Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jun 2018

Vol. 970 No. 4

Other Questions

Employment Support Services

Clare Daly

Question:

39. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if personal progression plans used by a company (details supplied) are a requirement, in view of reports of coercive methods being used to intimidate persons to sign the forms; and if claims of coercion have been investigated. [26510/18]

I am considering giving up my day job, such is the level of complaints being received in our offices regarding the conduct of Seetec. What is the status of the personal progression plan? It appears that people are being coerced into signing forms and that their experiences with this private company are utterly demoralising, with potential data protection issues also arising.

It is interesting to note that the personal progression plan does not belong to Seetec. Whenever we have conversations in here on such plans, nobody every complains about them in the context of Turas Nua or Intreo offices. The personal progression plan belongs to the Intreo service in the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. When individuals present as jobseekers, that is, as people who are seeking work, they enter into arrangements with my Department through which we will help them to find work and part of those arrangements is the personal progression plan. When jobseekers get that plan, they sign it and they sign up to working with their individual agent, who may be in an Intreo office, a Turas Nua office or a Seetec office.

If Deputy Daly knows of genuine cases where people feel they are being coerced, she should forward the details to me. Coerced is an awful word to use because nobody is being made to be a jobseeker. If people want to be jobseekers, they present to that part of our Department that will assist them willingly and they seek our help. If they do not want us to help them to find work, they do not have to stay. Nobody is being made to sign a personal progression plan; it is something to which people willingly sign up in the context of being helped to find work. The language the Deputy uses worries me. If she genuinely has specific cases that justify the language she uses, I ask her to bring them to me. I will make sure they are investigated and will revert to the Deputy on them.

I reiterate that the personal progression plan belongs to the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. It is fed through our Intreo offices and is not the property of any agency working on our behalf. It is a directive from the Intreo service and forms part of the engagement we have with people who present voluntarily to the Department who are actively looking for work and who want our help.

It is fair to say that these are people who present voluntarily and who would like to get work. These are people who, in many instances, are capable of trying to get work for themselves but for whatever reason, they are currently out of work. In many cases, they do not feel they need to be dictated to or talked down to by a private, for profit organisation. The difference here is that Seetec is a private, for profit company which is getting paid on the basis of the numbers of cases it handles.

One woman phoned our office to tell us she did not sign a personal progression plan but was told that it had been signed on her behalf. What service is this organisation supposed to be providing? I know Deputy Shortall raised this issue in the House previously.

The person on whose behalf she raised it has been in contact with us and also written to the Minister. The man who is 46 years old has said he felt utterly demoralised and depressed as a result of the treatment he received. He is willing to find and capable of finding work for himself. He wants to know why a private company was looking for the right or power to contact a future employer on his behalf. If his employment needs to be confirmed, it should be done by the Department, not by a private company. That is the difference or difficulty.

Obviously, the Deputy is right when she says everybody presents voluntarily. Nobody is made to stay or coerced to sign anything. Nobody can sign anything on behalf of anybody else. Whoever told the person who contacted the Deputy that his personal progression plan had been signed on his behalf was inaccurate. It cannot be signed by anybody. If someone does not sign up to his or her personal progression plan, it is not worth the paper on which it is written. It lists the activities on which someone and the person assigned to him or her will work to try to find work. In January the Department published a cohort performance report for the service which showed that 25% of jobseekers who had begun to engage with it in the first four quarters after its commencement had obtained work, 18% of whom had found full-time work and 4% part-time work, while 3% had started up their own jobs. After someone involved in the service finds a job, there is a six-month period of contact between him or her and the new employer. Obviously, it has to be voluntary. It is not something that can be forced on somebody. The reason for the contact with the person being employed over the six-month period is to support him or her in his or her new employment. It is not a case of big brother looking over people's shoulders. We have to remember that the individuals in these cases were out of work for more than 12 months in a single period before they were sent to JobPath. There is a reason they were out of work. In many cases, they were out of work because there was no work available in recent years, which is fair enough. Others may have been out of work for more than 12 months for other reasons. Many of the people concerned value and genuinely appreciate the relationships they build with their sponsors over a 12-month period. In many cases, they want to keep these relationships going to maintain their new found levels of confidence. In others they do not want to do so, which is fine too.

If somebody wanted this kind of contact, obviously, he or she would not be complaining about it. The issue at stake arises after people secure employment. Seetec, which is a private, for-profit company, has been given consent to contact the future employers of such persons in order that details can be confirmed or otherwise. It is one thing to ask John how he is getting on and whether everything is going okay, but it is quite different to require him to sign something that will give Seetec permission in these circumstances. People like John have to sign these documents and will lose their benefits if they do not sign them. This process is making people feel very uncomfortable. Many of the individuals in question are older and have specialised in particular areas of work. Some of them have been offered positions of employment that they consider unsuitable for their skill sets. They believe they are being forced into jobs for which they might be overqualified, even though they want to explore other avenues to find employment in their own spheres of expertise. It is intrusive and demeaning for people like John to know that employers who take them on will be contacted to see how they are getting on.

