Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Oct 2017

Vol. 959 No. 7

Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Deputies Denise Mitchell and Pat Buckley have ten minutes each.

This is a very important piece of legislation. I always give credit where credit is due so I will start by welcoming some aspects of the Bill. One section deals with making sure that the guardian of an orphan is not adversely affected due to payments made to them in that capacity. This has to be welcomed. The same goes for section 9(2), which deals with the rights of people with disabilities to work. People with disabilities should not be in fear of losing a medical card or any other disability supports because they want to enter the workforce. Unfortunately, here in Ireland people with disabilities are only half as likely as others of the same age to be in employment. Some of this is down the fear of losing some of the vital supports that they need and to which they are very much entitled. This part of the Bill clarifies the status of rehab work and of work in general and it is to be welcomed.

I take issue, however, with other parts of the Bill. I am disappointed to see that no element of it looks to chase down companies who owe over €450 million to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection in unpaid redundancy payments and insolvency costs. Some of these companies are now back up trading under different names, having left employees in the lurch and the State to pick up the tab. We talk about welfare fraud, but this behaviour is certainly in a league of its own in terms of cost to the taxpayer.

I would also like to raise with the Minister the concern I have over section 5(2), which deals with the public services card. I have heard Ministers claim that this is not a national identity card, but it is becoming ever more mandatory in dealing with the Department. If the Government wants to roll out a national identity card, let us have that debate, but it should not be rolled out by stealth, as is the case in this Bill. I also have concerns with the section that allows for decisions to award payments to be made by an automated information system. What happens if an overpayment is awarded? How can it be decided who was at fault for this? Will the claimant be declared a welfare cheat for being awarded a slightly higher payment than he or she was entitled to? I would welcome clarification on this.

Back in May, the Bill contained the aim to ensure that same-sex couples enjoy the same rights and entitlements to occupational pension schemes as any other married couples. Can the Minister explain why this was removed from the Bill? What does the Government intend to do now in this area? On a further point, we are still seeing discrimination against young people when it comes to social welfare allowances and benefits. We need to move towards ending this unfair discrimination: there should not be different social welfare bands for young people. There are other areas in which we will hopefully see some action from the Minister when it comes to the upcoming budget. Women, for example, are still facing discrimination when it comes to the State pension because of changes introduced by Fine Gael and Labour back in Budget 2012. These changes are affecting 36,000 people, mostly women who are now on a reduced State pension. This is a big issue for the public right across the State. While assurances on gender-proofing future Government decisions are welcome, we need to correct the injustices dealt out by the system first. I urge the Minister to make pension equality a central priority for the future, and we in Sinn Féin will be happy to work with the Minister and with all parties and none in achieving this.

I would also like to take this opportunity to address the issue of JobPath. Deputy John Brady and I have been meeting people who have been on this scheme and who have been working for the companies involved. Some of their stories are horrific, and the way in which some of these people have been treated is an absolute disgrace. It seems that no attempt is being made by the companies to deliver the scheme and put people in appropriate employment. Instead, it seems as if these companies just want to stuff people into full-time jobs so that they themselves can collect a payment from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. One of the worst examples I have seen of this is the treatment of substitute and part-time teachers, who say that they are being hounded because they are not in full-time employment. One woman contacted me and I will take the opportunity to share her story here. She told me that she had only qualified as a teacher last year but has been tormented by this JobPath scheme. She has had to leave her teaching job as a result and was never given the opportunity to interview for any teaching jobs. Her teaching qualification cost €12,000, which she now feels to be wasted. How on earth are we forcing a highly qualified teacher out of her profession and into a low-paid unskilled job, just because it is full-time? This is no benefit to society. I have met people and heard horrific stories from people, particularly from women, about how they have left JobPath interviews in tears. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter. I am also very concerned at the fact that this JobPath programme is causing local community employment schemes to dry up.

I hope that the Minister will take some of my concerns on board into the future and I look forward to working with her.

I will share my time with Deputy Martin Kenny.

The Deputies can work out the allocation of time between them.

We will work it out.

