Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection debate -
Wednesday, 17 Sep 2014

Review of Vote 37: Minister for Social Protection

We will now discuss expenditure at the Department of Social Protection. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister and her officials to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. The opening statement submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after this meeting. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Once again, I ask that everyone puts his or her mobile phone in aeroplane mode or switches it off completely.

The purpose of today's meeting is to conduct a mid-year review of the position regarding expenditure in the Department of Social Protection for 2014, with a particular focus on performance and output related data and also to consider the Department's proposals for 2015. It is intended that this mid-year review will become an annual feature of the joint committee's ongoing scrutiny of expenditure. I welcome the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton and her officials.

A timetable for today's meeting has been circulated which allows for a brief opening statement by the Minister to be followed by a discussion of each programme in the Estimate. Is that agreed? Agreed. I now invite the Minister to make a brief opening statement.

I thank the Chairman and members of this committee for the invitation extended to me to appear before the committee to consider further the social protection Vote for 2014, to review the mid-year position and to look ahead to budget 2015. My officials have provided members with briefing material which I hope will assist us in our deliberations today. I propose to give a brief overview of some of the structural reforms to the Department since I became Minister and to quickly go through the key points in the briefing in order to inform and begin our discussions. I welcome the views of members and and look forward to their engagement and our discussion.

The service traditionally provided by the Department of Social Protection in providing income supports has continued and, despite the need to stabilise Government finances, the welfare system continues to play a very positive role in protecting those who need our support. I will return to this aspect later. One of my main priorities since becoming Minister has been to transform the Department from the passive benefits provider of old to one that is actively assisting jobseekers to return to work, including engagement with employers to help them get the employees they need.

Under Pathways to Work, the Government has set out a comprehensive reform of the State's approach to helping unemployed jobseekers return to work. Since its launch, the programme of work has seen the roll-out of 44 Intreo one-stop-shop centres throughout the country; the introduction of group engagement whereby all new jobseekers are briefed on the services available to them; the profiling of every client on the live register to help prioritise and direct interventions; the introduction of a case management system whereby jobseekers receive scheduled one-to-one interviews with case officers based on their profile; the introduction of a social contract of rights and responsibilities between jobseekers and the State through the record of mutual commitment; the creation of an employer engagement unit in the Department to start the process of building effective relationships with employers; and the formation of the labour market council.

Signs of economic recovery are becoming tangible. The most recent live register figures published by the CSO show that unemployment continues to decline, with the standardised unemployment rate falling to 11.2% in August from a crisis peak of 15.1% in early 2012. These statistics, together with the latest quarterly national household survey and the end of August Exchequer figures indicate that as the economy is strengthening, our jobs market thankfully is recovering. The number of people at work has increased by more than 75,000 since the recovery began in 2012.

While we are beginning to see a positive turn in our domestic economy, it is important and necessary that we help those who have been hit by the recession to get back on the ladder of recovery as quickly as possible. Since the lowest point of the jobs crisis, long-term unemployment has fallen from 9.5% to 6.8%. These positive trends are very welcome and in line with the Government's Pathways to Work objectives. The Government has greater ambition for those citizens who are unfortunate enough to be unemployed.

In addition to deep-rooted reforms, I have prioritised efforts to combat social welfare fraud. The vast majority of people on social welfare are claiming only the entitlement due to them. As such, it is essential that we respect the majority - and taxpayers and PRSI payers who fund the system - and maintain public confidence in the system by vigorously tackling any fraudulent activity within the social welfare system.

I have spoken to the committee previously about the public services card. We have also begun the phased introduction of the public services card with key security features, including a biometric standard photo and signature, which will be used to authenticate identity of individuals. As of last week, we have issued in excess of 910,000 cards, of which 240,000 are the free travel variant, mainly to our retired citizens. These new cards will enable individuals to gain access to public services more efficiently and with a minimum duplication of effort while at the same time preserving their privacy to the maximum extent possible. They will also play a crucial role in eliminating fraud in the social welfare system.

The clearance of backlogs in all areas continues to be a major priority in the Department. Considerable progress has been made in recent years in this regard. It is worth noting that the number of pending claims, that is, claims being processed, has almost halved since the end of 2010, falling from more than 118,000 to just under 62,000 at the end of July last, a drop of 56,000. This has been achieved, as members are aware, through a combination of updating IT systems, introducing significant processing efficiencies and a quicker and more responsive service to our customers in the face of increased claim loads in recent years. I thank the staff and management of the Department for the huge effort they put into this and their great enthusiasm for getting better service to people who use the Department's services.

