Vol. 706 No. 3
56 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the new responsibilities allocated to his Department, including details of its responsibility to provide a cohesive system for unemployment to retraining and jobs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15642/10]
Under the recently announced changes in ministerial responsibility, the employment and community services programmes of FÁS are being transferred to my Department, the community services programme and the rural social scheme are transferring from the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and responsibility for the payment of redundancy and insolvency payments is transferring from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.
The process of transferring functions from one Department to another is carried out by means of Government orders. Each order needs to be carefully drafted so that all relevant legislation is listed in the Schedule to the order. The Departments which currently hold the functions that are being transferred to my Department are fully engaged in this task at present. The draft orders will need to be finalised and settled in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel before they can be brought to Government.
Once this process has been finalised, the Minister for Finance will bring the necessary orders to Government. At this stage, I cannot give a precise date for the formal transfer of functions as this depends on a number of factors, including the complexity of the legislation governing the particular functions. I assure the Deputy that everyone involved in the process, both in my Department and in the other Departments concerned, is making every effort to complete it at the earliest possible date and I hope that it can be brought to conclusion within a matter of weeks. While the primary responsibility for job creation rests with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, my Department already has a role in supporting people from welfare to work. The national employment action plan is the main activation measure for jobseekers and provides for a systematic engagement of the employment services with unemployed people.
Overall, the transfer of functions being implemented will facilitate the delivery of a more effective and streamlined response to the needs of the unemployed. Bringing together, under the aegis of one Department, the employment services of FÁS, the expertise of its placement officers and the unemployment services of this Department, as well as the community employment schemes, job initiative scheme, community services programme and rural social scheme, will offer significant opportunities to generate synergies, improve efficiency and ultimately improve service delivery to those availing of these services.
The existing level of interaction and co-operation with FÁS and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will facilitate a seamless transfer of functions when the necessary orders are finalised and the restructuring will provide for greater cohesion of activation measures.
I take this opportunity to wish the Minister well in his new position.
I, too, wish the Minister well in his new portfolio.
The Minister's predecessor, the current Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Mary Hanafin, indicated that she did not mind being removed from her previous portfolio because the Department's policy functions had been removed. I am paraphrasing rather than quoting the Minister directly but that was the import of her words. Will the Minister confirm that his Department will continue to have a policy function, specifically in the area of creating employment opportunities?
The Minister used the word "seamless" in connection with FÁS. No one in the House would describe FÁS as a seamless organisation. I am concerned by the decision to divide the organisation's function among three Departments. Will the Minister provide further detail on exactly how this will work, in particular, on the ground in local FÁS offices? At present, a person visiting a local office will find the community section and employment officer in the same place and the training function elsewhere. Will this continue to be the case? While the director general of FÁS has ultimate responsibility, will three FÁS officials be answerable to the three responsible Ministers or will only one official be answerable to all three Ministers?
The Minister stated everything will come together. Will the 59 facilitators operating in the Department come under the remit of FÁS or continue to operate independently? While we all want seamless operations, I am not convinced that will be the outcome of the proposed changes.
Currently, a person who signs on as unemployed signs up for a payment and then visits his or her local FÁS office seeking activation placements and so forth. The Department's aim, which makes a great deal of sense, is to ensure that when a person visits his or her local social welfare office, the officials who deal with placement will be working side by side with those dealing with payments. There are two sides to unemployment. While the income issue is important, we have not stressed the debilitating effect of unemployment on those affected by it. The objective, therefore, is to have a one-stop-shop.
The Deputy asked whether the Department will have a policymaking role. The Department will make all policy in this realm. The only policy element being moved elsewhere is the national social inclusion policy which is transferring, with the family functions, to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The Department will continue to feed into that process, although the lead Department will be the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Policy on all activation and social welfare issues as well as community schemes and so forth will be made in my Department.
