demand at that stage——
What will the Minister do about it?
——through the community welfare officers. The sufficient amount of €92 million has been allocated to them this year for supplementary welfare payments.
A certain figure has been allocated for supplementary welfare payments. Every time a difficulty arises for one in the social welfare system one is told to go to a community welfare officer to apply for a supplementary welfare payment. People whose houses were flooded were also told to go to a community welfare officer to apply for a supplementary welfare payment. That figure was agreed before the floods and the cold weather conditions. Is the Minister stating that people who cannot meet their fuel bills because of the extreme weather will be looked after when they go to the community welfare service?
In fairness to community welfare officers they dealt extraordinarily well with the flooding issue.
They do great work but are constrained by their budgets.
They are the people best placed on the ground and who know. Providing an additional week's benefit has been suggested. However, that would be paid in May which would not be much good to people now. Much of the money invested in fuel expenditure by the Department is done so through household benefits and that is not targeted. Admittedly it goes to everybody over the age of 70 and older people have greater demands, but they all do not have the same financial needs.
The Minister could increase the amount community welfare officers have to distribute.
The exceptional needs payment available for this year is approximately €90 million. There is also the installation scheme but that is a separate issue and I want to return to the question asked by the Deputy in the first instance on the carbon tax to be introduced this year and her final question on the fuel strategy for last year. An interdepartmental group on energy affordability has been established and that will address both issues. We are conscious of the fact that a carbon tax on heating products will come into effect from May but it will be September before solid fuels come in. We should have a targeted response but we must find the most efficient way to target and administer it.
Róisín Shortall
Question:78 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will amend the back to education allowance to address a number of inadequacies such as its lack of compatibility with the academic year; the length of time an applicant must be unemployed to qualify for this scheme; the restricted access for persons who already have third level qualifications; and the restricted access to students pursuing other back to education type programs. [2062/10]
The primary objective of the back to education allowance, BTEA, is to give welfare recipients who left school early and those without third level qualifications a second chance to attain educational qualifications so as to reduce their risk of long-term unemployment.
In order to qualify for participation, an applicant must generally be in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment for three months if pursuing a second level course or 12 months if pursuing a third level course. In May 2009, the qualifying period for access to third level courses was reduced to nine months for people engaging with the Department's facilitator programme, thereby aligning with the existing similar threshold for people within the national employment action plan. People who are awarded statutory redundancy may access the scheme immediately, provided an entitlement to a relevant social welfare payment is established prior to commencing an approved course of study.
Acceptance into the back to education allowance scheme can result in a person receiving income support for three years or more if pursuing a degree course. It is, therefore, considered appropriate, in the context of limited resources, to ensure that such long-term support is only given to those who actually need it. The waiting periods for the scheme act as a disincentive for people to leave education early with a view to getting paid the BTEA to complete it soon after.
It is worth noting that the maximum rate of the back to education allowance is more than double the maximum rate of the maintenance grant available to third level students from the lowest income families. It could, therefore, be considered unfair if a young person could finish school, work for a couple of years and then secure three years worth of BTEA support after being unemployed for only a very short time, while another young person who went straight from school into third level would get far less financial support.
The BTEA is currently limited to full-time courses from second level to higher diploma level in any discipline and to a graduate diploma in education. Qualifications above this level would not generally be considered necessary to secure employment. Payment under the scheme covers the relevant academic year and the scheme caters for approved courses where the starting date is not aligned to the standard academic year. Under separate arrangements, job seekers can participate in a part-time course and maintain their welfare entitlements, provided they obtain approval in advance and continue to satisfy all relevant conditions, such as being available for work.
In 2009, €87.8 million was provided for the BTEA scheme. The number of people on the scheme at the end of November 2009 was 20,418, which is 88% higher than the 10,854 recorded at the end of November 2008. The scheme is being monitored on an ongoing basis in the light of the changed economic circumstances, in order to ensure that it continues to meet its objectives.
The Minister said at the outset that this scheme was intended for early school leavers. The point I am making is that the qualifying criteria for the scheme are very outdated and do not meet the needs of the newly unemployed. It is fine for the Minister to talk about the minor changes she has made, which are welcome, but the reality is that there has been unprecedented growth in unemployment. One in five unemployed people are under 25. There are many graduates who are drawing the dole. The restricted nature of this scheme means that many people who should be able to avail of it are not entitled to do so.
