Vol. 817 No. 3
1. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the fact that her Department has been pursuing some social welfare recipients to repay overpayments that occurred as far back as the 1980s where there was no question of fraud; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43514/13]
It is the Department's policy to investigate and pursue all overpayments so as to protect public moneys to the greatest extent possible. People who have received an overpayment from the Department have a liability under law to refund the amounts involved. They have received moneys to which they were not entitled. In 2012, overpayments amounting to €97 million were recorded. This represents 0.47% of overall annual departmental expenditure. Recoveries in 2012 amounted to €53.5 million, which is considerably more than what was recovered previously.
Until the introduction of recent legislation, the Department was limited in its capacity to recover overpayments without the person’s agreement. For this reason, overpayments often remained outstanding for a long period of time. Deputies from all sides of the House who have been members of the Committee of Public Accounts will know that the Comptroller and Auditor General regularly took the Department to task about not having an active payment recovery system. The Social Welfare Act 2012 provides for greater recovery levels of up to 15% from the personal rate of a person’s social welfare payment without consent but excluding any payments received for dependent adults or children. This amendment means that the Department is now in a position to ensure that all debt-holders in receipt of a payment are repaying their debts. In addition, in order to improve the capacity to recover overpayments from persons no longer dependent on social welfare, the Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013 provides for the introduction of notice of attachment powers for the recovery of overpayments directly from a person’s earnings or from monies held by him or her in financial institutions.
I believe that having effective debt recovery is essential in deterring fraudulent activity. It creates a climate in which people who have been overpaid know that they have a responsibility to repay and that the Department will take the necessary steps to effect recovery. Both of the changes I have outlined above will significantly enhance the Department’s ability to pursue overpayments from people who are not making efforts to repay their debts.
My Department’s policy is to ensure that every effort is made to prevent overpayments, but if they occur, they are regarded as a debt to the Exchequer and every effort must be made to recover the amounts due. A social welfare overpayment will remain on record until it is fully recovered. Currently, the Department, unlike the Revenue Commissioners, does not apply interest or penalties on the amounts owing.
I want to stress that I am not talking here about cases involving fraud. As far as I am concerned, people who have defrauded the Department should be pursued to the ends of the earth. I posed this question because I have had a large volume of queries on this recently, as have other Deputies from all sides of the House, who have brought them to my attention. People on social welfare, generally elderly people, are getting letters from the Department telling them that they had an overpayment from ten, 15 or in some cases, 25 years ago. The letters state that the individual owes the Department X amount and essentially say "Please pay up immediately (a cheque will do) or tell us what arrangements you want to make to pay." To give the Minister one example, a constituent of mine was contacted by the Department of Social Protection regarding an alleged overpayment of jobseeker's allowance at different times between 5 January 1987 and 16 May 1989. That is 26 years ago.
Deputy, there is a time limit of one minute for supplementary questions.
The person in question is not exactly in a very good position to dispute what happened 26 years ago. Is there a legal basis for this? Normally, when one is trying to recover debt, there is a six-year statutory limit. One cannot pursue the debt after a period of six years has elapsed. What is the legal basis for the Department's decision to go after debt that arose more than six years ago?
The Department is not in a position to write off overpayments. This is something that Deputies who are members of the Committee of Public Accounts might take up with the Comptroller and Auditor General because, in its annual report, the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General calculates all overpayments going back into the mists of time. There is no arrangement to write off overpayments. The annual report is regularly very critical of the accounting officer of the Department if overpayments are not recovered.
In respect of the current situation, I can furnish the Deputies with a table if they are interested. The table indicates that overpayments in 2012 amounted to €97 million. Of that, suspected fraud accounted for €41 million, while customer third-party error - that is, instances in which people made mistakes and there was no apparent deception - accounted for €35.8 million. Departmental error amounted to €7.6 million, and moneys recovered from the estates of deceased persons where it emerged from wills and so forth that the means and savings of the individual exceeded the qualifying criteria for certain departmental payments amounted to €12.5 million.
Under the current arrangements, the Department writes to the person who has been overpaid and that person has the right to make representations. We take many factors into account when seeking to recover overpayments, as Deputy O'Dea knows well. He has, for example, made representations on behalf of constituents who were ill and we have suspended the collection of moneys owing.
