Vol. 884 No. 1
1. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the social impact assessment her Department has undertaken of her changes to the one-parent family payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24850/15]
The Minister will be aware that next Thursday is D-Day, where the D stands for "devastation" for the many lone parents who will suffer a substantial drop in income because of the change in the criteria for payment that she will implement on Wednesday. Has the Department carried out a social impact assessment, or an assessment of the possible effects on those who will lose out thereby?
The purpose of the reform of the one-parent family payment is to maximise the opportunities for lone parents to enter into employment and thus to increase their income. I welcome the considerable debate generated by this reform, which commenced in 2012. My priority is to ensure that as a society we arrive at a situation in which lone parents have the same opportunities as everyone else to access employment, training and education. For too long, significant numbers of lone parents have been typecast and confined to social welfare dependency. Despite the commitment of extensive funding to lone-parent payments since the 1970s, lone parents remain most at risk of poverty, and their children are at high risk of poverty. Research shows that being at work reduces the at-risk-of-poverty rate for lone parents by three quarters compared to those who do not work.
The Department has published a social impact assessment of the main welfare and tax measures of budget 2015 and of the water charges. It found that the household incomes of employed lone parents will increase by almost 0.8%, while those of unemployed lone parents will increase by 0.6%. This positive outcome for lone parents reflects the increases in child benefit, the partial restoration of the Christmas bonus, the reduction of the USC for many lone parents in work, the back-to-work family dividend and the maintenance of the disregard at €90. It has not been possible to capture the full impact of the one-parent family reforms using the Switch model. It is hoped this will be possible as part of the ongoing development of the model. For instance, the model cannot capture the value to a person on full social welfare of having a medical card, for example, compared to a person in work on a low wage who might not qualify for a medical card.
In the next budget I look forward to examining the various supports available to all families with children, including single-parent families. In particular, I want to look at the scope for further improvements in child benefit as well as other supports for families in full-time or part-time employment.
Obviously the Department has not done an assessment of the specific impact of this measure on lone parents, many thousands of whom will lose out. Apparently an impact assessment was done on the budget measures and, according to the Minister, this showed that all lone parents, working or not working, would be better off as a result of the changes being introduced by the Government. It is a wonder that lone parents from one end of the country to the other are not doing cartwheels with delight now that they are all going to be better off. I wonder what they are all worried about.
The Minister referred to the fact that there are problems in this system at present. I remind her that a problem is not solved by adding to it. The Minister gave a specific and solemn commitment to this House that she would not introduce this change until we had a Scandinavian-type child care system in this country. When I asked her about it she said that child care was a matter for another Department, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. However, this change in the criteria for lone parent allowance is a matter exclusively for herself. Does she intend to renege on the solemn promise she gave to this House and, through the House, to the lone parents from one end of this country to the other? Does she intend to renege on this promise or to keep the commitment she made to lone parents?
I very much did what I said I would do. As the Deputy is aware, because he discussed it with me, I introduced a seven-year transition from the age of seven to 14. The Deputy well knows that in this transition period we gave lone parents opportunities and encouragement to become involved in education and training - to become involved in the Department's activation services - but there is no obligation on lone parents to be actively seeking work, which is the basic requirement for jobseeker's allowance. During the seven-year transition period I hope and expect that the country will change child care very significantly for the better. We have already introduced the back-to-work family dividend scheme, in which hundreds of people have participated.
They are still losing out.
This is worth €30 a week per child to a lone parent who is returning to employment. We have provided more than €20 million for that in the budget. Through the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, but with funding from the Department of Social Protection, we introduced after-school supports for parents who need after-school support. In co-operation with the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs is currently examining the use of school buildings after school hours to provide after-school services for parents who may need an extra hour or two while they travel from the workplace to collect a child from school.
Sorry, Tánaiste. I will come back to you.
We also have an interdepartmental group working on child care in the context of the forthcoming budget.