It would make a lot of sense for the Minister to provide education and training opportunities to those who are on the dole who are precluded from participating in any courses. This problem is relatively new and it needs new solutions. The Minister should consider sitting down with some of the groups who work with unemployed people and try to identify some of those barriers that currently prevent them from participating in training. The current system encourages long-term unemployment. With a little tweaking of the rules, this could be a much more effective intervention for people who find themselves unemployed. Will the Minister apply herself to identifying those blockages?
The Deputy has acknowledged that we have made necessary changes and I am open to making more. We need to ensure that we keep qualifying criteria for the link with social welfare. We must also ensure that there is a time lag because problems can arise if there is no waiting time.
The Deputy referred to graduates. Traditionally, we have not gone beyond the higher diploma. I accept that there are graduates on the live register, but they can also benefit from the work placement programme and hold on to their social welfare benefits. This may enable them to become more prepared for employment. There are other options available for people. Through FÁS, the Department of Education and Science and the PLC courses, a great number of additional places have also been made available. There are people who may not qualify for the back to the education allowance but who would qualify for the third level grant. That would allow people to continue with their education.
I meet with groups all the time but if there are other practical suggestions that allow more people to participate then I am very open to that. The numbers went up by 88% last year but because more people will be qualifying again this year, more people will be participating as well. We issued a mailshot to 18 to 25 year olds this time last year, and this was quite successful because it forced them to look at it. People who work with the young unemployed said that to me. When they suddenly got a letter about education it set them thinking in that direction. A targeted mailshot might work again.
I come in here every month and tell Deputies that I am more than willing to take on ideas because it is such a difficult area and we all want to do something. However, I do not always get these suggestions. When I do get them, I try to take them on board.
Time does not permit me to go through the various suggestions that I have received from constituents and from groups working in this area. There are six or seven things that could be done and which would not result in a huge cost to the Exchequer, but which would open the scheme up to more people. These people are going to be drawing the dole anyway. People may have received a postgraduate qualification 15 years ago and these qualifications are now fairly irrelevant to the demands of the job market. It makes sense for those people to go back and retrain, but they are precluded from availing of this scheme.
The Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs should take a look at this in the next few weeks and the Department should participate in a round-table discussion on it and take on board some of its suggestions. I would welcome the Minister's support for that idea.
I have been looking at a number of issues, such as the problems encountered by people who qualified a long time ago and whose postgraduate qualifications are no longer relevant to the current market. We need to have a focus on any solutions to these problems, and we could do that in the context of the smart economy. We should be targeting support for people who are doing courses that might ultimately lead to employment, rather than some of the other courses. At the same time, we also have to ensure that we continue to support other people on social welfare payments, such as lone parents and people on disability benefit, to ensure that the back to education allowance facilitates them as well.
What about the round-table discussion?
I will participate in any discussion on back to education programmes.
Social Welfare Fraud.
Olwyn Enright
Question:79 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount of fraud control savings achieved in 2009; if she is satisfied with the savings achieved; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2057/10]
Welfare fraud is theft. It is a serious crime and the Department is doing everything it can to prevent and detect fraud, and to crack down on those who abuse the system. Several initiatives were introduced or enhanced last year to target controls more effectively in schemes. These included more frequent mailshots to identify people who have left the country and who are no longer entitled to a payment; additional data matches with other agencies to identify welfare customers who had failed to disclose relevant information to the Department, such as earnings and compensation claims; improved internal data matching procedures to ensure that relevant information available in one area of the Department is applied to all schemes; and increased emphasis in the border regions on control of claims from applicants with a previous address in Northern Ireland. These were additional to the improved controls introduced in 2008, which included requiring new claimants of jobseekers payments to collect their money in person at the post office rather than having it paid straight into their bank account.
Greater emphasis was also placed last year on prevention of fraud and error at the claim application stage. While this is the most cost effective mechanism of reducing unwarranted welfare expenditure, it should be noted that savings achieved in this way are not included in the published figures for control savings. For 2009, the Department set a target of reviewing almost 620,000 individual welfare claims. Over 750,000 reviews were carried out last year, which is 20% more than the annual target. The total fraud and error savings recorded for the year was approximately €484 million, which is an increase of €8 million on the 2008 figure.
In considering the level of savings recorded in 2009, it is important to note that the final average live register figure for the year, at 395,500, was significantly lower than the 440,000 that had been predicted when the annual target was set. While it is difficult to identify exactly why the above target number of reviews did not generate higher savings, it may be partially due to decreased opportunities for people to work and claim. Increased emphasis on preventing unwarranted claims at the initial application stage may also have led to a reduction in the number of claims stopped after they had gone into payment.
Additional information not recorded on the floor of the House.
It is also worth noting that the 2009 control savings from several schemes were ahead of target. These include family income supplement, carers, illness payments and State pensions.