The number of appeals in hand has also fallen dramatically. The number continues to decline from more than 20,000 at the start of 2013 to under 14,800 at the start of 2014, and I am happy to say it has further reduced to just over 10,000 on 1 September 2014.

I return to our consideration of the 2014 Revised Estimates. Table 1.1 on page 6 of the briefing shows departmental expenditure by the various programmes we operate. Table 1.3 shows that 80% of expenditure is incurred by a relatively small number of schemes.

Other than expenditure on child benefit, respite care grant and domiciliary care allowance, members may wish to note that the expenditure outlined in this table relates to the cost of the weekly rates of payment for the recipients involved. It does not include the cost of supplementary benefits, such as the free travel, fuel allowance and the household benefits package.

As everybody knows, Ireland has had to stabilise its Government's finances over recent years. As I mentioned, it is sometimes forgotten in this context that the welfare system continues to play a key role in our society, and I have ensured that the necessary resources have been made available where required. This is very evident in the overall expenditure in two important areas, namely, that devoted to carers and pensioners since 2010. I draw members' attention to the very significant rise in both spend and numbers, notwithstanding the pressure the country has been under.

Total expenditure by the Department on carers has increased from just under €752 million in 2010 to almost €806 million in 2014. This is an increase of €53.9 million or 7.2%. The overall number of caring recipients has increased from just over 76,000 in 2010 to almost 84,000 recipients in 2014. This is an increase of 7,815 people in receipt of carer payments, an increase of 10.3%, notwithstanding the acute financial crisis of which we are all aware.

Likewise, the 2014 Estimates provided for expenditure of €6.5 billion for pensions, up from €5.9 billion in 2010, an increase of more than €600 million or 10.3%, which is a really big level of increase. The number of pensioners funded from the Department's pension programme has increased from 494,000 in 2010 to in excess of 587,000 in 2014, an increase of 93,000 or 18.9%. We have prioritised those payments to the additional number of pensioners coming through at an average of almost €200 million a year to provide for almost 100,000 additional pensioners. We have a democratic dividend in Ireland in terms of more older people retiring and living longer, and we have a demographic bonus relating to the numbers of young children and our very strong population growth. Of course, these demographic pressures result in extra money being paid and I am happy to say I have been able to prioritise and provide for that.

The Department will spend €19.6 billion this year on a wide range of schemes and services. At the end of June more than 1.44 million persons were in receipt of a weekly payment in respect of almost 2.3 million beneficiaries, as well as a further 607,000 families in receipt of a monthly child benefit payment in respect of more than 1 million children. The scale of the numbers alone means that our payments and services impact on the lives of almost everybody in the State in one way or another. Social transfers play a pivotal role in alleviating poverty and cushioning people from the worst effects of rising unemployment and falling incomes. They are essential in supporting well-being and reducing inequalities through the redistribution of income, therefore helping to promote social solidarity in society. In addition, the importance of welfare spending as a key tool in stabilising demand in the economy is recognised both at home and abroad.

I held a pre-budget forum on Friday, 4 July last in Dublin Castle. It was attended by 37 voluntary and community groups. The purpose of the annual forum is to provide such organisations with an opportunity to have an input into the budget process. I value such meetings enormously. This year’s forum included a number of workshops on specific themes such as children and families, illness and disability, poverty and social inclusion and housing supports.

In terms of budget 2015, the Government made a number of commitments in the Statement of Government Priorities 2014-2016 which I concluded with an Taoiseach in the context of the formation of the new Cabinet in July. I wish to draw the attention of members to three elements of the agreement which reflect on social welfare commitments. The first is to increase the household benefits package by €100, in part to compensate older people and other vulnerable groups for the introduction of water charges. It is a water support payment which we estimate will cost approximately €42 million, which will extend to people aged over 70, carers, families who receive a domiciliary care allowance in respect of a child with special needs and people with disabilities who are on a disability payment. It goes to some of the most important groups in society. I estimate the payment will go to about 410,000 households.

We have committed to the full retention of the free travel scheme. It was never in doubt, but I know people raised concerns earlier in the summer. We have committed to introducing measures to assist low-income families by improving the system of child income supports such that those moving from welfare to work will retain payments for children to ensure that people are better off in work. That is a fundamental reform. People might wish to ask about it but I have told Deputies previously that we have significantly increased the amount of money we spend on family income supplement, FIS. As of now, expenditure on it is approximately €280 million for this year but it will be higher next year. For families with children it will be an additional support which will increase the incentive for people with children to go back to work.