These are one minute supplementary questions and answers.
The Tánaiste did not do what she said. She promised she would not introduce this change until we had a Scandinavian child care system in this country. She has not done that. The answer to my question is that she intends to renege on her promise. The Taoiseach said something yesterday which the Tánaiste has said on many occasions, namely, that many working lone parents, who ironically are the only lone parents affected by these changes, can make themselves better off by working more hours because they will then be eligible for family income supplement, FIS. Does the Tánaiste realise that lone parents are not entitled to knock on their employers' doors to demand additional hours? Even if there was such an entitlement, in many cases they could not avail of the additional hours due to the lack of affordable child care. Does she also realise that people who are in receipt of FIS because they work more than 19 hours per week will be penalised by this change? I received correspondence yesterday from somebody in the Taoiseach's constituency who is working 20 hours per week for €10 per hour and is in receipt of FIS. This person would gain exactly €15 per week for five extra hours of work, which is less than half the minimum wage. Does the Tánaiste regard that as acceptable?
As the Deputy acknowledged previously, I introduced a seven year transition from lone parents allowance to jobseeker's allowance in a context where we as a country have a job to do. I will remind the Deputy how much his Government spent on lone parents compared to how much this Government spends.
That will be cold comfort to the people who will be affected after Thursday.
In 2004, at the height of the economic boom, lone parents were 4.5 times more at risk of consistent poverty than the population as a whole.
Say that to the people who will be losing €100 per week.
In 2015, lone parents are 2.5 times more at risk of consistent poverty than the rest of the population. That is not as good as I would prefer. I would like to see the difference eliminated over time.
They should be delighted with that.
During Fianna Fáil's squander and spend days, notwithstanding the money being spent, a lone parent was 4.5 times more at risk of poverty.
Say that to the people who are sending us e-mails about the cuts to their allowances.
To take the Deputy's example, a lone parent who works 19 hours per week on the minimum wage would have an income of €165. With the changes I have made, after Fianna Fáil left lone parents to one side------
What about the ones being left to one side from next Thursday?
-----that lone parent would get €205 per week in family income supplement. If he or she had one child, he or she would get another €30.
Where is the Scandinavian child care?
We must proceed to the next question.
They would get €400 per week.
We have spent 12 minutes on this question.
She is codding herself.
2. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she has read the document, A Fair Recovery for Jobseekers with Disabilities: Sinn Féin Proposals for Immediate Action from the Department of Social Protection; her plans to take positive action on the document's recommendations to open mainstream jobseeker supports to persons with disabilities on a voluntary basis, increase the capacity and promotion of specialist employment supports and introduce a new facility to voluntarily suspend claims but have them reinstated promptly should the person become unable to work. [24848/15]
In the context of the upcoming comprehensive strategy for people with disabilities and the slowness of the system in implementing change, I produced a document which makes a number of proposals on assisting jobseekers with disabilities. I ask the Tánaiste whether she has read the document and whether she will implement the positive, self-financing and simple recommendations which would change the lives of many of those who are unemployed and have disabilities.
I have read Sinn Féin's proposals on employment opportunities for people with disabilities. I assure the Deputy that the Government is committed to removing barriers which prevent people with disabilities from availing of employment opportunities. My Department provides a wide range of work related supports which will cost an estimated €37 million in 2015.
While any person with a disability is at all times free to avail of the Intreo service on a voluntary basis, a complete range of activation supports is being provided initially in ten locations and it is planned to expand the number of locations over time, based on operational experience. I commenced this initiative some time ago in ten locations around the country. The Department’s employment supports for people with disabilities focus on those who wish to take up work in the open labour market and have the capacity to do so. This is done in accordance with the individual who has the disability. The principal supports include the wage subsidy scheme and the employ ability service. An independent review of the latter is currently under way, with a view to ensuring that the service is operating effectively. Procedures are already in place to reinstate social welfare payments for those who are no longer able to work. Participants on the partial capacity benefit scheme, which I introduced a number of years ago, can return to illness benefit or invalidity pension if they find that they cannot continue to work. For example, a person who has multiple sclerosis and is in receipt of the partial capacity benefit will still qualify for his or her original payment if he or she is unable to work. If he or she subsequently goes into remission, he or she can return to the partial capacity benefit. We are anxious to facilitate increasing participation in employment for people with disabilities.