Overall, I am satisfied that the enhanced controls introduced in recent years are helping to reduce the potential for fraud and errors in welfare payments. I also believe that the new anti-fraud powers included in the Social Welfare Bill are a clear demonstration of this Government's determination to do everything that it can to stop people getting money to which they are not entitled.
The savings made by the Minister were far short of the target she had set, and this is clear from her reply. The same pertained to 2008. She has set a much lower target for 2010. Is that because she has failed to reach her targets for the last two years?
What else does the Minister plan to do? She has asked for useful suggestions. The Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, through Deputy Shortall, suggested rolling out a national identification card, something to which the Government has committed itself. When are we likely to see that?
The Minister will be aware of a case that went to court a couple of weeks ago. The gentleman involved collected somebody else's payment in the same post office as his own for 14 or 15 years. How did that happen? The clear answer is that there was no ID card and there was no requirement for a check to be made on that gentleman. People in the Dublin region have told me that they have gone to social welfare offices and have not been asked for identification. There is nothing to prevent people from collecting someone else's payment. When will a tougher, stricter approach be introduced? We have heard a great deal of talk but it has not been matched by action on the ground.
One of the reasons the target was not met was that the number on the live register did not reach the anticipated level. It is important that we stop people receiving payment before fraud occurs. This issue is being given careful attention. The control target for next year is €533 million. The Department hopes and expects to achieve this target through the range of measures it has implemented and new initiatives.
Money was provided in the budget for the roll-out of a PPS card, which will commence this year. This measure will help eliminate fraud as the new card will feature a photograph. While it will not be an identity card, it will be helpful.
I do not wish to discuss individual cases but it is extraordinary that the person to whom the Deputy referred was able to continue with the fraud for so long. An individual can, however, collect a pension for an older person if he or she is the designated agent.
The gentleman in question was not the designated agent in this instance. The person for whom he claimed was dead and could not designate an agent.
I am aware of that. It is awful that anyone would continue to collect money for such a long period.
The Department held details of the death.
Deputy Shortall makes a fair point. At that time, the systems did not talk to each other. As a result of new information technology, deaths are automatically notified to the Department. This did not occur at the time of the case to which the Deputies refer. One should not underestimate the fact that the systems talk to each other. While it may be odd that is only taking place now, at least it is being done.
Data matching with other groups and organisations is also helping to crack down on fraud. I have twice met representatives of postmasters who have been very helpful. They have requested in their newsletters that postmasters ensure that they ask for proof of identity.
With respect, the Minister's statement that the number of people on the live register is not as high as anticipated is neither here nor there. Those who would have been on the live register would not have been fraudulent claimants but people with an entitlement to claim a benefit.
A person who was working would not have an entitlement.
If the number on the live register had been higher, it would not have affected the figure. Is data matching in place to enable the Revenue Commissioners to check whether landlords in receipt of rent supplement from the Department are paying tax on the payment?
The Deputy is extending the scope of the question.
I will return to the Deputy on that question. In some schemes, including lone parent's allowance, carer's allowance, illness payments, State pensions and family income supplement, the savings secured from anti-fraud measures have exceeded the targets. We cannot concentrate all our efforts on the live register.
The Minister raised the issue, not me.
We will continue to take the issue seriously. The Deputy asked what new measures the Department would take this year. The introduction of the new PPS card is a new initiative. Members of the public can also make a complaint or report suspected fraud on-line without providing any information about themselves. They can provide details and information on the Department's website about people who they believe are engaging in fraud. The success of these initiatives will prove helpful.
The Minister indicated previously that the majority of such reports prove to be unfounded.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Olwyn Enright
Question:80 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she is satisfied that her Department can adequately target low income families who have had their child benefit cut by increasing the qualified child increase and the family income supplement; her views on whether increasing the qualified child increase and the family income supplement creates poverty traps and fails to target the most vulnerable; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2058/10]
Between 2000 and 2009, overall expenditure on child benefit grew from just €638 million to approximately €2.5 billion per annum. The Government is proud to have been able to deliver such significant increases in payments to families when the resources were available. However, with tax revenues having fallen dramatically, we cannot afford to maintain spending at this level.
The Government is conscious that the payment can be an important source of income for all families. For this reason, we decided against withdrawing child benefit completely from any family. We also decided against taxing the benefit. Apart from the significant administrative complexities that taxation would have involved, it would be unfair to take up to 20% of child benefit from families on the lower tax rate and up to 41% from those on the higher rate who do not have very large incomes. It was fairer to reduce the child benefit rates across the board, while fully protecting up to 420,000 children in families who are dependent on social welfare or in low income employment.
