Vol. 1038 No. 6
72. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide an update on her Department's review of the extension of the free travel scheme to people with epilepsy; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24660/23]
This week is national epilepsy week. I am raising a very important issue which matters to people with epilepsy, namely, improved access to the free travel scheme for people with epilepsy. As the Minister will be aware, epilepsy is a complex individual condition. People living with it face a wide range of challenges. We are awaiting a final report from the Department on proposals Epilepsy Ireland made on this issue. Why has this report not been finalised? Will the Minister give a commitment on when it will be ready?
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter.
The free travel scheme provides free travel on the main public and private transport services for those eligible under the scheme. There are over 1 million users with direct eligibility. The estimated expenditure on free travel in 2023 is €95 million.
It is important to note that, in general, access to a free travel pass for those aged under 66 is a secondary benefit linked to a person being in receipt of certain primary social protection payments from my Department such as disability allowance, invalidity pension, carer's allowance and blind pension.
As many illnesses or physical conditions have an impact ranging from mild to severe, entitlement to these social welfare schemes is not provided on the basis of a diagnosis but on the basis of the impact of that diagnosis on the individual concerned and, in the case of disability and carer's allowance, on an assessment of his or her means. In this way, resources can be targeted to people in most need.
I am aware of an ongoing campaign by Epilepsy Ireland. I fully recognise the issues and difficulties that can arise where a person diagnosed with epilepsy is unable to drive as a result of his or her condition. I have met with representatives of Epilepsy Ireland to discuss its proposal in detail. Following the meeting, I asked my officials to examine the issues raised in relation to access to the free travel scheme. I am awaiting a report from my officials on the issues raised by Epilepsy Ireland. I expect to receive the report shortly and will carefully consider its contents and any recommendations it may contain. I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
We could do with a little more information. As the Minister will be aware, there are 40,000 people living with epilepsy in Ireland. With the right treatment regime, 70% of people diagnosed with epilepsy can become seizure free but for 30%, their condition will be more challenging due to the nature and impact of uncontrolled seizures.
Almost all diagnoses of epilepsy in adults come with restrictions on driving. This typically occurs without time to plan and prepare and can lead to major challenges and upheaval in a person's family, social and working life while he or she is learning to cope with a neurological diagnosis. Persons with epilepsy who hold a driver's licence and experiences a breakthrough seizure will lose their licence for a further 12 months until they become one-year seizure free. Many of the people with long-term uncontrolled epilepsy, who make up 30% of diagnoses, will never be able to hold a driver's licence.
The fundamental issue is that the State tells these people that they cannot drive, which is reasonable, and they get assistance with their transport. As the Minister will understand, the way to go about this is through the free travel scheme.
I appreciate the points the Deputy is making. I know people who have epilepsy and it is not easy for them. If someone loses his or her licence due to a seizure, that is an awful place to be. I understand that.
As I said, I met with Epilepsy Ireland last year because I wanted to discuss this matter to see what I could do. The problem I have, one that the officials in the Department are at pains to point out to me, is that the free travel pass is linked to the social welfare payment the person receives, whether that is a pension, a disability payment or another payment. It is not based on the person's medical condition or illness but on the payment. If we were to break that link, it would be a fundamental change in how the scheme is run and I imagine it would give rise to calls from other groups. For example, if someone with epilepsy were to get access to the scheme, what about someone who cannot drive because he or she has multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease? I am not saying we should not do it but it is a big change. It has wider implications and for that reason, it needs to be considered carefully.
I take the Minister's point but in the majority of the examples that one could give of people with other conditions, the individuals in question will already have a qualifying payment. Many people will be on disability allowance or invalidity allowance because of their condition and will be entitled to free travel in any event. I am not sure we are talking about a large number of additional people receiving free travel.
I appreciate this would be a significant departure. However, given that free travel was provided to people with certain conditions many decades ago, prior to the introduction of the qualifying payments, it is not an unreasonable proposal.
The Minister stated she was hoping she would have the report shortly. "Shortly" can mean many things in these Houses. Can the Minister give us a better sense of what precisely it means in this case?