My questions are not meant to be critical of the Minister because, as I noted earlier, I am awaiting the comprehensive employment strategy and I acknowledge that departmental officials and disability groups have been working together to produce a strategy which would address the current shortfalls in employment support. However, it is recognised that some of our employment supports lack ambition and could be more comprehensive, and this is one of the reasons I prepared the aforementioned proposals, which are not exhaustive. A substantially lower number of people with physical or mental disabilities end up in employment in Ireland compared to other countries. In Switzerland, 80% of people with spinal injuries return to work, whereas in Ireland 78% of people with spinal injuries are unemployed. We need greater ambition in this regard. What are the Minister's intentions for the Intreo offices and for shifting attitudes away from concentrating on disabilities to a focus on abilities? That is a key issue not only for the Civil Service, but also society in general.
In regard to the actions, the partial capacity benefit provides a much needed flexibility which did not exist previously. An individual who suffers from an ongoing condition or is recovering from a serious illness can return to work on the partial capacity benefit and qualify for the social welfare disability payment if his or her condition deteriorates. It is important for people that they are not required to reapply for payments. I meet the disability groups on a regular basis and had a meeting with them recently. Perhaps the scheme could be used by more people but I think it is working well.
I have also rolled out the disability activation, DACT, pilot project, which Sinn Féin has praised. The scheme has been under way for a number of years, including the Walk PEER programme, which is available in several north-eastern counties.
The programme is currently being evaluated by Indecon International Economic Consultants with a view to seeing what learning there is, particularly regarding young adults with a disability, many of whom are focused on the Walk PEER programme, to which the Deputy referred. We are making good progress on employment supports and the policy. I anticipate being in a position to launch it shortly. The staff and voluntary groups involved in disability have been of enormous assistance in developing the programme.
The average full-time saving for a person with a disability moving into sustained employment is €10,660 per year, and this is why I said it would be self-financing. The Minister mentioned the Walk programme. There is an urgency regarding pilot programmes such as the Walk programme and, hopefully, the Minister will find in their favour and allow the approach they have taken away from disability towards ability as a model that needs to be followed. I urge the Minister to find in their favour quickly so there is no gap in services for some people. Young people with disabilities are excluded from the Youth Guarantee. Could the Minister give a commitment to examine this aspect, which may need only a minor change?
Yes. The key factor is that people should be able to engage voluntarily in all the services the Department offers. We have rolled all of it out on a consistent basis. I am very ambitious to see much more take-up of the opportunities. In practice, if people are interested in the Youth Guarantee, the staff will go out of their way to include them. As the Deputy knows, the Youth Guarantee involves calling in young people, talking to them and getting them to make a life plan. With people who have a disability, we have taken a voluntary approach, given that we do not want people to feel they are being asked to do something for which they do not feel they are ready. I have no difficulty with the Youth Guarantee.
I agree with the voluntary nature of it.
3. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the number of lone parents currently working part-time who are on rent allowance; the provision that has been made for them to ensure they benefit from increasing their hours of work in view of the loss of the one-parent family payment and the fact that 75% of any additional income over €75 of earnings will be deducted from their rent allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24847/15]
Yesterday, the Taoiseach gave a master class in spin, dishonesty and plain old prejudice against lone parents in his response to questions on the impact of the cuts that the Minister has visited on lone parents since 2012 and that are planned with the discontinuation of the one-parent family payment this July. Despite what the Taoiseach said yesterday, is it not true that the Minister has reduced the incentives and benefits for lone parents who are working? Contrary to what the Taoiseach said, they have less incentive to work as a result of what the Minister has done to them.