I assure the Deputy and anybody else who happens to be listening that the system is not in place for the reason suggested by the Deputy. We are engaged in finding sustainable employment for people. The system is in place for six months after somebody finds a job to ensure the employment is sustained. The person who helped the jobseeker to find the job in the first place has a responsibility to make sure the job is maintained. It is not a reflection on the person; rather, it is a reflection of the company and the fact that when people are being placed in jobs, we need to know that the employment is actually sustainable. It is not about checking whether Johnny is doing a great job. It is certainly not as prescriptive as that; rather, it is about ensuring Johnny is in the job and okay. It is about ensuring the supports he needs from the person in the Intreo office, Turas Nua or Seetec who has been assisting him will be maintained. It is genuinely that simple.

Social Welfare Benefits Waiting Times

Bobby Aylward

Question:

40. Deputy Bobby Aylward asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if she is satisfied that the application process and current waiting times for payments such as domiciliary care allowance, carer's allowance and disability allowance are acceptable and accessible; the steps being taken to reduce waiting times for these payments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26571/18]

Is the Minister satisfied that the application process and the current waiting times for payments such as domiciliary care allowance, carer's allowance and disability allowance are acceptable and accessible? What steps are being taken to reduce waiting times for these payments?

The Department is committed to making decisions on entitlements as quickly as possible. In general, applications under social welfare schemes with a number of complex qualifying conditions, including those mentioned by the Deputy, take longer to process. Before a decision can be made on entitlement to domiciliary care allowance, evidence of the additional care needs of the child must be provided and examined. Similarly, before a decision can be made on entitlement to carer's allowance, evidence of the care recipient's care requirement, the level of care the carer provides and the carer's means must be provided. In respect of disability allowance, evidence of the person’s medical condition, the extent to which it restricts him or her from taking up employment, his or her means and habitual residency must be provided. The target in processing applications for domiciliary care allowance is to finalise 90% of new claims within ten weeks. This is being achieved. The target in processing applications for carer's allowance is to finalise 70% of new claims within 12 weeks. Currently, the average waiting time in processing new carer's allowance applications is 15 weeks. Obviously, the target is not being achieved. The target in processing applications for disability allowance is to process 75% of new claims within 12 weeks. Currently, the waiting time in processing new disability allowance applications is 13 weeks.

My Department recognises that the current processing times for carer's allowance and disability allowance must be improved and is working to achieve this. Staff resources have recently been reassigned to work in claims processing. A redesigned application form will be available shortly to try to simplify the application process. The new form will allow carers to provide more information on the type and level of care they provide. The aim is to provide deciding officers with the information they need to expedite decisions on entitlement. The implementation of a new information technology system to process illness benefit claims, as part of the ongoing modernisation programme in my Department, will support the deployment of additional staff to support the processing of carer's allowance applications. It is hoped this will help to reduce the average waiting time below the current level of 13 weeks. The processes in place and resources assigned to these areas of my Department, with the number of medical assessors available to provide medical opinions, are kept under constant review to ensure delays are minimised.

We are blessed with our carers. They provide 24-hour care for some of our most vulnerable citizens. They do so for a fraction of what it would cost the State to provide the same level of care. I understand it was recently estimated that it would cost approximately €4 billion a year, which is a lot of money. Carers keep tens of thousands of people out of State care and free up crucial beds for those with more urgent or life-threatening health care needs. I shudder to think what chaos the healthcare system would face if carers were not keeping thousands of beds available. We must do more for carers. The current waiting time for an application to be processed is between 16 and 18 weeks, which is nothing short of an insult. I spoke today to a number of staff members who had been following up on carer's allowance applications since 2012. They told me that the average waiting time back then was 16 weeks, which means that we are seeing no long-term improvement. This contradicts what the Minister said. The process is cumbersome and tedious. We force carers to jump through hoops and endure red tape in order to receive payments such as domiciliary care allowance and disability allowance. This is consistent across the board. Will the Minister give me a commitment that she will do everything in her power to reduce application processing times and streamline the application process for those seeking these crucial payments?

I agree with the Deputy. I acknowledge the value of the work of carers and their commitment to the people for whom they care. The Deputy and I are well aware that this country could not afford to pay carers if it wanted to do so. There is a huge debt of gratitude owed in everything we do. To be fair to the Government and its predecessor, we have taken some small measures to try to show our gratitude. Most recently, we introduced medical cards for persons in receipt of carer's allowance and reinstated the respite care grant. We can do such small things to show our gratitude. As the Deputy suggested, the payment carers receive on a weekly basis is the real sign of our gratitude. The statistics I have are accurate. They were compiled in the past couple of days. Thankfully, they have changed. We are still a week behind, but that is only in 75% of cases. There may be 16 or 17-week cases coming to the Deputy's office. A number of years ago we had a very serious issue with applications for domiciliary care allowance. That gave rise to the establishment of a wonderful organisation, DCA Warriors, which most of us know and work with. We reformed the application process by streamlining it and making it much easier for applicants and the Department. The application process is now working well. We are in the process of doing the same in the case of carer's allowance. The application form has been changed and we are making online applications more available.