The Deputy asked how the proposals will work. For years, I have argued that enforced idleness is not a great policy. We spend €3 billion or €4 billion annually on unemployment payments and a further €500 million on activation. My Department, rather than two Departments, will treat this money as one pot. I want to use activation measures to differentiate between those who are genuinely unemployed and those who may not be genuinely unemployed and use savings arising from this approach to create more activation and opportunities for people to be gainfully involved in community work and so on. That is the where the big change will come about. Having all the money in one place will make a radical difference in that respect.
We would all like to see greater activation. It would have been better if the training section was within the Department itself, but that is for another day.
Will the FÁS staff currently based in local FÁS offices now be placed in local social welfare offices? If that is the case, will they retain the status of public servant or will they become civil servants, as they would be in the Department of Social and Family Affairs? FÁS staff were supposed to be moved to Birr, but it was hard to move them, so I do not envy the Minister in trying to get them to move to social welfare offices around the country.
The Deputy previously asked who was in charge as long as FÁS exists. The best analogy on how this can work is with Pobail. The responsibility for this body was with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, in which I served in a previous administrative role. However, many different Departments use Pobail to deliver schemes on their behalf under service level agreements. Similarly, primary responsibility for corporate governance in FÁS will transfer to the Department of Education and Science, but there is no difficulty in the short term in having an agreement between my Department and FÁS to deliver services on a contract basis through activation. Decisions on CE schemes and so on will not pose insurmountable difficulties. There are good working models on how to do that.
The Deputy rightly highlighted the next stage, which is the challenge of getting from where we are to where we would like to be. There are industrial relations issues and we will work on these gradually. On a practical level, we must have greater interaction between those working on the payment side of unemployment and the people who are working with the activation. After three months, about 60% of people have moved back into employment. After one year, it has dropped to about 30%. It is at that juncture where we have to try to move people into some kind of activity rather than having them drawing money for a long time with nothing to do. One of the big things that genuinely unemployed people complain about is the forced inactivity. I will try to tackle that problem as quickly as I can.
57 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to offset the impact on poor households of the full introduction of the carbon levy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15648/10]
The Government has announced its intention to introduce a carbon tax, which will come into effect on heating products from May 2010 and on solid fuels at a date to be set by commencement order. Before the tax is applied to fuels for home heating, arrangements are being made to assist those most at risk of fuel poverty. In his carbon budget statement, the Minister for Environment, Heritage and Local Government, outlined details of €130 million in funding for insulation, €76 million of which will be used to assist low income families.
The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources has overarching responsibility for the energy portfolio and has convened an interdepartmental and inter-agency group on affordable energy to co-ordinate and drive Government policy in this area. The interdepartmental and inter-agency group has been asked to draw up an energy affordability strategy. This strategy will set out existing and future approaches to addressing energy affordability and will have regard both to the impact of the carbon tax on low income households and the range of supports outlined above in making its recommendations. The group will make recommendations on the precise package of measures, including in the area of income support, that should be put in place to assist those at risk of fuel poverty.
In the meantime, the Department of Social and Family Affairs will continue to assist social welfare recipients with heating costs both through their basic payments, through the fuel allowance and through the household benefits package of electricity and gas allowances. These schemes have been improved significantly in recent years.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Proper household insulation is absolutely vital in tackling fuel poverty. Initiatives such as the warmer homes scheme, operated by Sustainable Energy Ireland, under the aegis of the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, have a very valuable role to play in that regard, as does funding from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to improve the quality of existing local authority housing and the housing adaptation grants for older people and for people with disabilities. Considerable progress has been made in this area in recent years.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and I wish him well. It is an important Department and I hope he has a successful tenure there.
My question was about a vouched fuel scheme that was promised in the budget. To which fuels will that scheme apply and when will it be announced? In ten days time, the 300,000 families living in fuel poverty will be hit with a double financial whammy. They will lose the fuel allowance at the end of April and will be at least €20 per week worse off because of that, but the carbon levy then kicks in the next day. When will the Minister come up with a new scheme to compensate for the increased cost of the carbon levy and to which fuels will it apply? Many families will be dependent on that new scheme to get them by and to ensure they have adequate heating.
As I said, a group is working on this issue and it is intended that it will come forward with recommendations. I am more than aware of the time constraints we face, and I will try to see if we can implement something fast for those who face challenges. However, I have not been given the proposals yet.
