Vol. 735 No. 2
32 Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Social Protection if the recent referendum in Slovenia when persons were consulted on raising the pension age will have any bearing on her proposals to raise the pension age here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15367/11]
39 Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the views expressed by the Irish Senior Citizens Parliament that any raising of the pension age must be done on a voluntary basis only; and if she will abandon her plans to mandatorily raise the pension age. [15335/11]
52 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social Protection her views that the lead-in time for the raising of the pension age is far too short; and if she will abandon her plans to raise the pension age. [15333/11]
58 Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Social Protection if the recent referendum in Slovenia when the people were consulted on raising the pension age will have any bearing on her proposals to raise the pension age here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15324/11]
65 Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the fact that in the country’s largest union deemed the proposals contained in the national pensions framework an assault on State old age pension provision; and if she will abandon her plans to raise the pension age. [15336/11]
68 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection her views that her plans to raise the pension age amount to a 16% cut to pension entitlements; and if she will abandon her plans to raise the pension age [15338/11]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 32, 39, 52, 58, 65 and 68 together.
The challenges facing the Irish pension system are significant. There is an important and significant policy background to these changes which is that with increases in life expectancy, more people are living to pension age and living longer in retirement. This has obvious implications for the future costs of State pension provision.
I want to emphasise the fundamental principle that people need to participate in the workforce for longer and they need to contribute more towards their pensions if they are to achieve the income they expect or would like to have in retirement. The population share of those aged 65 and over is expected to more than double between now and 2050, from 11% to 26%. People are also living longer. Spending on public pensions, that is, social welfare pensions and public service occupational pensions, is projected to increase from approximately 5% of GDP in 2008 to almost 15% by 2050.
As announced in the national pensions framework, the State pension age will be increased gradually to 68 years. This will begin in 2014, with the standardisation of the State pension age at 66. The State pension age will be increased to 67 years in 2021 and to 68 in 2028. It is worth noting that until the early 1970s, the qualifying age for a pension was 70 years of age. The legislative changes for this are included in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2011 currently before the Dáil. It also meets commitments Ireland entered into in the EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland.
By gradually increasing the qualifying age for State pension, people will be further encouraged to remain in employment beyond 65 years of age. The numbers currently at work drop dramatically at 65 years of age. The quarterly national household survey of 2010 showed that 77.2% % of people aged 45 years to 54 years were at work. This drops to 64.3% for 55 to 64 year olds and to just 8.7% for people aged 65 years or over.
In terms of consultation, the Green Paper on Pensions was published in October 2007 and commenced an extensive consultation process to gather the views of people and organisations on the Irish current pensions system with submissions received from individuals and from organisations. The consultation process continued until the end of May 2008 and a report on the consultation process was published in September 2008. This report and the submissions received can be viewed on the national pensions framework website.
Work then began on developing a framework for pensions which was published in March 2010. Further consultation has taken place on implementation of aspects of the national pensions framework.
I am confident that the consultation process has been an open and inclusive one and that all those who wished to make their views on pensions known have had the opportunity to do so.
Is it not the case that the Minister is trying to put a positive spin on what is an outrageous diktat from the IMF-EU to force working people in this country to work longer, harder and for less? Given that working class people, poor people, live shorter lives, this will disproportionately hit them and essentially work some people to death when they should have a few years to enjoy a dignified retirement.
Is not the least we could expect in such a serious matter, namely, raising the pension age, that the people would have a democratic say? Is it not extraordinary that in Slovenia on 5 June, a referendum was held on this matter and the people voted 72% against raising the pension age when their government planned to do the same as this one? Could we not have the same level of democracy on this key issue affecting ordinary people as the people of Slovenia had?
Italy has referendums on key and substantial issues of policy. One would not associate a country headed by Silvio Berlusconi with great levels of democracy but it has held referendums on serious and substantial issues and the government there has been defeated. Why can we not have a democratic say on this outrageous measure to force the people to work longer and harder for less?
I do not know about the Deputy's experiences but I frequently meet older people who would like the right to work longer. Happily, as a society, we are all living longer. In terms of the contribution and commitment of this State, everybody in work paying taxation and PRSI is contributing extensively to pensions. Some 280,000 people are on contributory State pensions which cost €3.45 billion in 2010 while 97,000 people are on the non-contributory pension which cost almost €1 billion. The contributions of the citizens of this State through taxes and PRSI they pay to pensions is considerable.