On foot of the latter commitment I have asked the Department to bring forward options to smooth the transition from welfare to work and to ensure that families are encouraged and able to avail of an employment opportunity. The work is nearing completion. The specific aim is to provide an additional incentive for families who are long-term unemployed to move from a social welfare payment into employment, including, importantly, self-employment. The working family dividend scheme will allow such individuals to retain a portion of their previous social welfare payment which relates to their children, the QCI, for a period after they leave the welfare system. I look forward to progressing the scheme in the forthcoming budget.

Overall, €19.6 billion was allocated to the Department for 2014. Department of Social Protection expenditure in the year to date is very close to that target. Recent Exchequer returns indicate that Ireland’s financial position continues to improve. However, it is too early to say what the precise implications are for budget 2015, but the latest returns indicate another positive step forward. We have four more months of returns and it is clear that the September returns in the context of the budget date will be particularly important. When account is taken of once-off factors in 2013, the Exchequer deficit is nearly €2.4 billion better than last year. That represents real progress in stabilising the finances. I am conscious that almost everyone in the country has contributed to us getting to that point from where we were following 2008. However, we need to be cautious at this stage as 40% of total tax revenues are received in the last four months of the year.

My colleagues and I will give detailed consideration to the coming budget over the next few weeks. Our priority is to meet our deficit target of 3%. The emerging economic and Exchequer data mean that we now have a somewhat more positive environment over the next few years in making budgetary decisions than this Government faced in its first three years. I caution against expectations of a so-called giveaway budget along the lines of the Celtic tiger years. The key achievement of the Government has been to stabilise the nation's finances, to increase employment and to achieve economic growth. This endeavour is well under way and we can look forward to reaping the benefits in a sustainable way in years to come. I hope the briefing gives committee members a good overview of the Department's expenditure in 2014 and the challenges and opportunities ahead in 2015.

I thank the Minister. We will now consider the Revised Estimate and proposed expenditure and performance for 2014 for each programme. We have an order in which committee members speak. It is Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the Technical Group, the Government and then Deputies and Senators in the order in which they raise their hands, followed by non-committee Members. First, we will consider the pensions programme. I refer members to page 13 of the Department's brief and to page 5 of the committee secretariat's notes.

I thank the Minister for her presentation. We were talking in the first session about pensions. I note that the figure for expenditure on pensions is €6.5 billion, which represents one in three euro spent on the social welfare budget. That is considerable expenditure. I will not delay the committee because I see that we have only about 20 minutes to discuss the matter. The position is that if one looks at the figures as a whole, it is obvious that this is the area in which one will face increased liabilities in the years to come, due as the Minister pointed out, to demography. The Department estimates that the pensions bill will increase by up to €1 billion in the next five years due to an increased number of recipients. The Minister will be aware that there are various suggestions as to how the matter should be addressed. For example, there is an OECD report. There is also a report from Social Justice Ireland on a universal pension scheme and there is a Department of Social Protection document dating back to 2010. Various other proposals also exist. What is the position on the reports as we face into this huge demographic crisis, where according to the figures, the ratio of people earning to people not earning is going to reduce substantially by 2050? What, if any, action has been taken on the reports and what action is it proposed to take?

When one is facing a crisis like this, one of the obvious partial solutions is to encourage people to provide for themselves, buy their own pensions and, therefore, take themselves off being dependent on the State. What specific proposals do we have to encourage people to provide for themselves?

I note the bereavement grant is part of this subhead. The savings made on the abolition of the bereavement grant are approximately €21 million. When we were discussing this in the Dáil, the Minister informed me and other Members that people who needed assistance with funeral payments could have access to the burial grant, which is means-tested. It existed side by side with the bereavement grant in the past. I know of many cases in which many people had to avail of both grants because the bereavement grant only went a small way towards covering the costs of a funeral. What additional provision has been made to that budget, out of which the burial grant is paid? Is it paid out of supplementary welfare payments?

No, it comes from exceptional needs payments.

If I read these figures correctly, the exceptional needs payment provision has actually been reduced by €2.5 million, despite the abolition of the bereavement grant.

No, not in that area.

Has that budget been increased then? If so, by how much?

The big challenge for the State, as Deputy O’Dea said, is to ensure the Social Insurance Fund is large enough to deal with an increasingly ageing population. Yesterday, I attended an Age Action conference at which representatives of all parties were questioned on various issues by an audience of pensioners. The Minister would do well to speak with her party colleague, Councillor Mary Freehill, who attended and got an absolute roasting from the audience. There is a large level of anger among pensioners. It is not about the pension payment level itself but the other cuts and charges that have been introduced over the past several years, such as water charges. If these continue, they suggest the rates for the State contributory and non-contributory pension should be increased to make up the shortfall, particularly as they are on a fixed income. From what the Minister has said, it does not seem that an increase in the pension rates has even been looked at. Is that correct?