The Department is not at liberty to do what the Deputy is suggesting - namely, to write off the debt. However, we do try to make the repayment recovery schedule proportionate and to take into account the person's circumstances, based on the information he or she makes available to us.
The time has expired for this question.
I am not suggesting that the Department write off debt. I am simply asking, in the case of my constituent, what the Department was doing for the past 26 years. Why come forward 26 years later? Second, is there a legal basis for doing that? I came across a case recently in which a person was told that he had an overpayment of €133 from several years ago and the Department has insisted, ignoring all representations, that he pay it back at the rate of €21 per week, which is pretty punitive.
We are over time.
I urge the Deputy to bring the details of that specific case to my office and I will examine it. The Department makes variable arrangements depending on the circumstances of the individual. Prior to the introduction of new legislation, the Department could only collect €2 per week from people who had been overpaid. Frankly, some of the people involved in fraud were paying back €2 per week and could swagger down the street while their neighbours were paying tax and PRSI. Not only were they giving the two fingers to the Department of Social Protection, they were also giving two fingers to the decent people living around them. They committed fraud but the Department was limited in its ability to recover the money. Some of the fraud amounted to €20,000 or €30,000, so the Deputy can do the sums on that.
We are way over time now. We have spent nine minutes on this question but there is a limit of six. There are only 30 minutes in total for Priority Questions, so it is two minutes for the Minister to answer and a minute each for supplementary questions and replies. I ask everyone to stick to that.
2. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if she has conducted research assessing the capacity of those targeted by budget 2014 to absorb the changes affecting them; her views on the impact the changes to social transfers will have on poverty and employment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43513/13]
Deputies will be aware that the expenditure report of 2013 published by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform last December provided for additional new expenditure reduction measures of €440 million to be achieved in 2014 in the Department of Social Protection budget. Again this year I sought to minimise the impact of the necessary adjustments to my Department’s welfare expenditure and to protect as far as possible key income supports. This week my colleague the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, announced that the Government had been able to lower the sum of €440 million to €226 million. An additional €30 million in savings will be made through additional fraud and control measures in 2014, while €34 million will be saved through increased efficiencies and lower-than-expected demand on some schemes, bringing the Department’s cumulative adjustment on social protection expenditure to €290 million.
Budget 2014 continues the process of repairing the public finances while protecting the welfare safety net and providing a pathway back to work for jobseekers. I am all too aware that reductions of €226 million will still have an impact on, and cause difficulties for, some social welfare recipients. However, the lower adjustment means I have protected the State pension, carer’s allowance, disability allowance and all other weekly social welfare payments upon which people depend.
I have also protected crucial supplementary supports for pensioners, carers and people with disabilities such as the fuel allowance, the electricity-gas allowance, free travel, the half-rate carer’s allowance and the respite care grant. Child benefit rates have also been protected in this budget and will remain a vital universal support for all families and children.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
This budget will help more people back to work, reduce the overall welfare spend as part of the sustained effort to repair the public finances and ensure the safety net remains firmly in place for those who need it most.
As part of the budgetary deliberative process, my Department has analysed, in so far as possible, the distributive and poverty impact of possible welfare changes to all welfare recipients, including different family types, including those with children. My Department is preparing an analysis of the budget 2014 tax and welfare packages. This social impact assessment will include an analysis of the distributive and poverty impacts of these changes on different family types, as well as the impact on at risk of poverty levels. Social impact assessment is an evidence-based methodology which uses a tax-welfare simulation model developed by the Economic and Social Research Institute to estimate the likely distributive effects of budgetary measures on income and social inequalities. I will be examining the analysis when it is finalised and will publish it in due course.
The Minister obviously did not answer one part of the question tabled. No assessment has been properly carried out that poverty-proofs or equality-proofs the Minister’s 2014 budget measures. Otherwise, she might have answered the question.
I did not get to that point in the reply.