The fuel issue becomes much more critical during the cold winter months than it does just before summer, but I am aware of the challenge. For those us who have gone from house to house, a major problem is that of poor insulation, particularly in houses belonging to older people. Some houses are in poor condition, whether they are local authority houses or privately owned houses. The ultimate answer to this question is to look at the energy rating of these houses and at various schemes such as the warmer homes scheme. This goes back to whether we can activate people to do this work. Some very good work has been done in certain parts of the country through schemes that provide insulation. This cuts down on the amount of heating used and means that not only would the carbon levy not have any effect, but it also means a dramatic cut in the cost of heating by making the houses warmer.
Whatever about the long term, what will the Minister do in ten days when poor families lose the fuel allowance and are faced with a huge increase in the cost of home heating oil? It is cold comfort for those people when the Minister says he is aware of the challenge and that there is a group working on the issue. That is not acceptable. A scheme was announced by the Government in December's budget. The Minister knew then that the carbon levy was coming in on 1 May and that the fuel allowance was being cut at the end of April. What will he do for those families in ten days' time?
The Minister must come up with a scheme. Does he realise that the cost of home heating oil increased by 38% last year and by 5% in the last month alone? The Minister has prided himself on being the voice of rural Ireland. Many low income families in rural Ireland are particularly dependent on home heating oil. Given the huge increases in the cost of such oil in the last year and the fact that many low income families will be hit with this double whammy in ten days, will the Minister do anything to relieve their situation? If he will not do anything, then he is dreadfully out of touch with what is happening to poor families.
I can assure the Deputy that I am not out of touch with what is happening with poor families, both in urban and rural areas.
What is the Minister doing for them?
As I said, the interdepartmental agency group has been asked to draw up an energy affordability strategy. The strategy will set out existing and future approaches to addressing energy affordability, and will have regard both to the impact of the carbon tax on low-income households and the range of supports outlined above in making its recommendations.
When will we see it?
I am going to answer the question.
Tell us when we are going to see it.
As part of its work the group will make recommendations as to the precise package of measures, including in the area of income support, that should be put in place to assist those at risk of fuel poverty, in advance of the implementation of the carbon tax on home heating products.
The carbon tax, involving an 8% to 9% increase on home heating oil, is to be introduced in the next ten days.
Yes.
Is the Minister saying that there will be a scheme in place before 1 May to assist those families? It seems incredible that could happen if today he is saying he does not know the detail of the scheme.
I do not. I said that the group will make recommendations as to the precise package of measures, including in the area of income support, that should be put in place to assist those at risk of fuel poverty, in advance of the implementation of the carbon tax on home heating products.
Can the Minister give a guarantee that the new scheme will be in place within the next ten days?
The group will make recommendations as to the precise package of measures, including in the area of income support, that should be put in place to assist those at risk of fuel poverty, in advance of the implementation of the carbon tax.
Perhaps the Minister would answer a straight question. Will there be a new scheme in place to assist people who are faced with this double whammy of an increase in the cost of home heating?
I have answered the question.
Will there be a scheme in place by 1 May?
What I can say to the Deputy is what I have been advised about the situation. I have not got——
Will the Minister have a scheme in place to assist low-income families?
The simple answer is that the recommendations are to be made available before the implementation of the carbon tax. Since I do not have the recommendations, I cannot go beyond that today.
The Deputy is the Minister for social protection.
That is correct.
There are 300,000 families who are in receipt of the fuel allowance. That will run out because they will have access to the allowance for only one more week. The following day the carbon levy will become operative. There will be an 8% to 9% increase in the cost of home heating oil. I am asking the Minister to give an undertaking that the new scheme to offset the additional financial burden that will be imposed on poor families will be in place by 1 May. Can the Minister give that guarantee now, as promised earlier?