Will the Minister give an impact assessment of budget 2015?

I thank the Minister for this briefing on her Vote.

When we think of pensions, we think of people who are over 66. There are quite a number of people on pensions under that age such as those on widow’s or widower’s pensions. Has the abolition of the transition pension been factored into the figures presented for this Vote? Did we cut off our nose to spite our face by abolishing that pension? If people could retire at 65 under the transition pension arrangements, automatically jobs would be created for others, taking them off social welfare. What savings were made by abolishing the transition pension? Are there any proposals such as tax incentives to encourage people to take out private pensions?

I commissioned the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, to prepare a report on introducing a supplementary pension scheme which would be developed along the lines of the successful schemes in Australia and New Zealand. On occasion, I have described it as a shamrock or Celtic saver. It would allow people to save money in a safe way to generate an additional pension, over and above the State contributory or non-contributory pension. The State contributory pension is among the best paid in Europe. Nonetheless, if one retires on that pension alone, it can be a very tight management exercise. As a society, notwithstanding the difficulties we have been through, we have prioritised continuing to spend on pensions to a very high degree.

The OECD reported last April and its key recommendation was to improve the adequacy of pensions by increasing coverage to the funded part of the pension system through a universal mandatory or quasi-mandatory employment-based pension scheme. In line with this recommendation, as well as the programme for Government and the recent 2014 to 2016 restatement of priorities which the Taoiseach and I drew up in July, the Government will agree during 2015 to a roadmap and timeline for the introduction of a new universal supplementary pension savings scheme. I am delighted to re-affirm this as it was not widely broadcast at the time. The decision has been taken in response to adequacy and sustainability challenges to the pensions system. This has been an increasing concern, as Deputy O’Dea said, in recent years.

I gave some statistics earlier. In the period since 1995, supplementary income coverage has remained at only approximately 50% and this figure needs to improve significantly. It is an issue for atypical workers who are in and out of the workforce. It is also an issue for women in particular, and for quite a lot of self-employed people, particularly in very small operations. Significant improvement of this figure is an important national goal.

The State pension is and will continue to be a key social welfare payment. It is the fundamental basis for the Irish pension system. It is a very valuable benefit. While, thankfully, people live longer and healthier lives, the cost to the State and the individual of supporting this longer life is increasing incrementally. I gave the committee some figures earlier. Approximately 17,000 additional pensioners come into receipt of the State pension every year. The over 65 year old population is projected to increase from 11% of the total population in 2010 to 15% as soon as 2020. Sometimes when I hear people speaking at conferences about this they speak about 2040 and 2050, but a year-on-year increase in the number of retired people is with us at present, and those who retire live longer. At present there are 5.3 people of working age for every pensioner and this ratio is expected to decrease to approximately 2:1 by 2060. This is in line with almost every other European country.

Given the changing demographics and the incrementally upward pressure of pension provision and State finances, there is a need to provide a long-term savings habit and mechanism by individuals to supplement income from the State pension for those who will otherwise not be in a position to enjoy standards of living in retirement similar to those in pre-retirement. Development of the roadmap for a universal pension involves detailed consideration of policy and operational parameters. It includes co-operation across a range of Departments and engagement of all sectoral interests. I am happy to say much work is ongoing in the Department. This will involve major IT input. There are major considerations for the pensions industry in Ireland and I have spoken at a number of conferences on the very detailed technical issue. I am happy that now in particular, with the recovery taking hold and with the agreement in July, we will be in a position to progress this significantly. In countries which have done this successfully it took a number of years and was built up a very gradual period of time. This is very much what I envisage happening in the Irish system. When incomes of people in employment have been so tight it has been difficult to envisage them making additional savings for their retirement and I am looking forward to the development of this in the economy.

On the related question of funeral expenses and how we support people, I am glad to have an opportunity to speak about the number of supports in place. We make a direct cash payment of €6,000 to a widow, widower or surviving partner with a child or children on the death of his or her spouse or partner. This is a very important payment and goes to the person and family directly bereaved. At the time of the changes to the bereavement grant I stated I wanted to emphasise support for the direct survivors of the person. In some cases estates are left to far more distant relatives. I would like the limited funding we have to be concentrated on the direct family and children of the person who died. In the case of the death of someone on a retirement pension we continue to pay the retirement pension for a period of six weeks after the individual's death. These are the two significant payments we make.

With regard to the exceptional needs payment, we have provided €31.3 million in 2014 and more than 68,500 special needs payment were made to the end of August 2014 for a variety of needs. With the development of the new Intreo offices the Department has consolidated community welfare services to people in need of special needs payments in all of our new offices. We also have a telephone system available and, if it is required, we will get officials to call directly to the person's house.