The Minister cannot seriously claim that young jobseekers have the capacity to absorb a €44 cut in their core weekly welfare rate. What poverty-proofing was undertaken of this measure, instead of allowing the Minister to heap hardship on young people and their families? Is she aware that the consequences of her actions will be increased homelessness for young people and emigration? The saving in respect of the cut in jobseeker’s allowance amounts to €32 million which will affect 14,000 people, yet funding under the youth guarantee will only be a measly €14 million. How does this add up? Will the Minister give me a bankable commitment, not one of those wishy-washy ones she gave earlier on child care, that she will provide an additional 14,000 places in education and training for the young jobseekers in question as a response to this cut in their social welfare rates?
There is no cut for anyone under 25 years who is on a payment. These measures will take effect for new people entering the relevant age groups. I am sure the Deputy accepts this.
It is a cut.
This measure was introduced in 2009 and was one I supported at the time. My philosophy is to get young people into education and training-----
It is not the Minister’s party’s philosophy.
Signing on at 18 years of age is not the best for a young person. In Northern Ireland Sinn Féin, in power, has done nothing to tackle the equivalent youth unemployment rate there which is almost one third higher when compared relatively. We are going to spend €46 million on additional measures for young people. We will spend significantly more on training them, JobsPlus and other programmes than what will be saved on the measures in question.
Unfortunately, there will not be time for a reply to the Deputy's question..
Does the Minister agree with SIPTU’s assessment that this measure will drive young people into working for no pay or leaving the country? Does she agree with the ICTU’s evidence that there are not enough jobs to go round for young people?
By 30 June more than 33,800 more people were at work in Ireland, a significant achievement. For the 21,000 young people who took part in a JobBridge internship scheme, over 60% have gone on to find further work, another significant achievement. We have fantastic young people who have studied and sought to become financially independent. It is my intention as Minister for Social Protection that, rather than paying young people to remain on social welfare, to incentivise them to become involved in education, training and employment. I make no apologies for this.
Work fair.
3. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Social Protection if the serious delays in processing claims which require medical assessment and the consequent delays in the appeals process are directly related to the high turnover of medical assessors in her Department; her views on whether the lay-out of medical assessment forms which general practitioners and consultants must complete in respect of most such applications often encourage inadequate descriptive content to enable medical assessors to make an accurate decision and that this fuels further delays; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43978/13]
The Department is committed to ensuring claims and appeals are processed as expeditiously as possible. There are 20 medical assessors, including the chief medical adviser and the deputy chief medical adviser, employed by the Department. Owing to the retirement of several medical assessors in recent years, several vacancies have arisen. In response, the Department, in conjunction with the Public Appointments Service, ran a competition in 2012 to recruit replacement and additional medical assessors. Four medical assessors appointed from that competition are employed, with a further medical assessor due to commence work this month.
The Department has continued to liaise with the Public Appointsment Service with a view to filling these critical vacancies. A further competition was advertised on 13 September inviting suitably qualified candidates to apply for the position of medical assessor in the Department. Interviews are due to take place shortly. This competition is one of several options the Department is exploring to increase its capacity to carry out medical assessments and reviews of its illness-disability-caring schemes, thus enabling it to deliver a quality service to its customers.
The Department’s disability and illness-related schemes require a high level of medical evidence which must be assessed by the medical assessors and this, together with other qualifying criteria such as means-testing for disability allowance and carer’s allowance and PRSI contributions for invalidity pension, can affect the processing times of claims. There has also been an increase in the volume of customer claims under particular schemes. Despite this, there have been significant improvements from 2012 in the waiting times for assessment by the medical assessors across all the illness related schemes. The processing backlogs have been eliminated across all of the illness related schemes, except for disability allowance, which is being cleared. Claims, appeals and urgent cases - medical-social reasons - are dealt with on a priority basis as a result of the updated IT systems we have put in place.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Department continually strives to standardise and simplify its application forms. However, the design and lay-out of application forms must also have regard to the particular requirements of individual schemes. Application forms are reviewed on a regular basis, including those parts that relate to the provision of medical evidence. The design of the medical sections of application forms is undertaken in consultation with the Department’s chief medical adviser and deputy chief medical adviser.
I accept some progress has been made in reducing waiting times for appeals. However, the time taken in dealing with them still remains unacceptably long. What is astonishing is the number of appeals, some 50%, that are successful when they are eventually heard. One has to ask why they were disallowed in the first place. This appears to be a question of administrative resources. Last year there were 27 medical assessors, with nine leaving and three being replaced. This year there will be 21 medical assessors - four have left and four are to be replaced. The complement is five short. I would have thought people would be queuing up to get on this panel. If they are not, why is that the case?