Families with children who are dependent on social welfare will be fully compensated for the reduction by receiving an extra €3.80 per child per week in the value of the qualified child increase paid with the principal payment. Families who currently receive a half-rate qualified child increase because they have other household income and are not, therefore, totally dependent on welfare will receive an extra €1.90 per child per week. The family income supplement income thresholds have also been increased to compensate low income working families for the cuts in child benefit.
I am fully satisfied that these improvements to the qualified child increase and family income supplement will effectively target the needs of low income families. I am also satisfied that measures are in place to address potential poverty traps. For example, to ease the transition from welfare into work people who have been in receipt of a jobseeker's payment, with a full-rate qualified child increase, for at least 12 months can generally keep the qualified child increase for 13 weeks if they take up work that is expected to last at least four weeks.
The family income supplement is also arranged in such a way as to enable people to increase their earnings while maintaining some support. For example, a family with four children can have a net income from employment of up to €820 a week and still receive a family income supplement.
I do not know if the Minister is aware of a number of studies done on poverty traps in the social welfare system in 2005 and 2006. The Government has not introduced any changes which have had a positive impact by reducing these traps. The most recent budget was especially negative in terms of disincentivising people to work. I received a call from a gentleman yesterday who, having been offered a job with a salary of €22,000 per annum, decided it was not worthwhile to accept the offer because he would be better off on social welfare.
On the qualified child increase, Government policy for the past 15 years has been that increasing this benefit creates a poverty trap. What poverty proofing did the Department do to ensure that the decision in the budget to change child benefit did not create a further poverty trap? The changes in the qualified child increase and family income support create a disincentive to return to work as people who enter employment will lose these benefits.
A person earning €22,000 per annum would be much better off than an individual on the live register because the latter would only receive slightly more than €11,000 per annum.
One must take all the other factors into account.
Please allow the Minister to complete her answer.
The Deputy and I probably agree that we do not want a circumstance to arise in which people believe they are better off on social welfare. However, a person earning the figure cited by the Deputy would not be financially better off on social welfare.
In all of our discussions on the budget, especially its social welfare aspects, the Government considered the effects it would have on individuals and families, particularly those on lower incomes who are not dependent on social welfare benefits. This was one of the reasons I was particularly anxious not to proceed with the cuts in child benefit proposed in the McCarthy report. Not only would such cuts have had a severe effect on people on middle incomes, but we would have created a poverty trap by compensating those on lower incomes. The decision to cut child benefit by the lowest amount possible meant that we did not have to substantially increase the qualified child increase. To have done so would have made it difficult for people to extricate themselves from social welfare and enter employment.
At present, child benefit provides half of the support for a child in low income families whereas the figure ten years ago was 34%. The Department continues to target child income support and families in the correct manner. Combined, child benefit and the qualified child increase are higher than ever. In devising difficult cuts in the budget the Government genuinely set out to protect low income families, an objective we achieved in this case.
I disagree. I can give the Minister several further examples of people who find themselves in the same position as the man offered a job earning €22,000. Does the Minister take decisions in isolation? Did she decide to examine the qualified child increase and family income supplement or did she examine all benefits, including rent supplement, the medical card? I accept that medical cards are issued by a separate Department. When people are making the decision to return to work they consider the totality of their income and do not focus solely on the potential loss of the qualified child increase. Considering one's entire income is the sensible way to budget for one's family. Did the Minister consider this?
Not only did I do so in my Department but we also did it cross-departmentally in our discussions. We were very conscious that various cuts could impact on the same people. In discussions prior to the budget, organisations representing different groups, particularly the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, made clear that while they did not want any cuts, which can be taken as a given, where there were cuts they wanted one rather than myriad cuts. A general cut was made in child benefit and the rates of payment of social welfare benefit——
Those are two pretty big cuts.
——but there was no cut in fuel allowance or the other elements that support people. That was one point that the organisations were anxious about at a difficult time for making cuts in the budget.
The Minister put the bottom line ahead of the number of cuts.
Did the Minister poverty-proof the measures?
Pension Provisions.
Olwyn Enright
Question:81 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when she will proceed with the reform of the pension system; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2059/10]
The Green Paper on pensions outlined the challenges facing the Irish pensions system in the years ahead, including the sustainability of the system over the longer term in light of demographic change and the adequacy of contribution levels and benefits. The consultation process that followed publication of the Green Paper reflected the wide range of views and interests held by individuals and organisations throughout the country. While there was no consensus on ways to respond to the challenges facing our pension system, it was clear that there were significant issues and problems that people wanted addressed.