Other Members want to ask questions. The clock is ticking.

All of this is speeding up the application process.

I speak to many applicants for carer's allowance, domiciliary care allowance, disability allowance and other payments. They believe the State is fighting them every step of the way. That is what I am hearing from them. Of course, I understand the application process has to be stringent and diligent, but I believe we have gone way over the top with red tape. I will give an example from my constituency. In December 2017 a woman was awarded full-rate carer's allowance in respect of her son. She then discovered that she would have an additional entitlement to a half-rate carer's allowance in respect of her daughter who had just been approved for receipt of domiciliary care allowance.

She was getting one and then she was applying for the half one. The Department had assessed her means for the first one in respect of her son and it had the medical for her daughter's domiciliary care allowance yet the application for an additional half rate carers allowance was treated as a new applicant. That is a waste of time and space. It is so simple. These are just a few examples. I could give several. She was already assessed for her son and then her daughter's case came along she had to go through the whole lot again.

I also want to raise the issue of undocumented carers. Applicants who are just over the means or just outside the medical requirements and miss out on a payment, GP visit card and carer support grant are still having to leave work anyway to care for a loved one with a severe illness. Can the Minister look at this?

Has the Minister any plans to increase the carers allowance, domiciliary care allowance or disability allowance payment in the coming budget? That has been asked but I will throw it in anyway.

The Deputy would have to ask.

The carers allowance and all of our schemes are statutory schemes. I appreciate that it does not seem to make sense to the lady who has already applied successfully for the full carers allowance for her son. When she makes an application for her daughter, despite the fact that it is only half a carers allowance it is still a new application and under the law it has to be deemed to be adjudicated in exactly the same way as if the Deputy or I or somebody we knew applied for the first time. Each application has to be taken on its own merit. That is just the way the law is.

Budget negotiations for this year have not started so I cannot answer the Deputy's second question. Obviously, it will be defined and determined by the amount of fiscal space available from the Department of Finance. The only thing I can say to the Deputy is that there are 6,000 people working in my Department. They are there to serve the people who need help at certain periods of their life. They do not take 20 weeks to go through an application just because they want to annoy somebody. We have times and targets available based on either the volume of applications we get or the length of time needed to do the work. For these three particular payments, most have to go through a medical assessor or there is a requirement to really genuinely assess the care that is being given to a person. It takes times. Some cases are taking longer. Sometimes a reason for that is that we do not get the information in the first instance. We want to make sure that we streamline it and make it as easy as we possibly can so that we reduce the numbers of weeks.

I remind the Minister that there are many Members waiting. A minute is a minute.

Legislative Measures

Joan Collins

Question:

41. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection when she plans to initiate the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017, which the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection facilitated on 31 May 2018 (details supplied). [26529/18]

Bríd Smith

Question:

75. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the progress of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017; the reason for its delay; her plans to provide protection for workers in defined benefit schemes in the future; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26583/18]

This is to ask the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection when she plans to progress the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017, which the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection facilitated on 31 May 2018 at the request of the Department. The heads of the Bill were brought in on 9 May, including defined benefit, DB, protection to particular areas. It was published on 6 July. There have been numerous stops and starts and we are still waiting. It was an affront not to have that legislation before the committee on 31 May after all indications had been given that it would be there.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 41 and 75 together.

Second Stage of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017 concluded on 4 October 2017 and Government approval to draft provisions for a number of additional items to be included in the Bill on Committee Stage was obtained from Cabinet. These provisions are currently being finalised by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. They include, among other matters, provisions related to defined benefit pensions and measures related to the General Data Protection Regulation, GDPR.

A key priority for the Government is to provide additional protections for scheme members’ pension benefits. However, it is essential that any new measures recognise the current pension landscape in Ireland so that a balanced, proportionate approach is developed and that unintended negative consequences do not arise. Under existing pensions law, there is no legislative obligation on the employer to make contributions to a scheme. However, the provisions of this Bill will introduce a new regime into the Pensions Act 1990 which will, among other things, enable the Pensions Authority to make a funding obligation direction specifying payments to be made by a sponsoring employer to the pension scheme where no agreement was reached, within a specified time period, to resolve a funding deficit.

In order to achieve a balanced approach it has been necessary to consult with and obtain numerous legal advices from the Office of the Attorney General in respect of the DB provisions. The Bill was provisionally scheduled for Committee Stage on 31 May. This has been postponed to allow for the finalisation of the necessary Government amendments. These provisions are quite technical and complex. However, work is at an advanced stage and when complete an early date for Committee Stage will be requested from the committee.

Finally, many of the provisions contained within the EU directive on institutions for occupational retirement provision, IORP II, will also support positive reform of the Irish occupational pensions sector. Implementation of the directive will require legislative changes and my officials, together with the Pensions Authority, are working on the transposition process to ensure that the necessary amendments to existing laws, regulations or administrative provisions will be made to give full effect to the directive.