As I said, the age profile of this State is changing. Happily, people are living longer and many want to work longer. Many people stay in education longer than people used to and their working lives are somewhat shorter than they used to be.
What we need is a level of flexibility and flexi-security to deal with the changing demographics and the changing nature of work and work patterns in this country while ensuring that when people retire as they get older, they have a State pension at a level which allows them to live in comfort and dignity.
The Minister did not really answer the questions. Is it not the case that if we had a referendum on raising the State pension age, some would be in favour of it, as in Slovenia where 20% or so were in favour of it, and some would be against it, as in Slovenia where 72% were against it? Is it also not the case that if we had a referendum and people had a democratic say, we would get a similar result?
Given the physical nature of their jobs, manual workers are exhausted by the age of 65 and they would not wish to be forced to work longer. Can we have consultation on what is a very serious measure? Has the Minister costed this? If public sector workers, who will be paid at the top of the incremental scale, work longer, younger workers, who will come in at the lower end of the incremental scale, will not be coming in. Will it not cost the State money to force public sector workers to work longer?
The discussions currently with public sector workers are under the aegis of the Croke Park Agreement and unless I am mistaken, workers and their representatives were voluntary participants in the Croke Park Agreement discussions and the structure and nature of that agreement. The State is an important and a critical employer in this country and it should be involved in negotiations with workers and their representatives.
The Deputy must recognise that those working on building sites for many years will probably not wish to do so when they are in their late 50s or early 60s. However, many members of my family were builders and builders labourers. My two uncles worked well into their 70s and nobody could stop them, even though we wanted to do so. I do not believe we should be overly prescriptive on how working class people live their lives.
It should be voluntary.
Some people wish to work longer while some wish to retire earlier. There may be people who have no particular desire to work at all, although they would be few in number. We must provide a good system of pensions in retirement which, in particular, allow for the different types of lives people live. Women, for instance, often drop in and drop out of the labour force because they may take time out when rearing small children. Women and men also may take time out when caring for older relatives. The pension structures we are evolving must reflect the diversity and complexity of modern life and work patterns. That makes sense rather than representing a threat to people.
Is the Minister saying she is carrying on the cuts Fianna Fáil introduced, because she has laid out the process since 2009? Is extending the age for the State pension reflective of quotes from people like Colm McCarthy of an bord snip nua who, in the Irish Examiner in July 2009, stated that people used to snuff it at 70 but they have now decided to snuff it at 80, 85 or 90 and that something has to give? Is this what the Minister is giving?
Is the Minister serious that people such as small farmers, who might work 70 to 90 hours per week, and shift workers, who might have been doing shift work for 20 to 40 years, want to work an extra year when they reach the age of 65? The Minister cannot seriously believe that. It comes down to having some type of dignity and quality of life at the end of one's working life.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Does the Minister really believe that? She will obviously say she does but is she seriously stating that when people at the lower and hardest end of the working scale, such as builders, labourers, small farmers and people on shift work, reach 65 years of age they do not wish to spend more time with their families? The Minister is saying they want to work an extra year at their eight hour shift that starts at midnight or to go out on their farms to start work at five in the evening. Nobody in Ireland would believe that.
Deputy Collins referred to people who are 90 years of age. The proposal is that in 2014 the standard pension age would become 66 years. The only person aged 90 I saw recently who is actively working was pretty impressive and is probably a strong recommendation for people remaining very active, but active in a way that is appropriate to their physical condition, age and inclinations. The critical issue is offering people opportunities and options.
This country has a good and solid old age pensions system which has evolved through collective social agreement between all the political parties and people of no political party over a long period. However, this country faces really serious demographic changes for which we must make provision. We are also in a desperate economic hole. The Government did not develop this economic hole, but we will not go into that at present. We must try to make the best possible use of resources. There are some people who wish to have the opportunity to work for longer. Deputies must also take account of women who might have a reduced number of working years due to their commitments to caring for young and older people. The pensions system must be designed for a wide range of people.