I welcome the thrust of the Bill. I wish to raise with the Minister some points on it, on some of which she will agree, on others she will not, and on others of which she will laugh. She will be looking forward to hearing those.

There is a provision for the setting of reduced fees for birth certificates and death certificates. Surely an arrangement could be made that such certificates would be provided free of charge.

Regarding the proposal to access social welfare benefits online, it is similar to the provision requesting many farmers who are over the age of 70 to apply for certain grants online. They are not tech-savvy. I hope the Minister will look favourably on people of a certain age or who have not had the necessary education over the years and ensure they are assisted to access services online or given some training on how to do that. I would like more clarity on the benefits that can be assessed online. A list of those benefits should be given. That would flag that change for people. Some people will be fearful of going into a post office and putting their hand up and saying look they are not able to do this online. We have seen that over the years.

I welcome the change proposed for those in receipt of disability allowance and the blind person's pension. It is vital. I find it confusing that it is proposed that the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs will have a handle on all the information related to civil records. I thought that come under the remit of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

My colleague, Deputy Mitchell referred to the community employment schemes. I have a concern participants on those schemes being able to access electronic payments, some of whom may have mental health issues and not have much confidence. Will there be supports provided for them in accessing their payments? Perhaps the Minister could consider allowing some of those participants to stay on those schemes indefinitely to help them along.

The Minister will enjoy what I am about to say about the public services card. I tried to figure out if was compulsorily or mandatory for people to obtain it. I tried to go on to the Revenue Online Service, and this is the crux of the issue with the card. I inserted my personal public service, PPS, number and lo and behold, I am not registered on the system as Pat. I cannot get a public service card because my name on birth certificate is Anthony James, the name Patrick is not included on it. Revenue telephoned me twice on a Friday. I thought that was very unusual, wanting to know who I was, but they surely knew who I was when they phoned me. I was elected a Deputy as Pat Buckley. I was christened Anthony James Patrick. Many people will enjoy that when they see these proceedings replayed. I have phoned Revenue on number of occasions. I cannot claim back tax because I do not exist on the system as I cannot access a public services card, and nobody can tell me whether it is mandatory or compulsory that I have that card. I would like to speak to the Minister about that issue after the debate or even tomorrow. This has been an ongoing issue and I have been in contact with a few Departments. It has been frustrating and I am trying to hold on to the bit that I have left. I can thank my Mam for that, for the triple hammer name.

With respect to welfare fraud, I would question if what is proposed would involve double-digiting or a repetition process. We have a Department that deal with payments. Do we need a separate Department to log all these payments? If one has been overpaid by the Department, it does not take it long to tack one down. It would involve duplication and we would end up with cross wires, something similar to what we have had with the public services card. It raises the issue of data protection. It is safer to have all this data and information in one area. I did not see much information on the control of this data and protection the information on the public services card.

Jobseeker's benefit does not go far enough to assist young people. They are also discriminated on the basis of their age. That provision does not go far enough to assist lone parents. While we can debate this, we should also address pension and domiciilary care allowance payments. Compared to the last debate I had with the Minister, I thought I would take it easy tonight and make it a more amenable occasion. I would like to speak to her in private about the ongoing issue I have with the public services card. I am concerned that they will cause a great deal of confusion. Many people have come into my office inquiring about them and I have not been able to tell them whether it is compulsory or mandatory for them to have it. I would like the Minister to answer that question. I will now hand over to my colleague Deputy Martin Kenny.