I cannot give the committee the detail on this. Last year €4.398 million was spent on supporting the cost of burials. I do not have the 2014 data yet but I will try to get the information for the Deputy and we will have it at the end of the year. We must collate it in detail from community welfare officers throughout the country. They are significant supports for people with requirements for financial support for funeral costs. My colleague in the Labour Party parliamentary party, Deputy Eamonn Maloney, has drawn attention to this. The burial costs charged, particularly in the Dublin area, have risen by extraordinary lengths. Deputy Maloney tabled a Private Members' Bill to restrict some of the costs related to the opening of graves. People such as Deputy Keating and I know that some of the cemetery companies charges, even to place a small urn with the ashes of a beloved one in an existing family grave, are extraordinarily high.

I will take supplementary questions but I would like to move on to the other items and I ask committee members to keep it short.

With regard to the bereavement grant, community welfare officers used to deduct the amount of bereavement grant from the burial grant. It was obligatory to apply for the bereavement grant before an application for a burial grant was processed and the amount was then deducted. Now that the bereavement grant is gone they can give the full amount.

This is an important point and I thank Senator Moloney.

The key point is that funerals, particularly in the Dublin area, are extraordinarily expensive. Thankfully this trend has not been as extreme outside of Dublin. Recently somebody was telling me about the cost of placing a small urn containing the ashes of a loved one in a family grave. The family members thought they would be able to place it themselves but they were not and the amount they were charged was staggering.

Thankfully it is a bit cheaper to die in Limerick but it is still quite expensive. With regard to the burial grant, the Minister stated that in certain circumstances there is a direct cash grant of €6,000 and a continuous payment for six weeks to the surviving pensioner. My point is both of these benefits existed previously in conjunction with the bereavement grant The Minister stated the Government has abolished the bereavement grant but these two other grants were not abolished. As far as the exceptional needs payment is concerned, I have found that in practice it is true to say the bereavement grant would have been deducted from the general level of the exceptional needs grant.

However, in terms of the community welfare officer deciding that somebody is entitled to €1,200, in the past if they got a bereavement grant they deducted the €800 and the bill that fell on the community welfare officer was €400. The bill that will have to be met now by the community welfare officer is, in theory anyway, €1,200. The bottom of page 25 of the brief clearly states that expenditure on the exceptional needs payment scheme will be reduced by €2.1 million in 2014 so the fund out of which all those extra payments are paid is basically reduced.

The Deputy will understand that as people on the live register go back to work, the actual level of claims on some of the Department's payment schemes has been falling. I am happy to say that unless the Deputy has personal experience as a representative of individual constituents who have had issues, we have not received any complaints. On the contrary, I am personally aware of important and considered support given by our community welfare services around the country to families who have suffered a bereavement. It must be remembered that this payment is going to the directly bereaved family, which is very important, as opposed to it going to inheritors who may be distant relations. If people need the support with funeral costs, as Minister I am saying they will get it. This is something the Department has done since the development of a modern social welfare system in the early 1950s. If the Deputy has a problem, please let me know because I know the community welfare service is extremely considerate in regard to bereaved families.

I thank the Minister. There are a few cases I will bring to her attention.

I want to follow up on what the Minister has just said because in recent months we have been dealing with the community welfare officer. In one case they had not got any money and €6,000 was granted for the funeral expenses. In another case they had €3,500 and the balance was sent to the undertaker. It is working very well and the community welfare officers are doing a great job.

We will move on to the working age employment supports programme. I refer members to page 19 of the Department's brief and page 6 of the committee secretariat notes.

I have some brief questions. One of the items we are dealing with is lone parents allowance. The Minister has said, and I agree with her, that her objective is an active system where people are activated to go out to work, when the work is available, rather than staying at home and relying on welfare. One of the means by which savings have been got in regard to lone parents is the reduction in the income disregard. In other words, we are reducing the amount of money one can earn while still getting one's full lone parent allowance. Effectively, it means that because of the changes made, if somebody in receipt of lone parents allowance, which is means tested, goes out to work, he or she will now get less because the income disregard has fallen. I cannot understand how the prospect of getting less money than one was getting previously will encourage people to go out to work.

I note that €29.1 million has been saved as a result of the standardisation of the reduction in the maternity benefit payment. I note also that the Minister, Deputy Noonan, introduced tax on maternity benefit in the budget. Would the Minister have the figure for the projected yield from that change made by the Minister for Finance? In other words, would she know what is likely to be the tax collected in the year on maternity benefit?