33 Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will consider re-instating, as a matter of urgency, supplementary welfare allowance payments in respect of persons (details supplied) in County Wexford. [15368/11]
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, SWA, which is administered on behalf of the Department by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive, HSE, is designed to provide immediate and flexible assistance for those in need who do not qualify for payment under other State schemes. Since 1 May 2004, all applicants for SWA regardless of nationality are required to be habitually resident in the State to qualify for a payment. The effect of this condition is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere does not qualify for SWA. Once-off exceptional and urgent needs payments are not subject to the habitual residence condition.
SWA cannot be viewed as a temporary or interim means of income support available independently of the habitual residence condition while an applicant awaits the outcome of either a decision or an appeal against a decision on a claim for a social welfare payment from the Department. It is understood that the persons concerned moved to Ireland from the UK in April 2010. They had been in receipt of incapacity payments and a carer's allowance in the UK. However, it is understood that these are no longer in payment. It appears they moved to Ireland with no apparent means of supporting themselves except to claim social welfare.
The HSE has advised that it awarded a basic supplementary welfare allowance payment and a rent supplement payment to the persons in question in May 2010. This decision was reviewed in March 2011, and the HSE discovered that the persons in question should never have been considered habitually resident in the State. The HSE has further advised that it then decided to withdraw the payments and advised the person in question of this decision on 15 March 2011; payments ceased from the beginning of April 2011. The decision of the HSE to withdraw payments was appealed to the HSE appeals office and is currently under consideration.
The persons in question also claimed carer's allowance and disability allowance from the Department. Both of these claims were also refused as the medical criteria for the schemes were not satisfied and the deciding officers also considered that the persons in question did not satisfy the habitual residence condition. These decisions have been appealed to the chief appeals office which has advised that it proposes to hold an oral hearing in this case.
The wealthy members of the global diaspora will yet again be feted in this country. We constantly talk about the global diaspora and how important it is, but in the case of these two people this is just contempt through the implementation of the habitual residence condition as it is applied to a less well-off Irish citizen, the male in this case. We are talking about an Irish citizen.
Does the Deputy have a question?
I appeal to the Minister to examine this case. The man concerned is an Irish citizen. His family is from Clonegal and most of his family live there. His mother is returning from England. He happened to be born in England but has severed all ties with Britain, at the request of the social welfare authorities here. He has nothing to return to and all his family are in this country. He and his wife, who has mental health issues, face eviction this Friday; they will be out on the street unless payments are resumed. Their cases are under appeal. It is just incomprehensible that these people have been refused under the habitual residency requirement. I appeal to the Minister to re-examine this case. It is absolutely unfair and contemptible treatment of an Irish citizen.
The people involved have applied to the Irish social welfare system for a number of different payments. Some of those payments are determined by medical criteria. The view of the medical experts, who make their judgments in a medical context, was that they did not qualify for the payments for which they applied on medical grounds. With regard to the other payments for which they applied, they are currently under appeal and the appeals office will hold an oral hearing.
It is important to bear in mind the circumstances in this case. One of the persons arrived in Ireland in April 2010. Shortly afterwards they wrote to the Department of Social Security in the UK and ceased the incapacity benefit which they had been receiving. That Department wrote to the person and advised that it would cease the payment as the person no longer wished to receive it.
In England.
Yes. The Deputy must appreciate that in respect of the habitual residence condition there is a line between people moving to this country and claiming significant benefits from the State, which is currently under pressure, in a situation where they are not habitually resident in this country. They were in receipt of payments for a year, their case was reviewed and it is now subject to an oral hearing. They may have additional information or evidence they wish to submit to the oral hearing. The appeals mechanism is independent of the Minister and is in operation.
I want to ask a supplementary question.
Time is up, Deputy. We spend six minutes per question. I said that clearly.
34 Deputy Tom Barry asked the Minister for Social Protection the costs involved in funding Pobal per annum; the cost of Pobal’s administrative services since its establishment and if the work being sub-contracted out to Pobal could be withdrawn and brought back into the public services, thereby saving considerable amounts of money. [15020/11]
Pobal delivers a range of publicly and EU-funded programmes on behalf of a number of Departments. My reply concerns services delivered by Pobal in respect of the rural social scheme and the community services programme that transferred to the Department of Social Protection last September following the reconfiguration of Government functions announced in March 2010. Pobal operates under the aegis of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, which has an oversight and co-ordination role in respect of the company. Members of the board of Pobal are appointed by the Government from nominations provided by the social partners and other stakeholders. The company is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and its operations are covered by the Freedom of Information and Ethics in Public Office Acts.