The facts speak for themselves. A person with one child who works 19 hours per week at the minimum wage will receive approximately €165 in wages and another €230 per week from my Department between family income supplement and the back to work family dividend. This will bring the person’s income up to €400 compared to a lone parent with one child who will receive approximately €219 per week, comprising €188.95 in personal rate and €29.80 in the weekly qualified child increase. There is a very big difference between the two figures and the gain for the person going to work is very significant and would not be subject to taxation.
The Deputy's question was on rent supplement so I apologise if that is the question I will answer.
No, it was on the number of lone parents working part-time.
It is the question I received.
The Minister did not read it correctly.
Approximately 5,000 lone parents are in receipt of rent supplement. Where these individuals are in employment and they are transitioning from the one-parent family payment to another social welfare payment, most will opt for the seven-year transition about which I spoke to Deputy O'Dea, in order to take into account the difficulties and responsibilities that lone parents have. The seven-year transition would bring a child from the age of seven up to the age of 14. A lone parent who is working 19 hours per week at the national minimum wage and in receipt of the one-parent family payment, the family income supplement, FIS, and rent supplement, will see very little difference in his or her weekly income. The FIS will be automatically increased and the rent supplement contribution will, due to the loss of the one-parent family payment, decrease by €56 per week. Despite this decrease, the person would be better off. The Deputy can see the figures in the reply.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
This means that their weekly income following the July reforms rises from €309 to €310. Lone parents who experience a financial loss as a result of the age reforms will be able to have their rent supplement reviewed which may result in a reduction in their rent supplement contribution. This will reduce or even eliminate their financial losses in some cases. The rent supplement assessment provides for a gradual withdrawal of payment as earnings increase. This means that a lone parent affected by the July reforms who is in receipt of the rent supplement and who increases their hours of employment, may see their rent supplement contribution increase as a result of their higher earnings from employment. However, despite this increase, these individuals will still maintain an incentive to increase their hours of employment.
I will show the Minister the figures. The comparisons she makes are entirely dishonest. The real comparison is where lone parents who were working 20 hours per week on minimum wage in 2012 before the Minister started her cuts and where will they be after July and, worse, after July 2017. In 2012, before the Minister cut the income disregard, a lone parent with one child working 20 hours per week received €481, including FIS. Prior to the July cuts the Minister is planning, it had decreased to €453. After July, it will decrease to €402.60 and after July 2017, it will decrease to €372. It is a cumulative loss for a working person of €109. This does not take into account the loss of the rent allowance the person will suffer or the fact that FIS is calculated against rent allowance, another sneaky cut the Minister has brought in.
We have increased the spending on FIS, which goes to all families. We must be careful not to discriminate against families in a relationship, either a marriage or a partnership. We want all children and families treated in the same way with the same possibility for prosperity and financial independence. As I said to Deputy O'Dea, in the era to which Deputy Boyd Barrett refers, lone parents were four and a half times more at risk of being in poverty. Since the changes and the encouragement of lone parents into work, on a seven-year transitional basis, which people such as the Deputy conveniently ignore, the risk of those lone parents being in consistent poverty has almost halved to two and a half times. This is the reality and the Deputy forgets that the first action I took, in the first Social Welfare Bill I brought before the House, was to restore the minimum wage, which Fianna Fáil and the Green Party had reduced by €1 per hour, to €8.65 per hour. I do not understand the Deputy's calculations. He should be fair.
I challenge the Minister directly on those figures and I hope somebody out there watching has the energy to go and check hers against ours. Our figures are spot on. They are an accurate reflection of what has been lost. They are borne out by the CSO figures which show, contrary to what the Minister just said, that the number of one-parent families suffering deprivation has risen from 49% to 63% since she started her cuts.