There are six minutes remaining.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. On reading through the heads of the Bill, I noted that No. 6 deals with births, deaths and marriage certificates. There is an anomaly in that area, which could be addressed in the Bill, if such a provision was included in it. Certificates are issued when a person is born, gets married and dies but when a person gets divorced, which unfortunately is the experience of many people, there is no divorce certificate issued. Ireland is one of the few countries that does not issue one. If a person is a divorcee and wants to apply for social welfare, they must prove that they are divorced. Evidence of a divorce is the court order. It includes much detail about why the marriage broke up. It is a large file and also includes custody arrangements for children, matters that are very private and personal, that the person would certainly not want to fall into the hands of other people. I know of a case where a divorcee who had taken her former husband's name on marriage wanted to have her original name on her passport. She had to provide the court decree and the court order dissolving the marriage. That involved a great deal of documentation, which she had a big job to try to get and make sure everything was right with it. It was way over what was required. Most other jurisdictions have a single certificate just like a marriage certificate which states that this marriage which was contracted on such a date was annulled or resulted in divorce on such a date. That is stamped and it is clear and it is done. We do not have such a certificate in Ireland. There is an opportunity in this Bill to bring that about. Many people find themselves in the trap of having to provide evidence of their situation. That is the first thing they will be asked for. If a person is applying for any social welfare benefit, I am sure it is one of the things they will be asked for. We know separation agreements are asked for. Evidence of a divorce is often required and there is not a clear divorce certificate in place in Ireland. That is something that needs to be addressed. Is there an opportunity to provide for that in this Bill? It is one of the issues I wanted to raise with the Minister.

The other issue relates to JobPath, which was referred to by previous speakers. JobPath has been raised with me in the past 12 to 18 months. A private company has been set up to deliver the service. It is a work action scheme focused on getting people back into employment. The experience of it by a great number of people has been very negative. I note the Minister is shaking her head at that but I would beg to disagree. Given their negative experience of it, JobPath needs to be reviewed. I know of the case of an elderly woman in her 60s, who has been looking after her parents, who does not drive a car and lives in a rural area. When her parents passed away, there was no work possibilities for her where she lived. She applied for jobseeker's benefit.

She was then immediately called to JobPath. She was almost 30 miles away, had no transport and there was no means to provide money to her to hire a car or get a taxi. The woman was in total disarray as to how to handle the situation. Then she was being taught how to write CVs for jobs that, first, do not really exist in County Leitrim and, second, even if they did, she was not in appropriate circumstances to take. Other schemes would have suited her perfectly such as the community employment scheme, which she was anxious to go on but was banned from because she was tied into JobPath. There is an issue about how appropriate some people are for the JobPath scheme. That a private company is operating it means that in many cases it is being done for profit. It gets paid for everyone it places, and that is the problem at the centre of the issue.

I, therefore, urge the Minister to review JobPath. Other schemes have been re-examined in the past and Governments have put up their hands and said they were changing them. Perhaps they did not put up their hands but they said that they had reviewed it and do not think it is a good idea any more. No one is going to beat up anyone for mistakes made in the past. The Minister is a new Minister in the job and I wish her the best. I think this is the first time I have conversed with her in this role. However, JobPath is a mistake and I urge her to use this opportunity to quietly get someone to have a look at it. Push it to one side and find something better and more appropriate because it does not work for a lot of people.

The key point I wish to raise, however, is the certificate for those who are divorced. There is an opportunity in the Bill to do something about it. It can easily be done and is worth examining.

Ní bheidh mé i bhfad. I wish to raise two issues. I echo the points made by Deputy Martin Kenny on JobPath. My experience is also that the experience of constituents of mine was not positive. People feel shunted into it and uncertain and uncomfortable with it. Another defect is that public representatives have little ability to engage with those providing the JobPath service on behalf of constituents in comparison with the engagement we would have with the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection or branches of it. My experience of JobPath is not positive in that regard.

The primary issue I wish to raise is that of the public services card. One of the main reasons a lot of attention was drawn to this was the case of an elderly woman being deprived of her pension for a lengthy period of time due to her not having a public services card. The policy of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection was that such a card was required. Indeed, the policy of many other Departments is that the public services card will be required for additional services. At the time, I commented that in my view, and I believe it is the view of many, the legal basis to the requirement is debatable.