As soon as I get the report, I will see what it says and consider it carefully. The first person I need to talk to is the Minister for Transport, Deputy Eamon Ryan, because the Government has made some very positive changes recently in reducing the cost of public transport, particularly for young people.
Perhaps we need to consider that in circumstances where someone is medically certified as being unable to drive or loses his or her driver's licence due to a medical condition, he or she should have an automatic entitlement to a free travel pass regardless of income or whether he or she is in receipt of a welfare payment. That could be the fairest way to deal with this. However, that would probably need to be led by or at least have substantial input from the Minister for Transport.
I am aware, as the Deputy is, that some pensioners, including many farmers, who have a free travel pass never use it, while other people who cannot get a pass have a genuine need for free travel as it would make a huge difference to their lives and in allowing them to live independently. I would like to do something in this area but, as with everything I do, I have to look at the wider consequences.
I am committed to getting the report from my officials, hopefully, in the next few weeks, and we will take the matter from there.
73. Deputy Sean Sherlock asked the Minister for Social Protection if she has had regard to a report by the Irish Hospice Foundation on the real financial impact of bereavement; and, if so, her views on the report. [25017/23]
I ask the Minister for Social Protection if she has had regard to a report by the Irish Hospice Foundation on the real financial impact of bereavement and, if so, her views on it. I thank and pay tribute to the Irish Hospice Foundation, which recently provided an Oireachtas briefing in which it highlighted its study on the importance of supports for people who are bereaved.
I thank the Deputy for raising this matter.
The Irish Hospice Foundation, IHF, secured a grant of €60,000 for research in budget 2020 from the then Minister for Social Protection. The purpose of this research was to carry out an exploratory investigation into the economics of bereavement in Ireland, a topic that had not yet been studied in this country and represented a knowledge gap. As my Department provides a range of supports for people following bereavement, this research appeared to be a logical step in supporting people in their time of grief.
While initially the research was to be conducted in one year, the Covid-19 pandemic resulted in it being delayed and conducted over two years. The IHF delivered its summary report, The Real Financial Impact of Bereavement, late last year.
The findings of the report are that the costs of bereavement are complex and interlinked. They include increased spending due to funeral costs, a loss of income and earnings, financial impacts on a person’s health or well-being and an impact on a person’s employment.
While most of the recommendations are wider than the remit of my Department, I was pleased that resources from my Department enabled the carrying out of this important research given that getting an insight, for the first time in Ireland, into the economics of bereavement is very valuable. The report demonstrates that the financial impacts of bereavement are much broader than the immediate costs associated with a funeral. The stress of dealing with a bereavement extends beyond the management of finances. This research will be of benefit to all relevant stakeholders in dealing with issues that relate to the costs associated with bereavement.
The Minister is correct; the report covers a broad array of subject matters. There is one recommendation, however, where there is a clear articulation of the view, through the surveys that were carried out, of the need to provide greater signposting regarding, in particular, access to the supplementary welfare allowance for funeral costs. That resonated with me because all of us, as public representatives, are proactive in assisting our constituents to access the supplementary welfare allowance for funeral costs, but it has become obvious to me now that not everybody is aware of that service. The service is invaluable because it takes a lot of pressure off families who need support. Could greater emphasis be put on providing greater signposting towards that service within the Department regarding the supplementary welfare allowance and exceptional or additional needs payments when it comes to funeral services?
We had a major national campaign last year to promote and raise awareness of additional needs payments. There were adverts on the radio and in the newspapers, and there was also an extensive social media campaign. We made a number of changes to simplify the process and make it easier for people to apply, and I am pleased to inform the House we recently introduced an online application process for additional needs payments. A number of Deputies had been asking for that and I am glad it is now in place. On top of that, our team of community welfare officers, CWOs, is based in more than 50 Intreo offices. They are there every week, Monday to Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., so people can call in to them. There is also a national phoneline people can call to get in touch with their local community welfare officer, who can then arrange to meet them in person by appointment or even arrange to visit their house, if appropriate.