The Deputy is going to learn one thing about me, that is, when I am ready to make a decision I will make it. Nobody will force me into making a decision before I am ready. As I said, I have not got the recommendations and therefore I cannot answer the question at this time. Therefore, the Deputy cannot say whether or not I am going to, because I have not said so. The Deputy will have to be patient. I am more than concerned, and not only about this. The big issue, as the Deputy has rightly pointed out, is not the carbon tax, because the price of home heating oil has gone up way beyond what the carbon tax would have done. There is a huge issue there, if the Deputy is really concerned about fuel poverty. Even if there was never a carbon tax — which the Deputy seems to think is the totality of this challenge — the real problem is lack of insulation in people's houses. If we are really concerned about the disadvantaged and about the people who are suffering from fuel poverty, the first and biggest thing to tackle is——
That programme is a disaster. The Minister is talking about 12 to 15 years before it comes into operation.
With respect, the real problem will be obvious on 1 May when people will not be able to afford to heat their homes. I am asking the Minister, who has responsibility for social protection, if he has any plans to introduce a new scheme, as promised, which would be available before the carbon levy comes in on 1 May.
This is the Minister's last call.
I know but I just keep repeating myself. The situation is that I will get a——
Clearly the Minister does not know.
I do not. The Deputy has twigged that at last. I have not got the proposals.
The Minister is supposed to know what is going on. He is supposed to take action to protect people from poverty.
Yes, of course. Is the Deputy aware of how much the price of fuel has increased since the beginning of the year?
Yes.
It increased by about 6% or 7%, and it will increase by a further 9% next week. I do not know why the Minister is asking me, however, because he is the Minister and should know the answers to these questions. He should be ready for the introduction of the carbon tax on 1 May.
I have not got the report from the group, so I cannot make a decision on something I do not have.
That question was tabled last week. The Minister is answerable to this House.
I still have not got the report.
The Minister should be able to tell us what the arrangements are for helping poor families who are dependent on him to introduce this scheme, as he promised, to offset the carbon levy.
As of today, I have not got the report.
When will the Minister have it?
I will have it before the end of the month.
Will the scheme be in introduced by then, before the carbon levy comes in?
I keep telling the Deputy that I am not going to make decisions, on the hoof, on something I do not have here in the House.
The Minister promised this, so can he answer "Yes" or "No" to the question as to whether the new scheme will be operative before the carbon levy is introduced.
I cannot give the Deputy a "Yes" or "No" answer.
He does not know.
I do not know at this point in time.
That is disgraceful. He is supposed to be the Minister for social protection. Clearly, however, he is not providing the protection to those 300,000 families who depend on him to provide them with protection.
The Deputy is incorrect. Just because I do not know something today does not mean that I will not know about it next week. The Deputy is presuming that I will not know it next week. As of now, however, since I do not have the proposals, I cannot make a decision on them.
If the Minister does not have the proposals as of now, how can he have a new scheme in place in ten days' time?
There will have to be a supplementary Estimate.
That is something about which the Deputy will have to wait and find out in ten days' time.
It is not me, it is the 300,000 families who look to the Minister for assistance.
Those who have dealt with me in the past will know that I am very concerned about these issues. The Labour Party thinks it has a monopoly on bleeding hearts, but I can assure the Deputy that I am as concerned about it as she is.
The Minister should kindly refrain from those kind of comments. I expect him to do his job as a Minister.
I will do my job as a Minister.
I am expecting him to keep the promises he made to low-income families that are dependent on him and his Department to provide some kind of assistance for them in offsetting the additional cost involved in the carbon levy. It is outrageous that he comes in here ten days before the new scheme is supposed to be in place and tells us that he does not know whether there will be a scheme, and that he has not got the working group's report. That is unacceptable.
We have given this matter a large amount of time. I appreciate how important it is, but I am now calling Question No. 58 in the name of Deputy Olwyn Enright.
58 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social Protection the impact current industrial action is having on applications for social welfare support; the number of social welfare claims delayed as a result of this action; his plans to address this backlog; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15643/10]
The overall response to the industrial action is being managed centrally by the Department of Finance with input from all Government Departments, including the Department, and other public service sectors. The industrial action is being closely monitored in the Department on a daily basis and the Department's management is maintaining contacts with the unions concerned to ensure, in so far as possible, that the negative impact on the Department's customers is minimised.