The number living in consistent poverty has risen from 17.4% to 23%, while the number of children living in poverty has increased by 137,000 since the Minister started her cuts, the overwhelming majority of whom are children of lone parents. The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. The cuts have reduced the benefit that lone parents received from working. In 2012, 60% of lone parents were working but now only 36% of them are doing so. The change has had the opposite effect of that claimed by the Minister.
I believe I am quoting from the same set of statistics to which the Deputy is referring-----
My figures are from the CSO and Barnardos.
The figures show that for lone parents who are in work, the consistent poverty rates are much lower than for lone parents not in work, at 10%. The impact of social transfers in Ireland is significant. Furthermore, in the last budget I increased child benefit, introduced the back to work family dividend and reintroduced the family Christmas bonus, which was very strongly welcomed by lone parents. The figures show that for a lone parent who is in work, the risk of poverty is much lower than for a lone parent who is out of work.
In most countries, the transition from being solely defined as a lone parent happens when the child reaches the age of five or earlier, whereas in Ireland the transition begins at seven years of age and there is a seven year transition period while, as a country, we address the child care issues that we must address.
4. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will provide for each of the years 2011 to 2014, inclusive, and to date in 2015, the total overpayments made by her Department in each year, indicating the amount due to error by her Department, due to error by the applicant, and due to fraud; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24851/15]
I wish to stress that this is a statistical question. I have no brief for people who defraud the social welfare system. In fact, I believe they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
A social welfare overpayment arises where a person has been in receipt of money to which he or she was not entitled. In such cases, the person concerned has a liability to repay the money. When deductions are being implemented from ongoing social welfare entitlements, the person is notified in writing of the proposed amount to be deducted and provided with the opportunity to detail any circumstances he or she feels may be relevant to the rate of recovery proposed. Any information received from the person is considered in deciding on the amount of the deduction.
The total amount of overpayments in 2011 was approximately €92 million. Of this, almost €35 million was due to fraud, around €40 million due to customer error, approximately €6 million related to departmental error and €11 million was in respect of estate cases. Estate cases arise where undisclosed assets of customers, usually pensioners, come to light after their deaths. The total value of overpayments in 2012 was €97 million, broken down as follows: almost €41 million was due to fraud, €36 million due to customer error, €8 million due to departmental error and €12 million was in respect of overpayments from estate cases. In 2013, total overpayments amounted to approximately €127 million. Of this, almost €62 million was due to fraud, over €43 million was due to customer error, approximately €7 million related to departmental error and €15 million was from estate cases.
It should be borne in mind that 95% of the value of social welfare overpayments are as a result of failure on the part of claimants to inform the Department of a change in circumstances or of their full circumstances . More than half of these are suspected to be fraudulent. Approximately 5% of the value of overpayments are due to departmental error. I am not in a position to provide details on overpayments in 2014 or 2015 as these figures form part of the statutory accounts of the Department and are currently being audited by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
I thank the Minister for providing those figures, which demonstrate what many of us have long since realised, namely, that the overwhelming majority of people in receipt of social welfare payments behave honestly and that fraud is a minority activity, accounting for less than 3% of the overall social welfare spend. How many prosecutions have taken place in the past few years? Has there been an increase in prosecutions? The special investigations unit was set up in 2012. Has the incidence of the recovery of social welfare overpayments resulting from fraud increased significantly as a result of the activities of the unit?
The majority of people who receive payments or income support from the Department of Social Protection get exactly what they are entitled to - no more and no less. However, in terms of the social contract, any level of overpayment, particularly one which arises from a conscious mis-statement of circumstances or fraud undermines the basic social welfare contract in that people at work who are paying PRSI do not want to see money which could be given to old age pensioners, people out of work or lone parents being misused by people who have no entitlement to it.