In fairness, I tried this out myself this evening. I googled "support for funeral costs" and one of the very first results related to information on additional needs payments and how to apply, and it showed that the SWA5 is the form that needs to be completed. I am happy to get the news out there.
I thank the Minister. Even having this interaction with her is one way for us to highlight the issue. I acknowledge the campaign, although I have some issues with it given it was effectively a cost-of-living crisis campaign for working families in the main. Nevertheless, while I have some reservations about what I perceive to be the centralisation of services, we all acknowledge it must move online and there is no question about that. I still fear the gradual and slow diminution of the CWO service, but that is for another day.
I acknowledge what the Minister is saying. If there were a small budget line to work with, for instance, for organisations such as the Irish Hospice Foundation or other NGOs or voluntary bodies to get out the message regarding access to supplementary welfare allowance schemes for funeral services, that would be welcome.
I thank the Deputy. He and I both know funerals are a very tough time for a family, without the additional stress of worrying about the costs and so on. If people need help, therefore, they should look up the website and apply online, or call or visit their local Intreo office. Funeral directors tend to be quite good at directing people to these services.
I am happy to talk to my officials to see whether we can carry out some further promotional work with a focus on funeral costs. We can do it through the likes of Citizens Information, which is a very good service. Its website was the first result when I did my search earlier and the next was mywelfare.ie, and the information was given. The Deputy will be aware I am bringing forward a Bill to make it easier to register deaths, so perhaps we can do something around that. As he said, his raising the issue will foster awareness that supports are available and that we want to help people.
74. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the fact that adult dependants were excluded from the recent €200 cost-of-living bonus payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24661/23]
A week or two after the recent cost-of-living bonus payment was made to families, I started getting calls, primarily from pensioners, who were shocked and surprised that they had not received the €200 cost-of-living payment. These people are adult dependants on a social welfare payment. This seems grossly unfair because they were given to believe they would qualify as they get the Christmas bonus. Those who are affected by this are predominantly from low-income households.
Last September, I announced the largest social protection budget in the history of the State, providing more than €2.2 million in supports. This was in recognition of the pressures facing households due to the increasing cost of living. In addition to the substantial package of supports provided as part of the budget, in February I announced a further €410 million spring bonus package of social protection measures. The €200 cost-of-living bonus payment made in April is one of a range of these supports. This €200 lump sum was paid for each eligible person who had an entitlement to a primary payment in their own right. The payment was made in the week commencing 24 April to more than 1.2 million people in receipt of long-term social welfare payments at a cost of approximately €260 million.
The Government provided the €200 bonus last month as part of an overall package of measures that has been provided throughout 2022 and into this year. This programme of measures includes both broad measures, such as rate increases, and targeted measures, which support certain groups in society. Delivery of these measures is continuing throughout 2023, with upcoming supports in the programme targeting children through the delivery of measures in respect of child benefit, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and school meals as we come into the summer.
My Government colleagues and I have clearly stated we are keeping the cost of living under review and have acted decisively, as necessary, time and again.
I thank the Minister for what was a very substantial and excellent answer to a different question. It certainly did not answer mine, which related to dependants who did not receive the cost-of-living bonus payment. She offered nothing regarding her views on that or the rationale for the decision. The precedent in respect of bonus payments, insofar as there are any, relates to the Christmas bonus, which has been paid for the past four or five years. There was a period when it was not paid but it was also paid prior to the recession. Throughout that time, adult dependants got the Christmas bonus. There is no precedent for adult dependants not receiving a bonus payment.
These people were led to believe, in the initial discussions that led to the payment, as I understand it, that they were to receive it. They had no sense they were not going to get it. Often, it is six of one, half a dozen of the other as to whether an elderly couple will go for two payments, or one as an adult dependant on another payment. The qualifying conditions do not vary greatly. People would have been expecting the payment and relying on it to put food on the table and pay bills. Why were they not included and why did they not get it?