My recollection is that the Department was relying on section 247C of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, as inserted by the Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2013. This section provides that the Minister may require any person receiving a benefit to satisfy the Minister as to his or her identity and that failure to do so could lead to disqualification. It is a reasonable provision in the Act that a person would be required to prove who he or she is so that the right person receives a benefit and someone who is not entitled to a benefit does not claim it fraudulently. However, my reading of the provision is that the Minister could be satisfied as to a person's identity by any number of means other than production of a public services card. The woman in question, although this does not refer to one particular individual, had regularly engaged with services by providing copies of bills, her passport, driving licence and other forms of documentation that should easily have satisfied the Department as to her identity. I do not see how the section requires the use of a public services card. It appears to me that there is no basis in law for such a requirement and, consequently, she should not have been deprived of her pension for such a lengthy period of time.

This is relevant in that there are additional provisions on the public services card in this Bill. I refer in particular to section 5. However, it does not appear to me that section 5 or any other section of the Bill - I am open to correction - makes the compunction any clearer. It would be welcome if the Minister could clarify the situation. I do not think the public services card should be mandatory. The legal basis relied on, however, is shaky and I am not convinced that it is now any stronger. The Minister is shaking her head but I cannot see how the previous section prevented a person from satisfying the Department as to his or her identity by means other than by production of a public services card.

I thank not only the Deputies present here tonight but all the Deputies who have contributed to the debate over the past number of months. I welcome their feedback. I do not necessarily agree with all of it but I welcome it.

I challenge Deputy Martin Kenny to call any woman in her 60s "elderly" to her face. I guarantee him that none would thank him for it.

Fair enough. Hands up.

I will contain my remarks to what is in the Bill although I recognise that Sinn Féin Deputies, and only Sinn Féin Deputies, have repeatedly raised their issues with JobPath, not only in this session but in previous sessions. I suggested a number of weeks ago to their spokesperson who apparently has a large dossier of complaints that he might give them to me. I am still waiting on them but I cannot do anything about their expressed concerns, if they are genuine, if the Deputies do not give me the information. I am quite happy to look at it, although I dispute the claims they have made so far. JobPath is one of the most successful activation programmes we have ever introduced.

Again, I thank all Deputies on all sides of the House for their contributions on Second Stage. I will not be able to respond in detail to all of the issues raised in the time available to me but I want to touch on some key specific points. Obviously, we will have an opportunity on Committee Stage to tease through some of the issues in greater detail.

Deputy O'Dea, among others, including Deputy Denise Mitchell who raised it again tonight, raised the issue of the payment of maintenance and how this is treated differently to guardian's payments. I want to emphasise at the outset that the Bill does not provide for anything new in terms of the guardian's payment. The sole purpose of the section is to clarify and confirm the existing policy and practice relating to these payments. Social welfare legislation provides that the means test for schemes such as jobseeker's allowance and one-person family payments takes account of the income and assets of the claimant and his or her spouse or partner, if applicable. Income and assets include income from employment, self-employment, occupational pensions and maintenance payments as well as property owned, other than the family home, and capital such as savings, shares and other investments. The assessment of means is a way of checking if a person has enough means to support him or herself and to determine the amount of payment, if any, for which they may qualify.

All cash income to the person and, where relevant, the person's spouse, civil partner or cohabitant is assessed except for specific exclusions which are set out in the legislation. Child benefit and guardian's payments are fully disregarded in the means assessment as are foster care allowance payments by the HSE. Maintenance payments, whether or not they are paid in respect of a child, are assessed by first disregarding any housing costs incurred up to €4,952 per annum, or €95.23 per week, and then assessing the remainder at 50%. Therefore, the total value of any maintenance payments is never fully assessed as means and, accordingly, a family in receipt of maintenance will always be better off than a family where maintenance is not a factor. Means-tested payments are based on the premise that recipients do not have adequate income to support themselves. Disregarding all maintenance payments could lead to a situation where well-off people qualify for means tested payments which are aimed at low-income families, thereby spending taxpayers' money in cases where there is no real financial need for assistance.

Matters related to the public services card, PSC, have been raised both in the course of this debate and more widely in the past number of weeks. I want to address a few of those points. First, I will ask the question raised as to whether the PSC is becoming a compulsory identity card. Quite simply and categorically - I will state this as clearly as I can - it is not compulsory to have a PSC. It is not a national identity card. To respond to Deputy Denise Mitchell, it is not the Government's intention to bring in an identity card. If it were any Government's intention to introduce a national identity card, the first place it would have to come is this House and have that discussion with all opposition parties, no matter who is in power.