Over a year is rather a long time to check that all the t's have been crossed and the i's have been dotted. I know it is important legislation. Thousands of workers are waiting for it to come through for some protection. Irish Life workers in a scheme that is healthy are potentially affected by their defined benefit scheme being wound down. There is also Ryanair and Independent News and Media. This was flagged last May in the heads of the Bill in respect of the two areas, the 12 months' notice to trustees from the bosses to cease contributions, and provision that if trustees and employer cannot agree a funding proposal, the Pensions Authority would intervene and set a contribution schedule. Many workers saw that as a protection and they are hugely disappointed. It is disgraceful that over a year later we are still waiting for the legislation to come through.

I invite the Minister to respond.

Can I come in?

If you so wish, yes.

That is why I am sitting here. I could have watched it on the TV otherwise.

Hold on, let us be clear.

I thought I had a right to come in as I was being grouped with Deputy Joan Collins.

Hold on until you understand, Deputy Smith.

The normal thing is that Deputy Joan Collins asks her question and has her supplementary and then Deputy Bríd Smith would ask hers and have her supplementary. If the Minister is prepared-----

That is fine. I did not realise.

Far be it from me to deprive you-----

I thought you were forgetting about me.

How could I? Deputy Smith may combine her question now and she will also have a supplementary.

It is all about equality.

My question is very similar. The real tragedy here is that we are missing an opportunity to do what they do in Britain and elsewhere in Europe and that is to put manners on companies that are in very good health when it comes to their pension schemes yet decide to move workers off defined benefit and onto defined contribution schemes. That is exactly what is happening in Irish Life and it has happened in Independent News and Media and AIB. It is a money grab by these companies. They are not struggling. They are not underfunded or in trouble. What they are trying to do is offload what would be very good futures and healthy pensions for workers so that they maximise their profits.

That is what is missing from this tiny little amendment to which we have been reduced. Has the Minister been lobbied by Irish Life, Ibec or any of their representatives to reduce what was substantial to something very minimal? The provision has been watered down very substantively and I do not believe it will return to the original proposals that the Minister made. Has there been any lobbying on behalf of the pension companies, Irish Life itself or Ibec?

I can categorically say "no", but I am not sure to what the Deputy is referring. Nothing has been watered down. The amendments have not been drafted. I do not know what the Deputy is referring to or what she is holding in her hand. What we released in the heads of the Bill are currently being drafted in amendments. There are no changes, no lessening, no meetings with anybody.

I have to put on the record that my husband works in Irish Life but he works in IT. I have not been lobbied by anybody in Irish Life. To my recollection, I meet Ibec regularly but it is usually with regard to the Employment Bill and not this particular Bill. I will have to check my records but I do not recall having been lobbied on this particular Bill. Let me be very clear; it would not make a blind bit of difference to me because the intentions are set. They are clear. They were set a year ago, as Deputy Collins has said.

Yes, we are all waiting for the amendments. I am awaiting them as eagerly as the Deputies are. I am told they are very close to being finalised. I am also told they are very complex. When we talk about pensions people put on that kind of pinchy face as if it is complex and most people do not understand it. What I understand is that the obligations and objectives of this legislation are to ensure there is a set of rules that is fair to both the employers and employees in defined benefits pensions going forward. The sooner we get the amendments and get to Committee Stage the better for all of us.

With all due respect, there are no persons more eager for these amendments to come through than the workers themselves whose pensions are being attacked in healthy funds by companies that can well afford to keep defined benefit pensions going.

It is a money grab by many of these companies. The Minister is awaiting the amendments. When it was published on 6 July, the Bill did not include any amendments relating to defined benefit schemes. This is why people are concerned that it is not on the agenda and has been pulled by the Department or the Minister. This needs to be brought in quickly. The workers in Irish Life are eagerly awaiting the introduction of this measure so there would be some sort of protection for them. It was very remiss of the Department and the Minister not to have brought this in even more quickly than has been the case.

I do not think I argued that the heads of Bill were cast iron but I do think they were more elaborate than what we have. I know the Minister said it is complex and we all pinch our faces when we talk about pensions. I probably do more than pinch my face because I do not have a great understanding of them not having been involved in a pension scheme to date. It cannot be as complex to do something in Ireland that has already been done in Great Britain and across Europe, which is to protect workers in defined benefit schemes from being pushed into defined contribution schemes by companies that are completely solvent and that are in fact very healthy. Other Deputies have named these companies, as have I, and other Bills have been submitted by Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and Labour that would do the same job but have been held back because the Government Bill goes forward. It is being delayed to the point of utter frustration and probably huge disappointment on the part of workers. Since the Minister's husband works there, the Minister will know that this is the biggest pension organiser in the country. If it gets away with this, it is leading by example and so will the 110 other schemes that control defined benefit.