We have had many discussions here, in which Deputy Butler among others has featured strongly, on the prospect of illness benefit and jobseeker's benefit, in other words, contribution-related payments for the self-employed. Where are we on that?

Regarding the part of the Minister's opening statement dealing with combating fraud, what is the timescale for the complete roll-out of the public services card to all persons? Also, is the issuing of the cards being undertaken in-house by an Irish company or outsourced?

Before the Minister replies, strictly speaking that does not come under the area we are discussing but if the Minister wants to speak to it she may do so. Is Deputy Keating's question a general one but relating to this issue?

It is related to the Minister's report.

We are taking it programme by programme.

That is fine. I will await my turn.

I call Deputy Daly on work-related income supports.

It is still a difficulty for some employers to compete with the welfare system. I asked 12 random employers in the town I represent in my constituency last week if they found it difficult to compete and they said they had difficulty this summer. We had a great season and west Cork was thriving but employers find it very difficult to get people into the workplace. Unfortunately, there are still queues outside what we traditionally call the dole office. When we examine the issue in more detail, obviously it is not the headline welfare rates that are the problem but the black market economy coupled with people who are happy to take their benefits and work two or three days for cash. What is the Minister's view on that?

I have a number of questions. The figures for farm assist are significantly reduced. Can the Minister indicate the reason for that? Are farmers doing a good deal better this year than other years?

I was at a farm last night and they were doing very well, and they were delighted with-----

Some farms are doing better but other farms will not have done as well. That is the nature of farming but it is a substantial drop in a year in terms of farm assist.

On the redundancy and insolvency section, which I believe falls under the working age income supports, RTE ran a story about the recovery of redundancy debt and suggested that in 2011, for instance, only a very small portion of the €300 million outstanding was recovered; it had the figure at 4% or 5%. It has increased since then but upwards of €200 million or €300 million, which is a substantial amount, is outstanding to the State. If that was in any other field the State would have a programme through which to recover it. The criticism in the RTE programme was that the Department did not have a strategy by which to pursue this recovery. Part of the reason for that is because employers were allowed state that they had an inability to pay but that inability to pay was never fully investigated. That is money the State should be pursuing as rigorously as it pursues those wrongfully claiming allowances.

I am concerned about lone parents as all research continues to show that they are a section of our society experiencing major disadvantage and poverty yet we have seen a significant fall in spending on lone parents to a level of 11.8%. That is the equivalent of a fall in spending of €115 million.

Is the Minister concerned about the impact this is having on those lone parents in particular?

There are a number of questions. I will take Deputy Bannon's question on the public services card first. I understand the company which does the work is a subsidiary or part of De La Rue. It is based in Bray. I am aware that there are some external inputs into the software systems, but I can get the Deputy more detail. Significantly, it is an Irish operation. It has gone quite well so far. In November, we will reach 1 million cards.

The cards have hugely increased security. The use of the biometric photo means that when someone gets a card, their photograph is automatically matched with all of the photographs on the major database. For instance, on a weekly basis the Department gets matching photos where someone has turned up, say, in the Athlone office, who on a biometric basis has an exact facial resemblance to someone who has been in the Longford office, and that has been a significant assistance in deterring fraud.

The printing is done in Bray, and there is a Dutch company which has been involved in the technology software side of it. It is to airport standards of biometric identity and it has been helpful in limiting cases of multiple identity fraud which is a problem for all social welfare systems around the world.

In response to the comments of Deputies O'Dea and Ó Snodaigh on lone parents, when I became Minister I decided that we should be as ambitious for lone parents to work as we are for anybody else who is out of the workforce. The key way back for considerable numbers of lone parents, particularly the young, is to engage in education. Happily, a significant number of lone parents do so. In the countries that have successful support systems for lone parents and good outcomes for the children, getting lone parents into education and training and then back to work, which may take a protracted period of time, is the way to do it. Therefore, in the structure we have devised, lone parents will move, after their youngest child is seven, to a transitional transition-to-work lone parent payment, and that will continue for another seven years. To date, the system is operating well.

As I stated earlier, in terms of the agreement in July with the Taoiseach, we are introducing further targeted supports. This also addresses Deputy Daly's point that some employers state they still feel that drawing lone parents back to work can be difficult. In my experience, it is difficult in two particular areas - where someone has children because he or she is getting the qualified child increase, QCI, which is €30 a week, and where there may be problems for those who are on rent supplement. The move to the housing assistance payment, HAP, via the local authorities, which is being piloted in Limerick, should also solve the latter employment trap. In terms of the working family dividend, that will apply whether it is a lone parent or somebody who is in a relationship, whether cohabitation or marriage. We are making good progress there.