In recent times there have been quite a number of prosecutions. We have also introduced facial recognition technology in association with the new personal services cards, more than one million of which have been issued. We have identified a number of cases which have been prosecuted in the courts where people had multiple identities and were claiming multiple social welfare payments at different offices. This is one of the areas where the risk of fraud is greatest.
Regarding the figures for 2012 and 2013, how much of the money has been recovered or is in the process of being recovered? The Minister will be aware that the Social Welfare Bill 2012 enabled the Department to collect up to 15% of the principal payment to recoup moneys overpaid. Is the Minister aware that some departmental officials are of the view that "up to 15%" actually means 15% and that they are entitled to collect the maximum, regardless of the circumstances.
I introduced legislation in 2012 that allows a deduction of up to 15% of the weekly personal rate payable to a customer who has made an error or committed fraud. That means that if a person's basic rate is €188, up to 15% of that can be deducted. This does not affect payments issuing to the rest of the household or payments like child benefit. We can recover up to 15%, giving a deduction of around €25 per week, depending on individual circumstances. Prior to the introduction of that legislation the Department could only recover €2 per week from claimants. To be perfectly honest, some people who had been involved in fraud were basically giving two fingers to their neighbours who were going out to work and paying their PRSI, to the Department and to Irish society as a whole.
I will forward the detailed figures the Deputy has requested but the situation has improved significantly. I must also point out that we take individual circumstances into account in overpayment cases. Deputy O'Dea has raised a number of such cases with me and has said that the Department has been extremely considerate-----
Some people in the Department-----
-----in terms of the repayment arrangements being made.
5. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will withdraw new social protection forms encouraging persons to abandon their local post offices in favour of financial institutions, when dealing with social welfare transactions. [24849/15]
I have tabled this question to call on the Minister to withdraw the new social welfare forms which are currently recommending that customers use the commercial banks to receive social welfare payments rather than their local post offices. If the Department continues in this way, it will further undermine local post offices, especially in rural areas.
I emphasise that the forms provided by the Department to enable customers to apply for social welfare entitlements are continuously reviewed to ensure they are amenable, relevant and understandable to all customers. In this context, the Department considers that the forms should reflect the choices being made by new customers - the forms in question relate to new customers - on what payment channel they opt for. The fact is that more and more of the Department's customers are opting for payment of their social welfare entitlements directly into their bank accounts, particularly people who are retiring on a contributory pension who already have bank accounts and typically received their wages or salary through their bank accounts. Almost always, they want to continue the bank account arrangement.
To ensure that the Department's forms present payment options equally I have asked the Department to update them to ensure that a neutral wording in respect of payment options is provided and to ensure that one payment option is not favoured over another.
The Government has consistently stated its commitment to maintaining the post office network. It is clear in the programme for Government. It is a key piece of social infrastructure in urban and rural areas. It is Government policy that An Post will remain a strong and feasible company in a position to provide a high-quality postal service that will maintain a nationwide customer-focused network of post offices in the community.
My Department relies on An Post to provide a payment service for people who do not have a bank account. I cannot emphasise that enough. The Department is heavily reliant on An Post. This, in turn, provides An Post and post offices throughout the country with some valuable business. For example, we are paying An Post approximately €54 million this year for services, a significant sum of money and a vital source of income for post offices throughout the country. That is our commitment to the network.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The post office network business development group, chaired by Bobby Kerr, has decided that the future of the post office will be best secured through the development of a more sustainable business model, including the development of financial services, which is identified by the group as fundamental to the future of the post office network. The development by An Post of a payment account will be critical to a more sustainable business model as society inexorably moves to electronic rather than cash payments. The post office network cannot remain reliant on an income stream from my Department for cash payments to its clients where an increasing number of social welfare recipients wish to receive payments to their bank accounts.
The Minister mentioned €55 million. That is paid to An Post rather than the post offices. It is a pity that An Post does not pay it to the post offices directly, but that is a different matter.