Could I be very careful with language? I ask the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to give me a teeny bit of latitude if I ramble on. No one is getting away with anything. What is happening in Irish Life is entirely legal so no one is getting away with anything. Second, we do not have the proposed amendments. What we have are the draft heads of a Bill. We do not have the amendments yet. This is what we are all anxiously awaiting with me being first in the queue. If and when the new legislation is enacted, it will not stop what is happening in Irish Life because it is currently legal. All that will happen is that a scheme will have to give a minimum notice period of 12 months before the contributions can be stopped. That is the only thing that will happen. Irish Life gave well in excess of 12 months' notice so even if the legislation were passed, it would still not be breaking the law.

However, it gives other parties the opportunity to put forward amendments.

The Minister, without interruption.

I am not sure what the people who are contacting Deputy Bríd Smith are expecting.

(Interruptions).

Let the Minister reply. The Deputies might not like the answers but-----

We will have that when the amendments are dealt with on Committee Stage and we can have a look at them, but the proposals in the heads of Bill seen by Deputy Bríd Smith beforehand will not stop what is happening in Irish Life because Irish Life is not doing anything illegal. If the new legislation were passed, the only change is that it would be obliged by legislation to give a 12 month notice period, but it gave in excess of that anyway.

Anti-Poverty Strategy

Willie O'Dea

Question:

42. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection when the new national anti-poverty strategy will be published, the reason the strategy has not been published to date and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26405/18]

The question is self-explanatory.

Tackling poverty remains a fundamental aspiration of all of Irish society. In particular, A Programme for a Partnership Government includes a firm commitment to develop a new integrated framework for social inclusion to tackle the inequality and poverty that, unfortunately, still exist in society. This will be a successor to the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016 and its 2015 to 2017 update, which concluded last year.

My Department is developing the new four-year plan for the period from 2018 to 2021. Like its predecessor, the plan will have a whole-of-Government approach that aims to improve outcomes for vulnerable and marginalised people while recognising a shared responsibility across Government to implement actions to achieve the overall objectives. The theme of the new plan is one of active inclusion, which will enable every citizen, most notably, I hope, the disadvantaged, to participate fully in society. This includes having a job.

The primary focus will be the reduction of consistent poverty, which was 8.3% in 2016, a figure none of us is happy about. This will be achieved through a three-pronged approach: supporting incomes through a level of employment that is as high as possible and encouraging and assisting people to enter the workforce; setting targets for the level of relevant welfare payments designed to reduce relative poverty among those who cannot work or cannot find work; and improving access to quality services such as health, education, childcare, training, housing and community supports to minimise deprivation for all groups, in particular those who are on relatively low incomes. Officials in my Department are working with their colleagues, both internally and in other Departments, to identify specific actions for inclusion in the plan.

As a Department, we place a high value on our engagement with those who need to access our services and with the range of organisations that represent those experiencing poverty and social exclusion. Consultation regarding the development of the new plan began last year with the 2017 social inclusion forum where the new plan was the main topic of discussion. This was followed by an online public consultation process in February and March 2018 and further discussions that were very robust at the 2018 social inclusion forum. This allowed my Department to gather responses from individuals who have real-life experience of poverty and social exclusion as well as from NGOs and those working in the community and voluntary sector and academia, which will inform the development of the plan.

I thank the Minister for the enormous amount of information she has given me. I got everything but an answer to my question, which concerns when the plan will be published.

Why has it not been published to date? I welcome the fact that there is an anti-poverty strategy. Even though the economy is in better shape, problems persist and poverty does not seem to be reducing in tandem with economic growth. For example, 10,000 people are homeless, 50,000 lone parents are classified as living in deprivation, 102,000 people are considered to be the working poor, and 780,000 people are on incomes below the internationally accepted poverty line. The strategy is to run from 2018 to 2021. We are more than halfway through 2018 so when will the strategy be published?

My apologies. I missed the very last line of that whole spiel. The strategy will be published in the autumn. The key element of the national action plan for social inclusion involves the national social targets for poverty reduction, which the Deputy mentioned, which set out the Government's ambition to reduce and, it is hoped, at some point in the very near future, to eliminate poverty. The headline target is to reduce consistent poverty to 2% or less by 2020 with an interim target of 4% by 2016 from the 2010 baseline rate of 6.3%. In addition, there are subtargets relating to children for Ireland's contribution to the European 2020 poverty target. Meeting these targets or at least making significant progress towards meeting them by the 2020 deadline will be a challenge that will require the combined efforts of all Departments boosted by the resources and commitment of civil society. This does remain, however, a key commitment of the plan to address the poverty target and to make sure we put in specific actions, timelines and dates towards those actions to make sure we achieve our overall target.

Are there any plans to ring-fence some funding to achieve the Government's objectives? In the absence of ring-fencing, targets often turn into aspirations.