I do not want to cut across the Minister but it is mandatory.

The Government's point is not to bring in a national identity card. The public services card does not have the characteristics of a national identity card that may exist in other countries. It is absolutely not a requirement to have a public services card on one's person. A member of the Garda Síochána cannot ask to see a person's PSC as it would be against the law. The card cannot be requested by any public or private body or person not included as a specified body in the Social Welfare Acts and particularly the legislation passed in this House in 2011. It can only be used by public bodies specified in that legislation in the context of conducting a public service with the person concerned. The legislation therefore narrows its application considerably and provides the clearest evidence that the intent of the public services card has always been limited to the provision of public services. Accordingly, it is required for the receipt of certain public services. In the same way that other services require identification documentation or tokens, such as bank cards, membership cards for clubs and colleges, etc., it is appropriate for public service providers to similarly require people to prove their identity when accessing public services. That is underpinned by the Social Welfare Acts, as amended in 2011.

Deputy O'Dea sought reassurance around the issue of the use of the PSC in commercial transactions. I am quite happy to provide that reassurance. Under current legislation, only bodies specified in the Act or their agents can ask for and use the PSC. There is absolutely no legislative proposal to change this or to remove this important protection for public services card holders. Section 5 of the Bill seeks to provide a practical solution to the potential difficulties that could arise where the holder of a PSC wishes to produce the card voluntarily for identity purposes to a body that is not specified in law. The holder of a public services card may wish to use the card, for example, to verify the person's identity for the purposes of signing up to a utility company contract or to open an account with a financial institution. The public services card is proof that the identity has been authenticated using the standard authentication framework environment, SAFE, process underpinned by law.

Currently, by accepting the card, the recipient may be committing an offence. Bodies that accept a PSC that is offered to them voluntarily by the holder should not be prosecuted or at risk of prosecution. The volunteering of the card is the critical issue here as it is the person's will and intent to do this. If this provision is passed it will continue to be the case that only public bodies can ask for the card to be produced and it will continue to be an offence for private sector organisations to do so. To be absolutely clear about it, this proposal in no way allows a private sector body to access the customer data on the card chip or on any Government database. It simply allows the body to view and accept the card as a form of identity and to stop it being an offence for it to be accepted, as it is today. This measure will be very beneficial to card holders and, in particular, those who do not hold a driving licence or passport. It is also provided free of charge. I reiterate here that the inscription of the date of birth on the public services card will be done on a voluntary basis only. Nobody will have a date of birth on a card without having requested it in the first place.

I want to touch briefly on issues of data protection and the security of the card. My Department takes its data protection obligations very seriously. It works extensively with the Data Protection Commissioner and consults regularly with her office on any major developments or proposed changes, including over the years relating to the PSC. The Data Protection Commissioner is clear that all uses for the PSC must be set out in legislation and I agree entirely with that. The Department has provided considerable information on its website about the PSC and identity services generally but we are working to improve that in keeping with recent recommendations from the Data Protection Commissioner.

On the question of the security of the PSC, the position is that it has multiple protection mechanisms, all of the highest current international standards, to prevent and detect tampering with the physical card and its contents. As well as some hidden security features, there are visual measures such as the overall graphical design, branding, the use of optical variable ink and a kinegram, which is a particular type of hologram. In addition, a PSC and a card reader communicate with each other by cryptographic means. Only card readers specifically programmed to accept PSCs can undertake this functionality.

I will move to some of the matters raised before tonight. A number of concerns were expressed by Deputies that certain provisions set out in the general scheme relating to defined benefit pension schemes have not been included in the Bill before us on Second Stage. As I had set out in my opening remarks introducing the Bill, in light of the complexities involved, it simply was not possible to have those amendments included in the published Bill. I assure all Deputies, as well as defined benefit pension scheme members, that a key priority for the Government is to provide additional protections for scheme members' pension benefits. It is essential that any new measures recognise the current pensions landscape in Ireland so that a balanced and proportionate approach is developed. I intend to introduce a number of amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage that will ensure an employer cannot walk away at short notice from the pension scheme it is supporting.