One should note that lone parents qualify for family income supplement, FIS. Many lone parents who go to work are opting to go on FIS, which is an attractive top-up for somebody who is leaving social welfare, either completely or on a partial basis to take up part-time work. Deputy Bannon will be aware that I gave significant allocations, last year and the previous year, to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs for further supports in child care because in all my discussions with lone parent groups and parents in relationships, the cost of child care is a significant factor. I allocated €14 million to assist in both aftercare and community care services, and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs has been working to expand that system.

Through our facilitators in all of the Intreo offices, including the offices in Limerick which Deputy O'Dea visited with me, we have employment officers who will specifically look at the needs of lone parents and seek particularly to help them. I appreciate the point that it is a big change, but I believe that change is working positively.

I am particularly happy that there is a strong emphasis on education. We also have expanded and improved significantly the training provided, for instance, to those who participate in community employment, CE, and who undertake child care. Quite a number of those who take on child care in CE are lone parents. Many might be older women who have partially reared their families and are interested in taking up a new career in their late 30s or in their 40s. We are ensuring that participants are trained to FETAC level 5. That has been positive.

In respect of farm assist, I can confirm the numbers are dropping. The payments have dropped by €7.85 million. That is a reduction of 7.9%. In general, the current trends in farming and the weather last year and this year probably had some impact on that. On farm assist, as with the self-employed, as I stated in Wexford in recent days, we in the Department are flexible. If a farmer or fisherman or someone who is self-employed experiences a catastrophic fall or collapse in income because the business has gone to the wall, as happened during the economic collapse, we are able to provide a service in real time to him or her. Before I became Minister, such a person had to go and get two or three years' accounts, which is expensive. If one does not have any money, it is difficult to pay an accountant to sort out one's accounts. We are now doing it in real time based on the person's income as he or she goes into the office. As a consequence, I am happy to say the situation that existed in 2011, where many who had previously been self-employed had no access to social welfare, has been changed. I would be interested to hear from members if they have any problems in this regard. We are now able to meet the requirements of almost everybody, including farmers and fishermen. That has been confirmed by the Mangan advisory group which took a look at this at my request because I was anxious, because it is becoming so significant, that those in self-employment who lost their business would not be ineligible. The entitlement is subject to means testing but the system is now working favourably.

Was Deputy Daly's question answered?

I am sorry. On the redundancy debt, I heard that slightly peculiar RTE report. We took over the redundancy debt from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation because, although I do not want to continuously harp back to the awful events in 2008 and afterwards, there was a considerable backlog.

The Deputy may have known people - I certainly did - who had worked in construction and whose construction employer went bust. In some cases, they all but disappeared and there was a waiting period of significant duration. I personally dealt with cases in which the waiting period was up to two years and this Government inherited a large number of such cases. The Deputy may criticise me for this but as Minister, I decided to focus on those who were waiting on their redundancy payments in what I found to be an inheritance from the previous Government. It was because the crash was so huge and rapid and because the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment frankly was not geared up to deal with the kind of demands that emerged. The then Government decided - in my view wisely - to try to transfer the administration of the scheme to the Department of Social Protection. I prioritised paying those who were due redundancy payments or insolvency payments or both. Second, the Department's staff worked flat out and created a new information technology platform. The Deputy will remember the prolonged dispute concerning the sit-in at Vita Cortex. Once an agreement had been reached there and the employers had put in the appropriate redundancy payments and applications, the Department was able to pay the people involved who were in benefit within a very short time. That was when the new computer system went live and the Department has concentrated on getting the system up to date.

In addition, as one of the savings it undertook, the Department reduced the actual refunds that were paid over a period of time. It was in respect of refunds that the arrears arose in past times and the saving to the State in this regard was €117.5 million. This is what I found a bit odd about the RTE report, as actually there has been a significant saving in this area, as well as a huge improvement of the service. For instance, if a redundancy is announced anywhere in the country nowadays - happily they are less frequent - social welfare staff will go into that place of employment, set up an office and get the details of the staff. There have been small problems with British-based companies because the British redundancy rules and social welfare system are different from ours and sometimes, where the receivership is being handled from the United Kingdom, there may be a slight communications pause. I remember that in the case of a number of those computer shops which also went bang during the recession, there again were long delays for some of the workers involved. However, the system at present is working very well.

In respect of debts, one should remember the Department has taken over a lot of this from the former Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and it does not write off debts unless that is strictly in line with Comptroller and Auditor General requirements. The Department pursues employers and members will recall the legislation was changed recently to enable the Department to pursue debt, in that where the employer subsequently recovers and is collecting some other Government support, the Department can deduct any outstanding debt. The Department has made great progress in the recovery of outstanding debts over the past few years from individuals and other sources. Over the period since the legislation was changed, I believe the debt recovery amount is running close to €300 million in respect of overpayments, frauds and so on. As I stated, I found the RTE report to be a bit unusual.