In the main, the industrial action in the Department resulted in telephones not being answered, counter services in public offices not being provided for various periods, certain statistical work returns not being completed, and certain computer systems not being used. A ban on overtime was introduced in the illness benefit area from 22 February 2010 and this ban was extended to other areas of the Department for four weeks from 15 March to 9 April. This and other actions resulted in a delay of one or two days in issuing payment to the customers affected. While the number of illness benefit claims awaiting a decision has stayed broadly the same at about 6,800 over this period, there was an increase in the time taken to process the claims from about six days to an average of eight days during the period of the industrial action.
In some areas, staff not answering phones or attending the public counters worked on processing claims and, as a result, backlogs were reduced and processing times improved as these staff were diverted. Consequently, there is no backlog of claims that can be directly attributed to the industrial action.
Deputies will be aware that there have been significant arrears of jobseekers' claims over the past 18 months or so due to the huge influx of applications for these schemes. However, the number of claims awaiting a decision has been declining every week since the end of January, when they stood at over 62,000 and were reduced to 47,500 at week ending 27 March. The number increased to 52,800 after the Easter break. However, this is normal as there is always a significant increase in claims from school-related workers around any school holiday period. This, combined with the impact of the shorter working weeks at this time has resulted in an increase in the number of jobseeker claims awaiting a decision.
Overall, the number of jobseeker claims awaiting a decision expressed as a percentage of the entire claim-load nationally is now at about 10%. This is the level of claims awaiting a decision that applied even when the live register was at its lowest. In some local offices the percentage of claim awaiting a decision is higher, but we are working to bring them in line with the national average as quickly as possible.
The work to rule is ongoing. However, following recent discussions between the unions and the Department of Finance, there has been some relaxation of the industrial action.
For almost two years we have been hearing of problems in some local offices. I and other colleagues have had dealings with the people working in those offices and they want to know when a solution will be found. The problem affects approximately 17 local offices. Delays in these offices are higher than anywhere else. Is there any sign of a resolution to the problem? We have been told several times it is also an industrial relations problem, even before the work to rule or the overtime ban. In the context of the current negotiations, will that issue also be dealt with so that those people who have no choice but to go to their local office for payment will be dealt with in the same manner as those in any other office?
I am glad to hear that some good has come as a result of the current action and that backlogs have been cleared. I had expected to hear the Minister say the backlog was even greater, but welcome the fact that is not the case. Can the Minister learn anything from this in terms of the operation of the offices and the Department, because when those in the offices can concentrate on claims, they get through more work? I do not suggest they should not answer telephones, but could staff be divided so as to work more effectively? Some people could be responsible for taking queries and others could work full-time on applications. That could speed up the process. The staff in the office receive queries from Members of the Houses and the public, but if the backlog was cleared, there would not be as many queries. Many of the queries relate to the delay. Is the Minister aware of anything that should be changed as a result of the situation over the past number of weeks?
Members experience delays across a range of services. These delays cause grief for people and are a huge challenge in any system. In my previous Department, I tried to minimise delays in making decisions across the range of the operation of the Department and discovered, as the Deputy suggested, that the number of queries decreased the more we reduced the list or queue. This led to even more work being done. Queues take up a significant amount of staff time.
There are two elements to running any Department, policy and operation. Day-to-day operation is a matter for the staff of the Department, but the Minister has a responsibility to examine the schemes to see how things can be streamlined and to ensure we do not have inordinate queues at every facet. This applies to jobseeker's allowance and other schemes. I have no doubt but that there will be co-operation in making the changes. Some schemes require more time. For example, because there is no means test for jobseeker's benefit, it is much quicker to obtain it than jobseeker's allowance. We have to deal with the complexities of all of the different types of means tests for the different schemes. I will examine everything, de novo, across the Department to see if we can streamline the processes more to provide better delivery to customers.
I have dealt with the Department of Social and Family Affairs over many years and have always found its staff helpful and co-operative. When customers ring them, they genuinely try to help them and it has generally been a customer-centred Department. We must examine the procedures and see whether it is easy for the staff to deliver a good service or whether there are crinkles in the system we could eliminate.