The amendments will provide for a 12-month notification period where an employer seeks to cease making contributions to a pension scheme. This period will enable stakeholders to enter into discussion and negotiations on all relevant matters and to develop a plan to sustain the scheme. The Committee Stage amendments will provide that where these steps have failed to resolve difficulties, for example, where no funding proposal is agreed and put in place by both parties, the Pensions Authority may determine a funding obligation on the employer in the form of a schedule of amounts and dates by which those amounts have to be paid to the trustees of the scheme. The amendments will act to support existing provisions in the Pensions Act and will encourage employers to ensure that schemes are well-funded and managed. Taken collectively, the amendments to the Pensions Act seek a middle road between the current position where employers can abandon defined benefit schemes and full and immediate debt on employer provisions. The amendments are designed to ensure the sustainability of defined benefit schemes for scheme members and continued trust in the pensions system as a whole. I should say also that other amendments to be brought forward on Committee Stage will allow for entitlement, in certain circumstances, to a spouse's pension for civil partners and same-sex spouses who are members of occupational pension schemes.

A number of other matters in the pensions area were raised by Deputies in the course of this debate. One such issue relates to the funding standard, which provides a benchmark against which the health of a scheme can be tested. The funding standard is also how Ireland meets its legal requirements under the relevant EU directive in respect of occupational pensions. When a scheme fails the funding standard, that means that unless some action is taken, the scheme will not be able to pay all the benefits promised. The funding standard is a wind-up standard and is intended to approximate the moneys needed to secure the benefits if the scheme was wound up and the accrued benefits bought out. Any reduction in the funding standard would not improve a scheme's ability to pay the benefits as they fall due.

The existence of the funding standard itself is not the central issue in whether a scheme is properly funded. Rather, the responsibility rests with the employer and the trustees for ensuring the scheme is properly funded and managed. However, the funding standard provides the regulatory mechanisms for ensuring a scheme can live up to a base level of pension benefits. I agree, however, that the difficulties facing defined benefit schemes in Ireland could be assisted through greater flexibility in calculating the funding standard. In this regard, the Pensions Authority reviewed the funding standard with a view to identifying measures that may be employed. The following are examples: there could be better tuned risk reserve calculations for schemes with liability matched investment strategies; simplified procedures where the employer commits to continue or increase funding proposal contributions; and smoothing, by averaging results over a period and avoiding overstatement of annuity costs.

The funding standard liability for retired members is based on the quoted market cost of buying annuities. Concerns have been raised that the quoted costs may overstate the cost of an annuity purchase. In reality, many scheme actuaries have addressed this by getting quotations for bulk purchases. These measures identified by the authority are currently being considered by the officials in my Department.

As regards the provisions in section 8 relating to the arrangements governing the recovery of benefits from compensators, I can assure the House that there is no impact on the position of claimants and no question of double deductions from them.

As to section 7, which deals with automated decisions, Deputies will be aware that the legislation allows that, in cases where child benefit is in payment and another child is born, once the birth of the additional child is registered, the rate of child benefit is automatically increased without human intervention. That is an example of efficient customer service.

It is now time to bring in a more general approach in the legislation to allow my Department to take full advantage of the speed and efficiency that is now available through technology, in order to make payments to our customers as quickly as possible. While I cannot predict what technology will be able to do in the future, the plan for now is that the simpler and more straightforward decisions will be taken by automated systems for decisions in the affirmative. Those which require more judgment will continue to be taken by human deciding officers. This means that trained staff resources can be used to best effect. In other words, processing simpler and more positive decisions by computer frees up staff to undertake the more complex decisions and other work, thereby speeding up the process for everyone. This is not about reducing staff numbers, as was suggested. Deputies are well aware that we have a service level contract to make sure that certain claims are processed within a certain amount of time. During the year different stresses are put on those claims. This is about using the resources of a 7,000 strong Department to the best effect to provide the services that we do for our client base.