Since the economy collapsed in 2009, there has been an explosion in the number of applications for social welfare payments and, as a consequence, an explosion in the number of appeals. In 2009 the average number of appeals received was 15,000. By 2012, it was 35,000.
I am thankful that the Deputy has acknowledged the heavy investment we made and work that has been done in upgrading the IT and clearing all the backlogs other than disability, which we are clearing now. I inherited that situation. Some 17,800 appeals were finalised in 2009 but the equivalent figure in 2012 was 32,600 due to the explosion in volume across all the schemes. We have been seeking to improve the application process and the speed at which deciding officers make their decisions and improve decision-making.
Deputy Catherine Murphy asked why people are rejected at the initial stage. Sometimes, as the Deputy knows, it is due to a lack of clear medical evidence that is sufficient for the purpose of the initial application, and that is provided at the appeal stage. We have been trying to use organisations such as Citizens' Information centres to get people to improve the quality of their applications and the certification of their medical cases for access to a particular scheme.
Some of the appeals are self-generated or Department-generated. The domiciliary care allowance reviews and reviews of people on invalidity payments would have produced a very large number of appeals when they were turned down. They are not all strictly new claimants. Some applicants who have experienced very long delays and been turned down have sent exactly the same medical information on appeal and been successful. I have helped them compile the information. I do not disagree with the Minister and I wonder why it has taken so long and why the application form has not been upgraded. I do not know if the Minister consults with the medical profession about what is required of them. It comes back as a problem, but it is not a problem of the individual claimants. This would be a very cost-efficient way of dealing with the issue rather than wasting huge amounts of administrative time when people are successful on appeal. Most importantly, it causes incredible stress for people who are obliged to wait ridiculous lengths of time for something they eventually get and it does not save the State a penny but costs money in administrative time.
The Department of Social Protection has been taking over an increasing number of schemes from the HSE. Many of those files, including DCA files, had review dates mandated on them when they arrived in my Department. After I became Minister I changed the review notification for the new DCA awards, but we have inherited mandated instructions on files from the Department of Health. We have been under pressure to do even more reviews of those from external interlocutors and reviewers. I put in place a revised structure for DCA in conjunction with intensive consultations with parents' organisations. If the Deputy is aware of such cases she will know people were very satisfied with the outcome.
I cannot explain why we are unsuccessful in getting more medical assessors. The people involved need occupational medical experience and qualifications and we have found it extremely difficult to get people to respond to the Public Appointments Service's recruitment drives.
4. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection the progress made on implementing Pathways to Work; the number of caseworkers currently working with long-term jobseekers to help them back to full employment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43771/13]
Pathways to Work represents the single biggest ever change to how the State engages with and provides services to people who are unemployed. It is delivering on the programme for Government commitment to set up a national employment and entitlements service and involves a multi-annual programme of organisational, process, people and work changes running to the end of 2014. We started in 2012 by rolling out the Intreo approach, including revamped offices, to improve how we engage with newly unemployed jobseekers through the use of individual profiling, group engagements, one-to-one interviews and personal progression planning. The first day a person signs on for jobseeker's allowance and receives a payment is also the first day we help him or her on the journey back to work.
In the six months to the end of June 2013, 62,300 people had attended group engagements, at which we inform people of the suite of assistance available, 83,000 people had attended initial one-to-one interviews and a further 78,700 had attended follow-up one-to one interviews. To date we have profiled more than 110,000 people on the live register and are on target to have profiled all people on the live register by the end of the year.
With regard to the long-term unemployed, we are prioritising access to schemes such as Tús, Community Employment and Gateway and training interventions such as MOMENTUM. They are also prioritised for referral to Local Employment Services, LES, and job clubs and have exclusive access to the new JobsPlus recruitment subsidy, which gives employers €300 cash back for employing somebody who has been unemployed for one year or more and €400 for somebody who has been unemployed for more than two years. Under JobsPlus we are incentivising employers to play an important part in helping people who are, unfortunately, on the live register, to get back to work.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
If they recruit people who are long-term unemployed, they receive a cash payment equivalent to about 25% of a typical starting salary. I have also established a new labour market council comprising employers, labour market experts and advocacy groups to advise the Department in the implementation and further development of such initiatives.