I agree with the Minister that the staff are helpful. The executive council of the CPSU has rejected the public sector pay deal and prior to Easter, we had a discussion in the House on the Order of Business with regard to contingency plans in the Department. Has the Minister considered contingency plans in the event of action being escalated and social welfare offices across the country being affected? I do not want to see a situation arise where people cannot get their payments or their applications processed because of an escalation in action. We have seen the difficulties that arose in the Passport Office. There were also temporary difficulties when some of the social welfare offices were closed. This is something about which people are concerned and which could get out of control. The previous Minister had not considered contingency plans, but is the current Minister doing so? He needs to have some plan in place rather than having to react on the day if action affects offices. Is he preparing a contingency plan?
Generally, where the industrial action has discommoded people, the unions have taken a responsible attitude and recognised that the people served by my Department are the most vulnerable. We will continue to work to try and minimise the disruption to people, but this is also contingent on getting co-operation from the staff and unions, something which has been given. Low-level action has taken place that has disrupted some areas and there was a slight delay in payment, but generally the unions have taken a responsible attitude. I hope they continue to do so. We may have and there are contingency plans, but they can only operate at a certain level. Everybody must try and work together to resolve the issues. As noted, the executive of the union has given its view, but it is up to the members of the union to balance everything and make their views known. The Government feels strongly that what is on offer is the best balance that can be given at this time.
59 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of defined benefit pension schemes which fail the minimum funding standard; the number of persons affected by this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15644/10]
Under the Pensions Act, defined benefit pension schemes must meet a minimum funding standard which requires that schemes maintain sufficient assets to enable them discharge their accrued liabilities in the event of the scheme winding up. Where schemes do not satisfy the funding standard, the sponsors or trustees must submit a funding proposal to the Pensions Board to restore full funding within three years, although as part of temporary measures announced by the Government, the Pensions Board can now allow a scheme ten years or more to meet the standard in certain circumstances.
At the end of 2009, there were 254,325 members in 1,192 defined benefit schemes subject to the funding standard. It is estimated that approximately 75% of these schemes are in deficit. However, the extent of the level of under-funding will not be fully apparent until all schemes carry out their next actuarial assessment and report the results to the Pensions Board.
The Government is conscious of the pressures on both sponsoring employers and pension scheme trustees, arising from the very significant losses incurred by pension funds during 2007 and 2008. While schemes recovered some of their losses in the last year, we are anxious to ensure, in so far as we can, that those involved have sufficient time and space to fully assess the implications for their schemes and the remedial action they can take. This was the thinking behind the implementation of a number of measures, in December 2008, to ease the pressures being felt by many pension funds. Those measures included the granting of extra time for schemes to formulate funding proposals and allowing longer periods for recovery plans. Just this week, the Pensions Regulator announced an extension of the deadline for submission of funding proposals for those due to submit before 30 June next by five months, to 30 November 2010. This extension will allow schemes to take into account the recently implemented Occupational Pension Schemes (Preservation of Benefits) (Amendment) Regulations 2010. These regulations permit schemes to increase the pension scheme's normal retirement age by way of an application under section 50 of the Pensions Act with immediate and retroactive effect. The extension will also allow scheme trustees and employers to consider the effect of the proposed changes in the national pensions framework.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Furthermore, the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2009 amended the Pensions Act to allow for the restructuring of underfunded schemes, to ensure a more equitable distribution of assets in the event of the wind-up of a defined benefit scheme and to strengthen the powers of the Pensions Board in ensuring that pension contributions deducted from wages and salaries are remitted by employers to scheme trustees. This Act also introduced the legislative provisions to enable the Minister for Finance to establish the pensions insolvency payments scheme, PIPS, to reduce the cost of purchasing pension payments for trustees of pension schemes where the employer has become insolvent. The PIPS came into effect in February 2010 and will ensure a more equitable distribution of assets following the wind up of underfunded pension schemes.