The fees paid to Pobal in respect of work undertaken are matters for each individual Department. I have provided a table for the Deputy of the fees paid in respect of the rural social scheme since it commenced in 2004 and for the community services programme since it commenced operations in 2006. Both programmes fell under the former Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs and latterly, the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs prior to the transfer to the Department of Social Protection.
The services provides to the Department of Social Protection relate to payroll and some related functions on the rural social scheme and Tús. Around 2,600 participants and 130 supervisors are paid weekly by Pobal on the rural social scheme. Pobal has begun to make weekly payroll payments in respect of Tús, the new community work placement initiative which is currently being rolled-out nationally. Some 5,000 weekly payments are planned for Tús when it is fully operational.
The services provided on the community services programme are significantly different than the former and encompass application management, appraisal and assessment, contract maintenance, distribution and management of payments by instalments to service providers, monitoring of progress, various support to beneficiaries, risk audit, financial verification, control and inspections and advice on service development to each of the 445 service providers currently in contract to the programme. The Minister of the day approves all applications for funding from the community services programme following detailed assessment and recommendation by Pobal.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
While it is possible that the services provided by Pobal could be provided internally by my Department or other Departments, it is unlikely that significant savings would arise given that staff resources would need to be redeployed, systems would require development and the necessary expertise in providing advice to the sectors concerned may not be readily available.
Additionally, because Pobal delivers funding on behalf of a number of Departments involved in supporting services in the not-for-profit, community and voluntary sectors, the company is in a unique position to bring considerable value-added because of its comprehensive knowledge of the sectors. The central administration and integration of services offered by the company across the various programmes and the fact that the same staff work on a number of programmes are considerable strengths which would not be easily replicated if Departments separately implemented programmes.
|
Year |
RSS€M |
CSP€M |
Tús€M |
|
2004 |
0.12 |
N/a |
N/a |
|
2005 |
0.35 |
||
|
2006 |
0.73 |
1.36 |
|
|
2007 |
0.66 |
2.43 |
|
|
2008 |
0.70 |
2.91 |
|
|
2009 |
0.64 |
2.20 |
|
|
2010 |
0.64 |
1.60 |
|
|
2011 |
0.80 |
1.85 |
0.50 |
I thank the Minister for her response. Does the Minister consider Pobal an extra layer of bureaucracy? While I have no problem with the services it provides, it is a private company providing the service, albeit a charity. Charities incur heavy wageroll costs. In 2008 Pobal's salary costs were €14.6 million, which amounts to €55,000 on average for each of the 266 employees. Does the Minister believe this is another quango, of which we have one for every 4,000 people? Should it be brought within the remit of the Departments? Grants and wages for the rural social scheme are being delayed because of four levels of administration.
I thank the Deputy for his question and I would be happy to hear from him in detail about the problems or delays he has encountered in respect of payment of participants. The services provided by Pobal could be provided by my Department or other Departments but it is unlikely to result in significant savings. Staff resources would need to be deployed, systems would need development and the expertise in providing advice to the sectors concerned may not be readily available.
There have been further changes to Pobal since the Government took office. It is now under the aegis of the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. I will consider what the Deputy said. Pobal is a service provider for the rural social scheme and the community services programme. If the provider was to be replaced, we would have to examine the implications for the resources of my Department. There is an extraordinary call on the services of the Department and we have recently taken on additional work, including insolvency and redundancy payments. I am reluctant to commit to extra services unless we carry out a full evaluation.
The money will be spent anyway, whether we pay Pobal or new staff are allocated in the Minister's Department. Does the Minister consider that it would add to the expertise of the people working in her Department if this matter was examined over time?
A number of ICT and computer facilitation upgrades are taking place in the Department. If the Deputy outlines his concerns, I will examine them. The Department of Social Protection is responsible for paying more than 1 million people some kind of payment or benefit. The Department took on redundancy and insolvency payments in order to reduce the backlog when those payments were managed by the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. That was an extra job taken on by my Department. I will consider what the Deputy said.