I have a social welfare form here - the Minister has seen some of these forms - and it states that the Department recommends direct payment to the customer's current, deposit or savings accounts in a financial institution. That is the first port of call. It is only if a customer does not have an account in a financial institution that the Department asks the customer to indicate the post office where the customer wishes for the payment to be made. That is a direction from the Department rather than an option. That is a change in the way the Department works.
I have given out before about how Tús workers must have a bank account to receive their payment from the Department of Social Protection. The payment is not facilitated through the post office service. If the Department continues this migration then the contract will obviously drop substantially. The Minister should bear in mind that most people receiving social welfare payments in the State are usually dependent on it. If the Department starts making them go to financial institutions it will impose an extra cost on them which is not on them at the moment with An Post. There are transaction costs in most financial institutions.
The bulk of social welfare payments go to our pensioners and to families for payments like child benefit payment. I imagine Deputy Ó Snodaigh goes to the post office to collect his child benefit but, increasingly, many families, individuals and pensioners already have a bank account and they opt to use their bank account. Is Deputy Ó Snodaigh suggesting that we should force people not to use their bank account and to use the post office option? I do not believe that, as a Government, we can do that. What we can do and what the Kerr group has recently recommended - I strongly support the proposal - is that there should be a standard bank account.
As a result of the collapse of the banks the development of the standard bank account fell behind. As I have said on many occasions, if the post office system had a standard bank account then the post office would be able to provide a composite range of financial services. This applies in rural Ireland particularly and in urban areas, including in my constituency and the constituencies of Deputy Ó Snodaigh and Deputy O'Dea, where there are no banks on the local main street. I have conveyed this view to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan.
There is a substantial change in the Department's documentation, giving more prominence and a direction to commercial banks. This is what is available in Ireland at the moment. If the Department changed the form to indicate that if the customer does not wish to indicate a post office, he or she could indicate a financial institution, then it would be a difference and would recognise the prominence that has been given to the post office and the postal service in this country in terms of social welfare payments over the years. It does not prevent either pensioners or those in receipt of child benefit from getting payment in a financial institution, but it is a difference of emphasis. The Department needs to look at that.
There is an extra cost on senior citizens or anyone using banks in this country. In the past I was with EBS and I had free banking. I do not have that anymore because the State took over AIB and EBS and every transaction now has a cost. I can sustain that, but those on social welfare do not necessarily have the ability to sustain an extra cost.
The last question was to do with fraud. One of the quickest ways to deal with fraud is for a social welfare customer to present in person to the post office with a card. In that way the customer has a one-to-one transaction with an official, whereas banking can be done anonymously and there is no need to have that interaction.
I hope Deputy Ó Snodaigh is not suggesting that 600,000 families should queue at a post office to get their child benefit. What we want is to give people a choice.
Exactly, I have read out the choice on offer.
Sorry, Deputy, the Minister has the floor.
We want to give people the choice of using a bank account, if they have one. The main business that the post office gets from us at the moment comprises two elements. One is the fact that we require anyone who is receiving jobseeker's payments to collect their money in person at the post office. That is a major element of the business of the post office and accounts for over 20 million transactions. The second element relates to people who do not have a bank account and who opt to use their local post office, and long may they continue to do so.
I have asked to have the form reassessed with a view to making the language more neutral. That is under way at the moment. I believe people should have an option in respect of what is best for their circumstances.
It is not an option if the Department recommends a particular choice, which is what is stated in the document.
Please, Deputy. We have to move onto the next question now.
As I have said, I have asked for the forms to be reassessed. These forms are reviewed, designed and updated all the time, and I have asked for that to be done.
There is a wider point. We should move to a standard bank account for people who currently do not have a bank account. There are so many transactions nowadays in society - not necessarily to do with social welfare, it applies in other areas as well - that the availability of a standard bank account from a local post office would be a great boon to the post office and a great boon to doing business in rural and urban areas where there are post offices.