Other options relating to the future development of pensions policy are outlined in the recently published national pensions framework. The implementation group, charged with developing the legislative, regulatory and administrative structures will hold its first meeting in May.
The national pensions framework has been published and we will have the opportunity to discuss it in more detail at the Select Oireachtas Committee on Social and Family Affairs tomorrow. Does the Minister propose to try to adopt what is in the framework in a cohesive, all-encompassing way or does he propose to make changes on a budgetary basis year in and out as has been done in the previous two budgets with schemes such as PIPS? I put this question because of the lack of security workers feel they have with regard to the pensions they expect to receive but which in many cases they will not realise. The reason I asked this question is that a legal action is being brought against the State by workers in Waterford Crystal, of which I am sure the Minister is aware. They allege the State manifestly disregarded its obligations under Directive 80/987/EEC which deals with insolvency. Deputy Shortall questioned the Minister's predecessors on this in the House. The workers in Waterford Crystal quote the Robins case in the UK and argue that had we transposed the directive properly they would at least have received a far bigger percentage than they are receiving under the current arrangements. I presume the State will defend that action. What answer will the Minister give us in the House on the allegation made? The workers are making this allegation now but it was made in the House previously and was not adequately responded to by the Government.
As I stated, the Department will defend this action vigorously.
Foolishly.
Proceed Minister.
All I can say is that the Department will defend the action vigorously and believes we have complied.
Has the Minister taken into account——
I cannot——
The Minister can answer on the generality. Has he taken into account the judgment in the Robins case in the UK which gives the impression that the Waterford Crystal workers should be entitled to a greater share than they are receiving? Those staff feel utterly abandoned. They have received no support. Changes were made to the pensions legislation at that time which utterly ignored the situation in which they found themselves. They did not come out any better as a result. I will ask the Minister specific questions on the directive. Does he believe the directive has been adequately transposed and that he will win the case? There seems to be very strong evidence that he will not and that he will put the country to enormous expense and that the result will not be as he expects.
I can answer the general question. A report from the Commission on 15 June 1995 analysing national laws transposing the directive found that in the case of Ireland there was no cause for objection. The Commission found that all of these provisions appear to meet the requirements of Article 8. Following the ruling in the Robins case, the Commission published a working document in April 2008 which essentially described how each member state had transposed the directive. It did not assess the conformity of the measures in place with the obligations imposed by Article 8 of the directive. It concluded that further investigation is needed to address how to protect employees and retired persons against the risk of underfunding of pension schemes and to what extent; how to guarantee any unpaid contributions to the pension schemes; and how to deal with cases where supplementary pension schemes are managed by the employers themselves. The Department is awaiting the outcome of this investigation.
When will the outcome of that investigation be made available? Time and again in the House we hear that we are awaiting an outcome. A report was done on FIS, on which I asked a question, and we are still awaiting the outcome of that. Outcomes are what we are meant to be about here but we do not seem to know. The duty under Article 8 of the directive is to protect employees in insolvency situations. Getting 20% of the pension one paid into and expected to receive is not a protection.
I cannot answer on this situation because the Commission is conducting it.
That lets the Minister slightly off the hook but he can certainly hurry it on. He will not be able to rely on that in court.
A case has been taken against the Minister.
60 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to introduce a partial capacity benefit scheme for people in receipt of illness or disability payments; the details of the way in which this scheme will operate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15645/10]
Work on draft proposals for a partial capacity scheme is currently under way in my Department. The Deputy will be aware that the structure of welfare provision in Ireland for people with illnesses or disabilities reflects a view that people can be categorised as being either capable of full-time work or incapable of full-time work. The fact is that a strict binary approach fails to capture the reality that people with a disability may have the capacity to engage in the open labour market. While partial employment capacity may be difficult to assess, the absence of such a system means that people with substantial work capacity may exit the labour market prematurely.
As has been noted by the OECD in its report on "Sickness, Disability and Work: Breaking the Barriers", which examined the structures of welfare provision for people with disabilities in Ireland and in a number of other OECD countries, the focus within welfare systems on incapacity rather than capacity carries negative consequences at a personal level for people with disabilities and their families.