35 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of extra staff redeployed from other Departments to her Department in each of the past three years to date in 2011 with particular reference to the need to clear a backlog under various headings; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [15319/11]
Since May 2008, some 825 posts have been assigned to the Department of Social Protection to fill critical staff vacancies and additional posts approved to deal with the significant increase in claims for the schemes operated by the Department. The assignment details on a yearly basis are set out in the following table. The majority of these posts have been sourced through the lateral transfer and redeployment of staff from within the Department and from other Departments. Staffing needs are kept under constant review to ensure the best use is made of all available resources. Processing times vary across schemes because of both the volume of applications and the differing qualification criteria. For example, means assessments are required for all of the social assistance schemes; medical examinations are required for some of the illness-related schemes and customers must also satisfy the habitual residence conditions. In the case of the insurance-based schemes, it may be necessary to ascertain details of foreign insurance records.
One of the main impacts on current service delivery has been the increase in the live register. In this context, the Department has introduced a range of process improvement initiatives regarding claims for jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit. One of the most significant initiatives, aimed at reducing queuing times and waiting times, involves the customer attending the local office by appointment at which time the claim is taken and decided.
Process improvements have resulted in a significant reduction in the number and proportion of all claims awaiting a decision. For example, there were 33,591 jobseeker claims awaiting a decision on 4 June 2011, equating to 7% of the total claim-load. This compares favourably to 5 June 2010 when 46,879 claims or 9% of claim-load awaiting decision and 74,553 claims or 16% awaiting decision in June 2009.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department is committed to delivering the best possible service to its customers. All scheme areas in the Department are subject to continuous business process improvement supported by modern technology, the potential of which is continuously harnessed and applied to maximum effect. The plans to integrate the community welfare service from the Health Service Executive into my Department together with the employment and other services of FÁS, and functions transferred from other Departments represent significant milestones in business transformation and will provide the basis for a new model of service delivery in my Department. This will ensure that our services and resources are organised to deliver effective, more timely, case management based, income and employment support services to our customer base. The following table details the number of posts per year assigned to the Department of Social Protection.
|
Period |
Number of Posts assigned |
|
May 2008-December 2008 |
192 |
|
January 2009-December 2009 |
394 |
|
January 2010-December 2010 |
208 |
|
January 2011 to date |
31 |
|
Total |
825 |
Notwithstanding the strides made by the Minister in the short time she has been in office and given the magnitude of the problem which was unfolding when she began in office, is it an opportune time to seek further redeployments to ensure a dramatic reduction in waiting times and backlogs under a number of headings? At the same time we could reduce the kind of duplication taking place that is laborious, time consuming and non-productive. It entails officials poring over the same kind of documents, with some cases on four or five occasions.
Will the Minister confirm to the House that a waiting time of one year is too long, particularly in examples like carer's allowance? Some of those cases go back 18 months. I accept the Minister is only in office a very short time and I congratulate her for the work she has done. The magnitude of the problem unfolding now is such that unless something is done about it in the very near future, the whole system will break down.
There are a number of different elements to reducing the overall waiting times for people making applications for benefits and schemes, as well as for allowances. The Deputy referred to duplication and the laborious processes taking time and causing delays. One of the overall changes that the Department is undergoing currently, as the Deputy is aware, is that community welfare officers are joining the Department and will become civil servants. They will be integrated into the Department. At the same time, the employment services side of FÁS will also come into the Department, and FÁS employees who join the Department will also become civil servants.
This will allow us to build a new national employment and entitlements service, which will move us towards the famous one-stop-shop. Instead of people having to repeat applications, they should be able to get a more integrated service at one point. As Deputies may be aware, people may also go to their local office and process a variety of claims at the local office point, which in turn will reduce the need people have had in the past to go to a community welfare officer when waiting for a claim to be processed.
The second element will be improving forms and the information technology applications. There is a great deal of work ongoing in the Department in this respect. A card system will be rolled out later this year with photo identification, an important improvement in the Department's procedures.
The Deputy also mentioned carers. There is currently an examination in the Department that is reviewing existing processes and procedures for carer's allowance. The Deputy and I have referred to claims based on medical evidence, and it is critical that when an application is made, all the information required should be made available to the Department to the highest possible level and standard. Faster and clearer decisions will reduce the number of appeals and allow the appeal process to be much faster.
The Deputy is correct in stating that a waiting time of one year is very long. I hope that with the reforms I speak about, it will not happen. The Department has faced an enormous increase in the numbers of claims across all fronts and it has been very taxing on the staff, which has tried to respond as quickly as possible to the significant extra demands being put on social welfare as a consequence of the economic collapse.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