Since the Green Paper was published in October 2007, the economic environment has changed considerably and the Government needs to ensure that any decisions we make in the pensions area will be robust enough to withstand the challenges that will arise in the future. We must make decisions now to ensure the adequacy of retirement incomes for this and future generations and, at the same time, develop a system that is affordable and sustainable for the State and for those who sponsor and provide pension schemes.
In the past 18 months or so the Government has taken a number of steps to respond to the immediate difficulties facing pension scheme members, particularly members of defined benefit schemes. These include the establishment of a pensions insolvency payment scheme and a reordering of wind-up priorities so that, in any defined benefit wind-up situation, employees and former employees who have not yet retired may still receive a large proportion of their benefits. Legislation to support these measures was passed in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2009. The Government has also introduced provisions to allow for more flexible restructuring of pension benefits and stronger regulation regarding remittance of pension contributions. We have also protected people in receipt of the State pension by retaining the rates of pension and other social welfare payments for older people in the recent budget.
The Government is aware that the wider and longer-term pensions policy issues require a comprehensive and co-ordinated response and has been considering a number of options to address the challenges facing our pension system. Uncertainty in the economic climate has increased the complexity of the decisions we must make but it does not prevent or deter the Government from making these vitally necessary decisions. However, it does require us to give very careful consideration, and it is precisely because the development of the national pensions framework involves decisions on such a wide range of future and complex issues that we have been spending a considerable amount of time working on it. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance have indicated that we hope to be in a position to publish the framework shortly.
Every month we ask this question and we hear that it will be published shortly. What does shortly mean? We attended a Green Paper launch by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, although I do not know whether Deputy Cullen or Deputy Hanafin was Minister at the time.
Not I.
He obviously made an impact. We were told it would be published very shortly but that was almost two years ago. Does the Minister have any idea when this will be published? A piecemeal approach is being taken at present, as outlined by the Minister, in respect of PIPS and other matters addressed in the budget. The latest step by the Department concerns farmers' spouses' pensions. The Department allowed farmers' spouses to apply and back pay contributions if they had not paid them by the time they were 66 under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. Over the past number of weeks and months——
The Deputy should ask a question.
I must explain it so the Minister is clear.
The time is nearly up.
The Department wrote to at least 200 farm families to ask them to repay the money, which the Department allowed them to pay into this scheme. Why has the Minister made this move? How many farm partnerships are affected? Will she give consideration to allowing them to retain the pension the Department allowed them to pay into?
This is a specific question——-
It is relevant to the question.
——and an Adjournment debate may be allowed on this matter later.
It is a question on pensions and I anticipated it. There is no change in policy in respect of commercial partnerships and there is no change of budget in respect of commercial partnerships. Approximately 1,000 people applied for partnership under the scheme by showing that they were in partnership with their spouses. Generally, it refers to farm spouses. Of those 1,000 people, 579 cases have been decided on the basis of whether they qualify as a partnership. Some 508 of those were deemed to have a partnership in existence. Of those, 268 have applied for a pension. The rest have not reached pension age yet. These are people who qualify for the partnership and have applied to see if they qualify for a pension. Some 46 did not qualify because of the social insurance element. Some 87 were told they qualified, were put into payment but then it was discovered they did not qualify. We are talking about 87 individuals. This occurred because of an administrative mistake by the Department and I regret that it was made. Some 135 people out of 268 are in receipt of a pension. These are the accurate figures. Letters were sent by the Department last week that caused some distress to the people concerned. I regret the administrative mistake was made.
How was a mistake like that made when the Department worked out how much people would pay back? People borrowed money in some instances to be in a position to apply to the Department. The Department knowingly allowed them to do that and people thought they were entitled to the pension. They planned accordingly and now the Department is writing to them to say that they are not allowed get it and that it was an administrative error. If the administrative error had been made on the other side, the Minister would be acting tough to get it back. This must be re-examined because it is extremely unfair to those who planned on the basis of information provided by the Department.
There are two elements to this pension. In the first instance, people must prove that the partnership existed and then people must qualify under social insurance contributions. The section that determines whether a partnership existed did not communicate properly with the social insurance end. When the partnership was found to exist and the application was approved in respect of this, it was presumed to be approved for a pension. It was a genuine mistake and I regret that it happened. It happened in respect of 87 people, not hundreds, but it is a serious issue for those 87 people.
The data matching is not as good as the Minister said earlier.
We now move on to Other Questions and the first question is in the name of Deputy Olwyn Enright, who was fortunate in the draw.