I think we are talking about two different issues. A double payment and a lump-sum payment are not the same. Qualified adults who are not in receipt of a primary payment in their own right did not receive a lump-sum payment, but the October double payment and the Christmas bonus were both double payments, so a person in receipt of the primary payment received double his or her overall weekly payment inclusive of any additional payments for qualified adults.
The €200 spring payment is different. It is not a double payment. It is an extra €200 lump sum added to a person's primary payment. For example, for someone on a long-term jobseeker's payment, the standard jobseeker's payment is €220 while the qualified adult rate is €146. That household received one €200 lump sum payment. The two individuals do not receive two separate €200 lump sum payments. It is important to understand that my Department makes its payments on the basis of the primary payment so for example a pensioner might add her husband as a qualified adult onto her payment but at the same time he might decide to apply in his own right. People make those choices themselves. Some are dependants and some are there in their own right. This payment was made to the primary payment recipient.
I understand what happened. What I do not understand is the rationale for why it happened. There could be two couples living next door to each, number 3 and number 4 on Connolly or Pearse Road or whatever you want to call it. Those two elderly people could have individual payments and their neighbours, one as an adult dependant, and neither would have ever anticipated they might lose out on a payment such as this because they applied for that payment. There is a great deal of shock about this for those families and individuals who are affected. They came to expect the payment. Perhaps the Minister will say if this is not the case, but as I understand it, her Department was initially going to pay it to dependants also. Will the Minister make a comment on that? I do not believe it is too late. Will she look at this now and consider extending the payment to adult dependants? It is the right thing to do, it is not too late, and people are under enormous pressure. This €200 was expected. People had it allocated to a particular bill or set of shopping. They should get it too.
The Government made a decision that 1.2 million people would receive €260 million in supports as part of the spring payments. We have taken a number of different steps to help people with the cost of living. That has included increases to weekly payments, double payments, and has also included lump-sum payments. At the end of last year, the Deputy will remember we had the double payment in October and at Christmas and we also had lump-sum payments - we had a €400 lump sum on the fuel allowance, €500 lump sum carer's support grant and a €500 lump sum for disability payments. The Government's decision in terms of the spring package was that it would be a €200 lump-sum payment. That is what the Government decided, that is what my Department did and it was paid at the end of April.
75. Deputy Gary Gannon asked the Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the possible effects on pensioner poverty of the proposed total contributions approach, given that it deals on a pro rata basis with people who do not qualify for the maximum payment, rather than using bands which serve to uplift the benefit people receive, as under the current averaging system; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25023/23]
I ask the Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the possible effects on pensioner poverty of the proposed total contributions approach, given that it deals on a pro rata basis with people who do not qualify for the maximum payment, rather than using bands which serve to uplift the benefit people receive, as under the current averaging system; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
The State pension is the bedrock of the pension system in Ireland. It is extremely effective at ensuring that our pensioners do not experience poverty. This Government is committed to ensuring that this remains the case for current pensioners, those nearing State pension age and today’s young workers, including those who are only starting their careers. One of the landmark reforms to the State pension system I announced last September is a ten-year phased transition to the total contributions approach and the abolition of the yearly average method. This fairer system, which removes existing anomalies with the yearly averaging system, will calculate the pension payments based on the number of social insurance contributions made by a person over his or her working life, with significant pension credits granted to people who have taken time out of the workplace for caring responsibilities. During a transition period, individual pension rates will be based on the best of the total contributions approach, or a rate based on a mix of the yearly average and total contributions approaches, with the proportion accounted for by yearly average reducing from 90% to zero over ten years and the proportion accounted for by the total contributions approach increasing commensurately. We are phasing it in over ten years. Officials in my Department are currently working on the legislation and the systems to support the introduction of this change, which will be effective from 2024. For those who will not receive the maximum rate of payment, the non-contributory State pension will remain available. The means-tested payment can be paid at up to 95% of the contributory pension. Alternatively, they may qualify for an increase for a qualified adult based on their own means, amounting up to 90% of the contributory pension where their spouse has a contributory pension. I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
No, not really. I realise I am stating the obvious in saying that paying a lower State pension to a larger number of pensioners would lead to higher levels of poverty among older people in this country. However, I have to say it, because we fear that is what will happen under the total contributions approach. There is a certain minimum amount of money that older people need to retire with dignity. Acknowledgement of this fact was presumably behind the design of the current pension system where the tapering off of the payment is much less severe than it would have been under the straightforward pro rata system. Now we are bringing in a pro rata system and I do not hear any discussion about the repercussions for older people. I can email the Minister an example of a calculation I have done where someone working for 20 years would see their pension under the total contributions approach halved compared to what it would be under the current system. That person would not be alone. Most people are totally unaware this change is coming and some are unaware of what it means for them.