Our services for people who are long-term unemployed are managed by 300 full-time case officers in the Department, who also operate the new Intreo process, and by 150 employment mediators in the LES. In addition, we are redeploying a further 300 staff to help the long-term unemployed in 2013, of whom 160 have already been assigned and have commenced training, with a further 200 to be redeployed next year. This will more than double the number of staff.
The Department is at an advanced stage in the preparation of a tender to procure third-party services on a contracted basis to supplement its own resources. We have already engaged expert advisors to assist in the design of a contract model and issued a prior information notice and held engagement sessions with interested parties during the summer period. I expect the tender, which will be for a bespoke solution to suit the Irish labour market, to issue by the end of the year and contracted provision to be in place during 2014.
I am aware that Pathways to Work is one of the centrepieces of Government policy. A European Commission report on the working of the system has been damning. It states:
Progress has not been sufficiently fast in light of the urgency and scale of the situation, however, and much more needs to be done...The pace of reforms and the resources mobilised, however, are at times insufficient given the scale and the urgency of the situation.
It goes on to refer to the lack of action and the possible outsourcing of some activation services, etc. It also adverts to the lack of attention paid to reskilling and training, particularly for the long-term unemployed and young people. What progress has been made since that report was published? What progress has been made specifically on outsourcing some of this work, as the Department and the programme for Government indicated would be done? I do not refer to outsourcing to local employment services or job clubs, but to the private sector. On 24 April the Minister told me in the House that this problem had been handed over to Computers in Education Society of Ireland, CESI, in November 2012 to give some advice on the matter. Has she heard back from CESI and what is the state of play on that issue?
Deputy O'Dea referred to the OECD and troika report. That report began by saying that had the previous Government, of which the Deputy was a distinguished member for a long time, introduced any of the reforms with regard to helping people to get back to work, we would have entered the crisis with 100,000 fewer unemployed people. The report recognised that we began with the extraordinary legacy left by the Deputy's Government and that there had been almost no activation, particularly of people who are long-term unemployed.
In other countries such as France, labour market reforms were done very rapidly, and some of the reforms collapsed.
We are working on reforms which reflect Ireland and its people, the current position of the public and private sectors and large and small businesses. Recently I established a jobs council, the members of which are leading people from industry, the retail sector and areas such as information technology. The council is chaired by Mr. Martin Murphy, CEO of Hewlett Packard. Labour market economists and people from civil society organisations are also involved in helping people to get back to work. We will do this in a way that takes into account conditions in Ireland.
I do not know what the Deputy was hinting at or whether he was suggesting we should go down the route taken in the United Kingdom. I did not think that was Fianna Fáil's policy. We should take into account the needs of the unemployed. I anticipate that by next Monday, the live register will have fallen below 400,000 for the first time since May 2009. That is proof of what the OECD was talking about. When its secretary general visited Ireland recently, I spent the large part of a day with him and he was extremely complimentary about what we were doing.
There is no doubt that the live register will continue to fall owing to the fact that one person leaves the country every six minutes to seek employment abroad. There has been significant talk recently about Dáil reform. When we submit questions, we are entitled to an answer. I asked the Minister specifically how many case workers were employed in this area and with how many clients each case worker should deal. What is the ratio? I also asked the Minister what progress had been made in outsourcing to the private sector which was announced as a significant initiative. However, so far it seems to be dead in the water.
Far from it. Some months ago we commissioned a consultancy to advise us on how we should tailor an Irish solution. This commission involved international experts, with the use of Irish expertise. Some months ago we issued a PIN notice, a notice of interest, and arranged a consultation with groups and organisations, both not-for-profit organisations and organisations in the private sector, which would be interested in providing services. The Deputy is correct in saying we have a number of Irish organisations such as the local employment services which are heavily involved in providing detailed and helpful assistance for people who are unemployed and which we hope to expand.
The details of the numbers of case workers were provided in my response. We have 300 full-time case officers in the Department who also manage the new Intreo process. We have 150 employment mediators in the local employment service. In addition, we are redeploying a further 300 staff to help the long-term unemployed. Some 160 of these staff have already been assigned and commenced training. A further 200 will be redeployed next year. This will more than double the number assigned as case workers, in line with the recommendations of both Irish and international experts.