I welcome the theory behind this idea and it is important. The present system whereby a person gets permission from the Department to do 20 hours, work for a year or up to three years and then that permission is suddenly removed is not ideal. Some people can do only approximately 20 hours or part-time work. Will there be an element of compulsion in the scheme or will it be voluntary? Assuming it is a success, people return to employment and savings to the Exchequer are made, how will those savings be used? I was not convinced by the earlier answer on FÁS but I suggest we still need to build up the facilitation service that exists, particularly for those with disabilities.
I tabled this question with regard to people with mental health difficulties in particular. I have spoken to Amnesty International about this and I feel there is a real difficulty in the assessment of mental health under the structure for the disability payment at present. People with genuine mental health difficulties find it more difficult to prove their cases than a person who walks in with a physical difficulty. This problem needs to be addressed. Suggestions have been made that there should be stronger liaison between the Department and community mental health teams and GPs with regard to people with mental health issues. When will it happen and will the Minister consider beefing up the service to assist those people? If they are to try to go back to work they will need supports to enable them to do so.
The Department is very keen to proceed with this. When they came to me they were all very anxious with regard to timeframes. I would like to see the draft scheme first. No more than what I stated to Deputy Shortall earlier, I like to see what I am being presented with as a Minister prior to jumping in to make a decision. The principle is simple and I do not think anyone could argue with it. However, the practicality and the detail — often the devil is in the detail — are where I see the challenges. Many people on illness benefit might feel threatened that they would receive only a half payment or a quarter payment. However, many others in the working economy might — if I may put it bluntly — see an opportunity here. I would like to see the scheme and then have an open debate with Deputies to examine it from every angle to ensure we are doing the right thing by people who genuinely have a disability.
As Deputy Enright pointed out, all of us have faced huge challenges with regard to illness claims in constituency clinics because two people could have the same disability but depending on one's job, education and capacity, one's ability to find employment might be very different from that of another person. This is where it gets complex. I would like to move forward with this but I do not want unintended consequences arising. I am more than willing to engage with Deputies, and perhaps through the committee would be best in order that we can tease out the best way forward. The Department proposed to me that we do it in the form of the Bill. I am not convinced that we should not do so prior to the Bill and give it time to get the best results for those with a disability and to have a scheme to deal with the problems of the existing system, which I do not think is satisfactory. A person receives permission to work 20 hours a week and inevitably it is rehabilitative but often it is not rehabilitative in getting that person back into full employment because he or she will never have the capacity for full employment. I do not think I can tease out the details of the challenges I see in it in the House today but I am more than willing to engage with Deputy Enright on the matter.
I welcome that. In the proposals put to the Minister by the Department how was the scheme thought up? Was it devised as a mechanism to save money from illness benefit payments or was it devised as a mechanism to assist people to get back into the workforce? There is a big difference between them. The thought process behind it could inform us very much prior to the next debate. Does the Minister have a timetable for the introduction of the scheme? There were suggestions from the Department of a pilot project. Has any progress been made in that regard? What would be the practicalities of that?
There was talk about putting it into legislation, starting from the beginning of next year. I have not seen the detail; the devil is always in the detail of these things. The concept is fine. I am not going to commit myself here to doing that because I will not introduce a scheme unless I believe it is robust. I understand the idea of the scheme is to facilitate participation in the workforce by those with a partial capacity who might at the moment find it very difficult to participate in the workforce. There is no expectation in the Department of major savings from this scheme. I hope to get the scheme in the very near future and that we would have an opportunity to discuss it and review it from every angle. I am sure there will be a significant input from people like the Deputy who have knowledge of this area to ensure we do not rush headlong into a scheme that does not work. On the other hand I do not want to delay matters indefinitely. I will be pressing that I will get the scheme very soon. I will review it and make my comments. I will be robust in my critique of it. We can then look at the best way to tease out how such a scheme might work. Sometimes schemes are introduced with one view and operate very differently on the ground because people see them in a different way from the way that the person who designed the scheme thought they would see them.