As the Deputy knows, when this Government was formed we established the Pensions Commission to look at the whole area of pensions. Countries all over the world are grappling with how to meet pension costs into the future; one only has to look at what happened in France a few weeks ago. After the Pensions Commission completed its work, I secured Government approval for a range of measures on pensions. We are keeping the State pension age at 66 so anybody who wants to retire at this age will be able to do that. In order to pay for that, there will need to be incremental increases in PRSI rates. We are introducing new flexibility so that people who want to work for longer will be able to do so. That will be particularly attractive for people who want to improve their contribution record in order to qualify for a higher pension. We will provide a pension to long-term carers and then will move gradually over a ten-year period to the total contributions approach. That was a key recommendation of the Pensions Commission. I am happy to accept it because it is the fairest way to calculate a pension. Under the current system, a person could start working at 55, work until 66 and get a full pension. On the other hand, you could have a person who worked for 30 years, had gaps in their contribution record and they would qualify for a smaller pension. I do not believe that is fair.
How many people start working at 55? I do not think that is a fair analysis.
Older people in Ireland usually have the lowest rates in poverty and deprivation of any age group. The State pension is solely responsible for this. At any one time, 85% of older people in Ireland would live below the poverty line if it were not for the State pension. Even for better off pensioners who do not rely solely on the State pension, the State pension is usually the most important single source of income in their retirement. The current system recognises that. That is why people who have only paid half the PRSI weeks they would need for a full pension, only lose out by €40. That is recognition of the fact that half the pension just would not be enough on which to even survive, never mind live. I strongly urge the Minister and the Department to proceed cautiously with any system change.
I would love to know about the analysis done by the Minister to this point. Will she release that analysis in terms of its ramifications because I do not think there are many examples of a person starting work at 55 and being able to claim a pension at 66? There is a bit of hyperbole brought into that analysis and I would like to see a stronger calculation analysis.
There could be a case where somebody did not pay any PRSI - was self-employed or for whatever reason - who then started paying PRSI ten years before their pension age and then got a full pension. I do not think that is fair. The total contributions approach will do what it says on the tin. A person's pension will be based on the number of contributions he or she paid in. It is going to happen gradually so over a ten-year period, the yearly average approach will be gradually weaned out and that minimises the impact for people.
Existing pensioners will remain as is. It will only happen to new pensioners and will not start until 2025, so it will be 2035 by the time the yearly average approach has been phased out completely. That is 12 years away. At the minute, a pensioner gets whichever is most favourable, whether it is the total contributions or the yearly average. The total contributions approach is fairer. Phasing out the yearly average approach was recommended by the Pensions Commission and, together with increases to PRSI, the measure will help us keep the pension age at 66.
76. Deputy Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide an update on the tender for EmployAbility that was due to be published in April 2023; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24662/23]
EmployAbility services provide sustainable employment opportunities for people with a long-term illness, injury or disability and support them into employment. There is currently supposed to be a process to EmployAbility service contracts put out to tender, similar to the tendering of local employment services and job club services over the past two years. I urge the Minister to avoid changing the payment model for EmployAbility under the upcoming tender, which was due to be published in April. When can we expect it?
I thank the Deputy for raising this. My Department currently provides employment services for people with disabilities through 23 EmployAbility-contracted service providers across the State. My officials have commenced a procurement process to update current EmployAbility services to comply with legal advice from the Attorney General and Chief State Solicitor’s office and to meet the Department’s objective of shifting emphasis from financial monitoring of service providers to focusing on service quality for clients.