5. Deputy Joe Higgins asked the Minister for Social Protection if there has been an assessment of job displacement prior to the extension of JobBridge to 18 months and the introduction of the Gateway programme in local authorities. [44056/13]
As of 10 October, 21,842 internships have commenced, since JobBridge was launched in July 2011. Some 5,918 jobseekers are completing an internship, while 2,948 internships are advertised and available to jobseekers.
I am increasing the maximum number of internships a jobseeker can undertake from two to three and the maximum cumulative duration from nine months to 18. This measure is being introduced to give jobseekers who are dissatisfied with an internship and have not secured paid employment subsequent to an internship a further chance. It is important to highlight that this measure is being introduced in response to feedback from jobseekers who have participated in the scheme and was one of the recommendations contained in the independent review of the JobBridge scheme. It is also important to note that the maximum duration of an individual internship will remain at nine months and that jobseekers will not be allowed to take up more than one internship with the same host organisation.
The JobBridge scheme incorporates a number of design features to protect workers and jobseekers. These include a cap on the total number of interns that can be hired by any one organisation; limits on the duration of internships of either six or nine months; a cooling off period in order that organisations cannot hire interns one after the other in sequence; requiring organisations to appoint a mentor for each intern, complete a standard agreement for each intern and provide an undertaking that the internship is not being used to displace employees.
Host organisations are not permitted to advertise internships in areas where they have recently made redundancies or where they currently have paid posts advertised. They must also complete and submit a monthly compliance report to the Department. The Department monitors and enforces compliance by screening all applications and providing an online facility for interns or others to report breaches of these conditions. We also conduct random site visits. Approximately 9,000 organisations have sponsored interns in the public, private, voluntary and community sector and over 3,400 monitoring visits to these organisation locations have been completed to-date, of which about 98% have been satisfactory. Remedial action is taken in all cases of non-compliance.
The independent evaluation by Indecon found that 61% of interns went on to achieve paid employment. This is one of the most successful outcomes in Europe for a scheme of this kind.
Additional information not provided on the floor of the House
This demonstrates that JobBridge is delivering for thousands of jobseekers by providing them with the opportunity to gain relevant work experience, knowledge and skills in a workplace environment.
The introduction of Gateway, a partnership with local authorities, will provide employment opportunities for those who are on the live register for 24 months or more and currently in receipt of a jobseeker's payment. Gateway aims to improve the employability and work readiness of participants by providing them with the opportunities to put their work skills into practice and learn new skills to enable them to progress to work, further education or other development opportunities.
The process of identifying work opportunities is under way in each county and city council, including the necessary consultation with stakeholders. Extensive exploratory work was carried out on the preparation of the scheme by officials from the Department to ensure there would be no displacement from the scheme.
The reality is that just 19.5% of interns found employment with their host organisation. It is not surprising that the bulk of the Minister's reply concerns measures to prevent abuse by employers of the internship scheme and interns. This is no coincidence because the scheme is abusive in itself, essentially providing free labour for employers. It is quite clear that the JobBridge and Gateway programmes are a ruse to reduce the figures on the live register by 11,000 and a lame excuse for the Government's failure to invest in the creation of jobs with real wages. Does the Minister agree that the facts damn her? Young people are not hanging around unemployed. There were 32 unemployed persons for every job vacancy in August this year. The result of the Minister's shameful measure in cutting the benefits for young people up to age 26 years will be to force them into a situation where they will be subjects for free labour and abuse. The anecdotal and real evidence from many participating in internships is that this is exactly what is happening.
The Deputy seems to have much less hope, optimism and admiration for young people than I do. I speak as someone who has taught tens of thousands of students at third level in a long career spent with young people. I suggest the Deputy walk down any street in Ireland - or perhaps he might come with me - when he will meet young people and their parents who have had a very positive experience of internships and subsequently going on to find employment. In the United Kingdom and the United States internships are the preserve of wealthy, well connected individuals who ask for their sons or daughters to be given experience in companies and organisations in which their friends and peers are involved.