I am conscious that the decision to award or refuse a social welfare payment, particularly for long-term payments, can have huge implications for our customers. My Department's customers come from all sectors of society. Some will welcome quicker processing based on online applications, while others may be less familiar with technology and may feel more comfortable with the idea that human intervention is possible. This would particularly be the case if the decision is that they do not qualify for a payment. That is why we are only going to use computers in the affirmative. The legislation provides for a balanced approach. The new measure will allow for an automated system to take decisions to award payments, but any decision that a person does not qualify for a payment must be taken, as it is now, by a deciding officer, i.e. a human being. There is no question of this being a rubber stamping exercise. The staff in my Department are extremely aware of the importance of making the correct decision.

Deputies mentioned the issue which has been raised by Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív outside of this House to disregard, for means-testing purposes, foster care payments which originate in the UK. I am advised that legislative changes will not, in fact, be required to allow for equivalent amounts of such allowances to be disregarded.

Several Deputies raised the issue of JobPath. I want to reiterate what I said at the outset of this speech, namely, that JobPath specifically provides an externally contracted activation service for those customers who have been unemployed or underemployed for at least 12 months. It is there to assist customers who are seeking full-time employment. There is some suggestion that customers are being consistently harassed. It is simply not true. People who are underemployed or unemployed long term - for longer than 12 months - are engaging with employment advisors to try and help them get the employment that they have registered an interest in. Anybody who is registered for a social welfare payment is declaring that he or she is looking for work. All JobPath is doing - in an exceptional way - is helping those people find jobs. That is all it is there to do.

All persons who have been unemployed for over a year and in receipt of payment from my Department, including casual employees and those returning from other supports such as community employment and back to education allowance, are eligible for referral to JobPath, because by engaging with the Department of social welfare they are saying that they are underemployed or unemployed and want to find work. That is what JobPath does for them, and it does it very successfully.

Almost 150,000 jobseekers have engaged with JobPath to date. A customer satisfaction survey was conducted - anonymously, before anyone says there was a fear of telling the truth - over the past couple of months indicated that up to 81% of customers were satisfied with the service. Of the 150,000 people that have gone through the doors in the last 18 months, only around 300 people have made a complaint. I cannot work out the figures, but that is a tiny percentage. JobPath has exceeded its target of helping people become employed or find employment far in excess of what we ever expected them to do.

I want to be clear that there is no harassing of customers. Customers are referred to JobPath for help in guiding them to try and find work or obliterate obstacles that they may have found during their own 12-month period of searching for work. Anybody who has evidence of the claims that are being made within this House should provide it to me and I will investigate it. If spurious claims are made in this House without any information then that is all they are. Only Sinn Féin have made these claims about JobPath. They are spurious claims to attack what is probably the most successful employment activation programme we have ever run in this country.

Deputy Brady raised the issue of waiting times for the domiciliary care allowance. I am happy to confirm that progress has been made on that issue and the average waiting time for a decision is now just under 17 weeks. When the Deputy raised the issue it was 20 weeks. It is still too high. The target we have set for ourselves in the Department is 12 weeks, but we have had an enormous surge of claims in this particular scheme in the last couple of months. We are working our way through to try and reduce them by using staff we have transferred from different Departments to make sure we bring down that backlog, because 17 weeks is still too high.

I appreciate that Deputies raised a range of issues during the course of the Second Stage debate, some of which are budgetary matters and, therefore, are not going to be discussed in the context of this Bill. We will be discussing them in the next couple of days, and I hope that Deputies will be in a position to join with the Government in welcoming some of the decisions that we hope to make in the next couple of days.

I welcome the generally positive response to the Bill, both here in the House and in private meetings I have had with every party. While it has not been possible to address all of the issues raised in these concluding remarks, I look forward to the debates on Committee and Report Stages in the next couple of weeks where we can engage in detail, particularly on the amendments to be brought forward on Committee Stage. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share