Much of the money we use or that we spent towards the last plan was ring-fenced for certain schemes. I do not see any difference with regard to achieving the objectives in this plan. As I said, it is a whole-of-Government approach. The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is not going to wipe out poverty on its own. As much as social transfers have an enormous impact on people's weekly incomes, they certainly do not wipe out poverty. The only way we will be able to wipe out consistent poverty is to provide not only the income supports people need, the activation into work and the continuous support for people in that work until they achieve such levels of income that they do not need support from the State, but also public transport, public health and child care that is supported financially by the State. There are myriad things that will reflect around the lives of people living in consistent poverty to improve them.

Zero-hour Contracts

Mick Barry

Question:

43. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection when she envisages a ban will be introduced on zero-hour contracts, and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26578/18]

Deputy Paul Murphy has been given permission to take Deputy Barry's question.

When does the Minister envisage a ban on zero-hour contracts will be introduced given their impact on people's lives, the inability to plan their lives, the impact on people's mental health, the inability to access mortgages and the fact that they are symptomatic of the rise in precarity?

I ask the question particularly in the context of the LloydsPharmacy dispute. We have some Lloyds workers with us in the Visitors Gallery. Despite the denials and the propaganda by the company, they are affected by zero-hour contracts, which is one of the issues in the dispute.

The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017 completed Committee Stage in the Dáil on 17 May and is back for Report Stage next Tuesday and Wednesday. The Bill includes a provision to prohibit zero-hour contracts except in cases of genuine casual work, emergency cover or short-term relief work for the employer. It is worth recalling that the University of Limerick study, commissioned by the former Minister of State, Senator Gerald Nash, found that zero-hour contracts were not prevalent in Ireland. The provisions in this Bill dealing with zero-hour contracts will help to ensure this remains the position.

It is important to understand, however, we are not saying in the Bill that all casual or flexible working arrangements are wrong and should be prohibited. On the contrary, flexible working arrangements are an essential requirement for any modern economy. I note the University of Limerick study acknowledged that genuine flexible working arrangements can be mutually beneficial for both employees and employers. To prohibit outright all casual work or all flexible working arrangements would have very serious unintended consequences for many businesses and service providers across the country. Our schools and hospitals, for example, simply could not function. Businesses in the retail, hospitality or care sectors would be unable to operate without the ability to employ certain staff on flexible working arrangements to satisfy peak demands and fill staffing gaps on a short-term basis.

The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill is important legislation. It contains a range of measures designed to improve the security and predictability of working hours for employees on insecure contracts and those working variable hours. We will continue to work with colleagues on all sides of the House, as we have done to date, to progress this Bill as quickly as possible so we can deliver legislation that is fair, balanced and works in the best interests of both employees and employers.

I thank the Minister. To ban zero-hour contracts except in the case of casual work defeats the purpose as it is precisely the case that these people are abusing the notion of casual work. To give a concrete example from Lloyds, Mr. Pat Watt, the marketing and sales director of Lloyds, has issued a couple of YouTube propaganda videos, and he said, "Throwing around terms like-----

I would refrain from mentioning the names of those who are not in the House. Deputy Murphy knows that is not permissible.

Okay. He said, "Throwing around terms like zero-hour contracts, which we do not and never have had, is deliberately divisive". However, if one speaks to the workers directly, as I did, it is a different story. Mandate has produced a copy of the contract on its website, which states, "Your normal hours of work are flexible as agreed with your manager, spread over up to 5 days between Monday and Sunday and may include late night and weekend work." There are no guaranteed hours and, in any normal language, that is a zero-hour contract. Imagine trying to plan life like that, when a worker only knows a few days in advance how many hours and what hours they are going to do the following week.

Zero-hour contracts are just one of many issues in that dispute. It is about low pay, the absence of a real payscale, the absence of a proper sick pay scheme, the absence of annual leave and the attempt to stop workers organising in their union. It is a vital strike.

All of the issues the Deputy has just outlined will not be legal when we pass the new Bill because of all of the other sections of the Bill, not because of permitting casualised work in certain exceptional circumstances. It is because of the banded hours and the look-back period that will be introduced, as well a whole range of measures within the Bill that will prohibit what the Deputy has just described from happening in any organisation. However, it is important to remember there are benefits to having certain casualised work.

To give one example, in a recent high profile case an RTÉ reporter was found to have been discriminated against by being dismissed on the grounds of age while she was on a casual contact when presenting a radio programme. The Workplace Relations Commission found in her favour and she was awarded €50,000. Similarly, cover is necessary in an emergency and, for example, fire brigades have auxiliary firefighters on call for urgent situations. Obviously, not every situation is an emergency, so cover is also needed for routine absences. For example, transport companies would have to employ a relief driver during exceptionally busy periods or to cover the annual leave of other employees. Pharmacies cannot open unless there is a pharmacist present so if a pharmacist rings in sick, they have to be able to provide locums. There are a number of genuine exceptional circumstances that permit what we and the Workplace Relations Commission call casual work. To prohibit that in any way, shape or form would shut down certain industries, which is certainly not what we want to do.