It is not the intention of this procurement to significantly change the services currently provided to clients. The proposed new EmployAbility contract model aims to enhance the autonomy of the service providers, giving them more control over financial and staffing decisions to enable them to provide a high quality employment service for people with disabilities.
Stakeholder engagement is a key aspect of this procurement and my officials have met with each EmployAbility service provider individually in recent months to discuss the planned procurement process. This engagement will continue until the publication of the request for tender planned for later this year.
I have arranged to meet with the chairs of all the EmployAbility companies so that I can hear their views directly on the forthcoming process. I look forward to a positive engagement with them later this week.
In addition, my Department is examining what practical assistance can be provided to ensure a level playing field, removing any obstacles for existing service providers to the submission of a competitive tender. It is in everyone’s interests that my Department continues to provide a quality employment service for people with disabilities and my officials will continue to work with all stakeholders on the best way to achieve this while ensuring contracts are legally compliant. I trust this provides clarity regarding my Department's current proposals in this regard.
The Minister mentioned that it was her responsibility to ensure her Department provided these services. The fear regarding a tender is it will not be the Department but somebody else on behalf of the Department who will offer these services. It is crucial the Department learns the lessons from the previous tender process that saw community-based, not-for-profit employment services dismantled and the commodification of people seeking employment through the implementation of what appears to be a profit-focused model. We stood against the privatisation of employment services and continue to oppose a payments-by-results model for job activation and employment supports. In particular, EmployAbility services support people with long-term illness, injury and disabilities and it is not appropriate to implement a model that seeks to place them in any job whatsoever, regardless of suitability, which payment by results can lead to. These are some of our most vulnerable citizens. I am hearing from people that clients and staff are extremely stressed because this has not gone away. It seems to be pushed back but there is great uncertainty about timing and what will happen next.
I have very little choice here because the legal advice from the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor’s office is that we are in breach of procurement law and these services have to go out to tender. I want to put the Deputy’s mind at ease. I recall last year every time the Deputy’s predecessor, Deputy Kerrane, and I came in here for parliamentary questions, Deputy Kerrane said the existing providers would lose out under the new tender process for the local area employment service. She said they would be decimated. What actually happened was the existing local groups won in every area. Community-based, not-for-profit organisations provide local area employment services across the country and we expanded the services to more areas so we could make sure everybody gets the benefit of it. I was talking to one provider the other day and he said it was the best thing that happened because they have more flexibility and autonomy in managing their affairs and that it is working much better for everyone. He said it worked out a lot better than they had thought, and I said I was glad.
That lady or gentleman is not any of the people I have been speaking to about their experience of it. If the Minister is getting legal advice from the Attorney General or Chief State Solicitor, I am sure they will tell her if a tender is put out then anyone can win and she cannot guarantee the outcome of it. They will tell her in any such process the outcome cannot be decided by the Department and cannot be decided by them either. It is all about the terms and conditions the Minister puts forward. Perhaps she will be able to put forward terms and conditions such that only community providers can win but I doubt it will be possible to do that legally.
That is what she did last year.
It is not the Deputy's question in fairness.
I do not believe this is necessary. It is possible to provide them the autonomy necessary, if that is the issue, without a tendering process. We need to avoid a for-profit model. We need not look very far. We can look across the water and see the dangers a results-based model can lead to.
As I said, I spoke to one of the providers last week. He had been against it and had said it would not work and he genuinely said to me it is working. The providers have more money as well, and that is helpful in making sure they provide the service.
I am meeting the chairs of every EmployAbility company on Thursday morning. I want to hear what their concerns are and how we can work with them to address those concerns. There is clear legal advice so we have to do something but I want to make sure we get it right. My ultimate priority is the service user, the person with a disability who we are trying to help. I want to make sure whatever we do, we get it right for them. In fairness to Deputy McAuliffe, he is close to one of the schemes in his constituency. I took on board the concerns raised and I think there are others who will be able to say this is working well. I will listen to them all on Thursday morning because we want to try to make sure the person with the disability gets the best possible service.