We have opened it to everybody, and Deputy Higgins can examine the personal stories of the people who have been successful.
With regard to the measures on jobseeker's allowance to which the Deputy referred, as I stated on budget day - perhaps he was not listening - the actual extra investment by the Department of Social Protection in young people in parallel with this measure will be €46 million-----
Thank you.
-----whereas the saving to be made from the changes in the jobseeker's allowance will be €32 million. One of the most important initiatives, which I hope Deputy Higgins will promote, is that employers will be given an incentive of €300 a month from 1 January if they take on a young person who has been unemployed for more than six months. If they take on a young person who has been unemployed for more than two years they will receive €400 a month cash back. There will be great interest in this from employers and young people, because all the young people I know desperately want to work and use their talents and qualifications. It is our job politically, and I put it to Deputy Higgins that it is his job also-----
I ask the Minister to please-----
-----to help young people go back to work and not create for them the self-image that he seems to be setting out of languishing on the dole for the best years of their lives. This is not my ambition for our young people and, as the Deputy is a socialist, it should not be his.
This is a pathetic bit of bluster. The reality is that young people are being driven out of this country at a rate of 50,000 or 60,000 a year by the Government's failure to bring in real measures and real investment, such as a wealth tax which would yield €1 billion or €2 billion to invest in real jobs, as opposed to the Mickey Mouse stuff the Government is doing as it slavishly adheres to the troika programme of sending billions to it every year instead of putting it into investment.
A question, please.
The Minister should be burning with shame today as a result of her attacks on the elderly, young pregnant women and young people. It is all the more shameful that she does it on the 100th anniversary of the fight by working class men and women against the abuse of workers young and old. The Government has lined up with the very type of speculator responsible for this tragedy and the Minister comes across with these pathetic schemes-----
This is Question Time.
-----instead of real measures. I ask the Minister to call off her assault on young people and replace it with real investment for real jobs and real hope, and not to patronise people, as she and the Taoiseach have been doing, to cover up a vicious assault on a group of young people who are desperately looking for employment although the jobs are not there. Does the Minister agree that 32 people into one job does not go?
There is a time limit of one minute for a supplementary question and one minute for the reply.
Deputy Higgins's attitude to young people disappoints me terribly. When his party ran a certain council across the water it had to hire taxis to send out redundancy notices to the poor unfortunate workers of that local authority.
Absolute nonsense.
It is an historical fact.
The Minister should read history.
With regard to Larkin-----
Can we stick to Question Time, please?
-----and the anniversary of 1913, if Larkin were alive today he would want - and this is what the strike in 1913 was about - people to get work where work was closed off to them on the docks and in other employment. The Deputy has a nerve-----
We will now move on to Question No. 6.
-----to come in here and disparage our young people-----
Who is disparaging the young people?
-----and to say-----
The Minister is the one disparaging the young people. She has no future for them.
-----our young people are only capable of being on social welfare.
Please.
Deputy Higgins's only vision for our young people-----
I ask the Minister to respect the Chair.
----is life on social welfare rather than getting a job.
We are 15 minutes over the time allocated for Priority Questions.
Deputy Higgins is seriously lacking in understanding of the importance of work in the lives of people who must earn their living-----
I thank the Minister.
-----in order to be financially independent.
The Minister offers up young people for slavery and free labour. That is the reality.
I called Question No. 6.
Twenty-one thousand young people have undertaken internships-----
Minister, please.
-----and 60% of them have found employment.
This is not a debate. This is Question Time.
Deputy Higgins seems to regret young people getting work. He is seriously misled.
Free and slave labour.
Seriously misled.
I ask Deputies to please stick to the allocated time. If they are not happy with the allocated time they should ask their Whips to change it at the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. We are 16 minutes over time for Priority Questions, which means Ordinary Questions will get less time.
It would be very difficult to make Deputy Higgins happy, from my acquaintance with him over the decades. I am sorry I have not succeeded, but perhaps when he reads up further he will come to have a change of heart.
The Minister can have a chat with him afterwards about it. Let us get back to Question Time.
I am happy to give him more information on internships and perhaps-----
The Minister has not been too happy herself for the past couple of weeks.
I ask the Minister to deal with Question No. 6.
Perhaps he will be converted to the cause of getting young people work.