The company involved in these practices of gross exploitation of its workers is not some small pharmacy. It is part of the biggest pharmaceutical company in the world, McKesson Corporation, which has an annual revenue of €169 billion, more than double the revenue of the Irish State. Workers themselves organising is the way that proper terms and conditions can be won. That is why I salute those workers and Mandate for taking the initiative of organising. That is seen in the response of the company, which has spent €10,000 on setting up a bogus, so-called colleagues representative committee in flagrant contravention of ILO conventions.

Another heinous transgression by Lloyds since the dispute began has been the targeting and intimidation of pharmacists with the claim that they do not have the right to strike, which every worker obviously has the right to, because of the company's community pharmacy contract with the HSE. We will get it in black and white from the Department of Health before the week is out to reassure totally the pharmacists at Lloyds, who want to stand with their colleagues on the pickets. I want to state that pharmacists who participate in the ballot and-or subsequently join Mandate have the constitutional right to strike and the threats of disciplinary action by the company are without foundation. I hope the Minister will echo that point to provide clarity for those workers.

I thank the Deputy. The Employment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2017 does not make rules for any one company that the Deputy is here to make representations about today. It is to make sure we have a fair and balanced approach for workers and their employers in every single company in the country. The benefit that casual employees will see when we pass the Bill is that, if they are on an if-and-when contract and they have worked an average number of hours over a 12-month reference period, they will be entitled to be placed on a band of hours that reflects the reality of their working hours. Therefore, it will not be as the Deputy has described in his reflections. Employers will also be obliged, by the fifth day of employment after starting, to give employees a list of detailed information with regard to who they work for, what their contract is and whether it is fixed-term, as well as the expected hours of work - all of this before day five. Employees on if-and-when contracts will also benefit from the new minimum compensation provisions so when they are given notice of work but they do not receive those hours of work, they will have to be paid, and we agreed during Committee Stage this payment will be for three hours. Finally, employees on these contracts will also benefit from the reinforced anti-penalisation provisions so, if an employer penalises them or even threatens to penalise them, or gets one of their friends down the road to penalise them when they are on their way to work, they will be entitled to exercise their rights under the Act, bring a case to the Workplace Relations Commission and have that case adjudicated on and the employer reprimanded in the most effective way possible, which is through its pocket.

Community Employment Schemes Supervisors

Willie O'Dea

Question:

44. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the steps she has taken following the passing of a motion in Dáil Éireann in relation to pension entitlements for community employment supervisors; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26408/18]

As the Minister will be aware, a motion on this matter was discussed comprehensively in the Dáil and overwhelmingly supported. When will the will of the Dáil be implemented in this regard?

Community employment scheme supervisors are employees of private companies in the community and voluntary sector who receive public funding and are not employees of my Department or public servants. While the motion calls for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to meet with unions with a view to addressing the issue of CE supervisors’ pensions provision, the issue is currently being examined by the community sector high level forum, chaired by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. A number of Departments, including my own, sit on that forum, as do the unions and Pobal.

A detailed scoping exercise was carried out with input from the Irish Government Economic and Evaluation Service on the potential costs of providing Exchequer support for the establishment of such a pension scheme for employees across the community and voluntary sector. The exercise clearly illustrated that this matter presents a very significant issue for the Exchequer, with a potential cost to the State of €188 million per year in respect of funding to enable an employer pension contribution in State-funded community and voluntary organisations, excluding any provision for immediate ex gratia lump sum payments of pensions as sought, which could, depending on the size of the sector, entail a further Exchequer cost of up to €318 million.

I am very conscious that while the issue relates to community employment supervisors and assistant supervisors, such individuals comprise just one small group within the wider community and voluntary sector. Any provision of State funding for such a scheme in respect of those employees could potentially give rise to claims for similar schemes on the part of those in the broader sector, thus crystallising the potential level of liability.

Any solution to the issue will require careful consideration given, in particular, the implications for scarce Exchequer resources. As soon as the high level committee meets, we will refer it back to the Dáil for further discussions.

I dispute the Minister's figure strongly. I regard the figure as absolute nonsense. Leaving that aside, I had occasion to meet the people in question last week. They were here and saw the Dáil in all its pomp and ceremony pass the motion on their behalf but they have not heard a single word from any source since. They asked me to ask the Minister to instruct her civil servants to meet them and apprise them of what is going on. The Minister said a high level committee was looking at the matter. When did that committee last meet? How many times has it met this year?

If the Deputy has an issue with the numbers, which clearly he does, I suggest he takes that up with the IGEES-----

I would be happy to.

-----which is the independent authority which came up with the scoping issue.

It depends on what one is calculating.

I cannot answer the Deputy's question as to how often the committee has met, because I do not know. However, I will find out for the Deputy. As for meeting CE supervisors, I do so when I visit CE schemes nationally and, on a more official level, my Department meets and communicates with them on a weekly basis. The best thing for me to do is write to the chairman of the committee to find out when it next plans to sit. I will revert to the Deputy as to his response.

Fuel Poverty

John Brady

Question:

45. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the levels of fuel poverty being experienced by low income households; her plans to undertake a review of the effectiveness of the fuel allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26577/18]

Due to time constraints, I suggest strongly that Deputy Brady forfeit his initial 30 seconds and allow the Minister to answer immediately.

The fuel allowance is a payment of €22.50 per week, paid for the duration of the fuel season from October to April. Over 364,000 low income households will benefit from this allowance at an estimated cost of €227 million in 2018. The purpose of the payment is to assist these households with their energy costs and it was never intended to meet those costs in full. My Department's schemes, including the fuel allowance scheme, are constantly reviewed to ensure that they are fulfilling their objectives. Recent changes to the scheme which helped increase its effectiveness include extending the duration of the scheme to 27 weeks and the introduction of an option to receive the fuel allowance payment in two lump sums, thereby allowing people to buy fuel in bulk and potentially avail of special offers or discounts. My Department also pays an electricity or gas allowance at an estimated cost of €237 million in 2018. Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, a special heating supplement may be paid to assist people in certain circumstances who have special heating needs. Exceptional needs payments may be made to help meet an essential, once-off cost which an applicant is unable to meet out of his or her own resources.

In 2016, the Government launched a comprehensive strategy to combat energy poverty following extensive public consultation. This strategy, which is being spearheaded by the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, sets out the Government's commitment to protecting vulnerable households from energy poverty through a combination of supports, investment in schemes to improve energy efficiency and energy efficiency awareness initiatives. One of the best ways to tackle fuel poverty in the long term is to improve the energy efficiency of the dwelling through proper building and household insulation. The warmer homes scheme administered by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland is designed to do that. Earlier this year, this scheme was expanded to include recipients of domiciliary care allowance and a further expansion to include carers is under consideration. The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment is reviewing the scheme and my officials will participate in that review.

Fuel poverty is a reality. That is not based merely on the anecdotal evidence of old-age pensioners trying to keep warm in public buildings across the State in the winter months; it is based on the evidence and on facts. The latest SILC report demonstrates that 29% of people living in consistent poverty are unable to keep their homes adequately warm. In January, I asked the Minister, on the basis of numerous debates and submissions to her, about the need to carry out a review of the fuel allowance payment within the Department. The payment is a key measure in addressing fuel poverty. The Minister replied to me that there was an issue with the incidence of fuel poverty. She further stated that while she was requested during the passage of the Social Welfare Bill to conduct an inquiry as to the changes the Government might make regarding social transfers, she could not agree to do so as it was not within the remit of her Department. However, she said she had found a back door to do what was sought to be achieved and would conduct the review over the coming weeks with a view to examining the rates of payment and the periods of time during which they are made. The Minister said that it had to be acknowledged that the price of fuel had increased. Where is the review and can we see what was contained in it? What recommendations, more importantly, came out of it?

I agree with the Deputy that the vast majority of households experiencing fuel poverty do so because they are unable to keep their houses warm. As such, income supports are only part of the answer. In many cases, in fact, they are not even a big part of the answer. The best way to tackle fuel poverty in the long term is to improve the energy efficiency of houses through proper building and retrospective fitting of insulation. Initiatives like the warmer homes scheme operated by the SEAI under the aegis of the Department of my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment, Deputy Denis Naughten, have a very valuable role to play in that context, as does funding from the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government to improve the quality of existing local authority houses. I told the Deputy during conversations at the social welfare committee at the beginning of the year that I would inform myself on any changes I might make with regard to budget negotiations this year and am in the process of doing that. Part of that information was the report I was waiting on from Maynooth. There was no point creating the wheel when it was already there and the college was already reviewing fuel poverty. We are waiting for the final outlay from that. The report will feed into other information we have in the Department and prove valuable in our budgetary discussions and deliberations later in the year.

In that case, the review the Minister was talking about still has not been published.

That is why I am waiting on it.

That is not what the Minister said in her contribution in January. She said she had found a back door to assess this. The evidence is all there and we know fuel costs have increased. In its pre-budget submission, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul told us that 48% of people went without heating in 2017 due to the cost. The society spends in the region of €4.3 million trying to help people in consistent poverty to keep their homes warm. While it is administered across a number of Departments, the fuel allowance is a key measure to alleviate fuel poverty. It could be done in a number of ways. Following cuts made over a number of years, the payment period for fuel allowance is down to 27 weeks. A key and quick measure would be reintroducing a 32 week period. A cold weather measure could also be introduced. Is that something which could be looked at, not on an ad hoc basis annually, but on a statutory basis?

The fuel allowance this year will amount to €227 million while €237 million has been provided for electricity and gas payments. Further millions have been provided under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and the exceptional needs payment scheme. The problem here is that heat is going straight up the chimney. The real way to future-proof people living in consistent fuel poverty is to ensure the heat stays in their houses. The only way to do that is to upgrade our local authority housing stock retrospectively, which can be done through the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government, and to ensure there are SEAI grants for everyone else with an older house which requires proper insulation using the great stuff that will keep us warm. If the money is increased, that is great, but when people pay for coal or gas, the heat must stay in their houses.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Top
Share