Deputy Daly's question was about-----

It related to the black market.

When the Department introduces the return-to-work dividend for families, whereby they will be able to hold onto some of those social welfare payments in respect of children, I hope this will be a significant incentive for people to return to work. The other point pertains to the Department's employment service and if the Deputy has specific examples, I ask him to pass them to the Department's managers on the ground, because we have a contract arrangement. We have a social contract with people who are unemployed, whereby those who are at work and who pay taxes and PRSI, as well as businesses, are supporting a good social welfare system on the understanding that when work is available, those who are in receipt of jobseeker's payments will make themselves available. Moreover, the Department will help them in getting ready to be able to do that work successfully. They do not really have an option of turning down a serious job prospect. That is not acceptable and if people refuse to co-operate, the Department can and does operate sanctions. It can reduce payments to them and has done so in approximately 3,000 cases thus far. For the most part, however, people want to go back to work and this is not really a big problem for the Department. Consequently, if the Deputy has specific examples, he might talk to the local managers in west Cork, which would be really helpful to the Department. Alternatively, he should pass them on to me and I will take it up.

Another point is that as we develop a culture of people going back to work, more people will expect to go back. JobsPlus has been something of a runaway success and almost 3,000 people are on that scheme, whereas the Department's target for this year was 2,000 participants. In this initiative, the Department pays employers to take on people who have been unemployed for one year or two years. In the case of those who had been unemployed for one year, there is a cashback payment of slightly more than €300 for each month in which the employer employs the person. If the person has been unemployed for more than two years, there is a cashback payment of €418 for each month in which people are employed, for up to two years. This has been very popular and the Department has been obliged to expand the scheme. Moreover, 60% to 70% of the people taken on have been unemployed for more than two years. This initiative is based on measures of which I am aware in countries such as Austria and Germany in which one incentivises both the unemployed person and the employer and with this, one can make sure that people who are on the live register have a real chance to benefit from the increased availability of employment. This is critical for Ireland's as a country.

There are a couple of supplementary questions and I would like to bring in people who have not yet spoken. I call Senator Moloney and then-----

I am sorry to be obliged to go back over this but had the Chairman allowed me in, I could have directed the question and the Minister could then have answered them in one go.

The Senator did not indicate.

Senator, I did not see you until after everybody had asked their questions.

No, sorry, the clerk wrote down my name.

No, after I went back to the Minister.

No, it was not. Anyway, I am not getting into that argument.

Senator, you have come in a lot of times.

I had a good discussion with the Tánaiste in Wexford this week on the working family dividend, if that is going to be its official name. I raised some important matters with the Tánaiste on which she will revert to me but it is important that the joint committee speaks on it and is informed about it as well. The first point was that this dividend should not interfere with the family income supplement, that is, it would be disregarded in line with the family income supplement. Second, it should not interfere with the medical card for those who were returning to work. While I acknowledge the Tánaiste probably cannot give answers today, I ask her to take it on board when she is contemplating this initiative. Another important point concerns separated parents who have joint custody. What will happen in that case, as many people are separated and have joint custody? Who will get this dividend for people returning to work? Will it be the mother or the father? It it will be important for the Tánaiste to take on board this point when considering the dividend.

In her briefing to the joint committee, the Tánaiste noted there is an additional incentive for families who are long-term unemployed to move from a social welfare payment into employment, including self-employment. While we discussed this during the week, she was unable to advise on the position in respect of self-employment and I would appreciate it, were it possible to give an update in this regard.

Will the Minister advise the committee what she means by long-term unemployed? Is she saying somebody on jobseeker's benefit cannot avail of this? Is that person considered short-term unemployed? What does the Department consider to be long-term unemployed? Are we talking about one year, two years or about people on jobseeker's allowance?

The other issue relates to child care. We will not get people back to work until we have proper, affordable and secure child care in place. The Departments of Social Protection and Children and Youth Affairs should work in tandem with the Department of Education and Skills because much of the child care should be provided in schools - after school care - because if one comes from a rural area, like I do, and one's town is ten to 15 miles away from the school one's child attends, one cannot get from one's job to the school to pick up one's child and take him or her to the child care centre. If it was provided in the school, it would be very convenient for everybody. Many schools have put preschool facilities in place which could be used for after-school child care. Will the Minister work with the Department of Education and Skills on that?

I would like to call two members who have not spoken. Even though this might be slightly off the topic, I would like to be fair to the members concerned. I have Deputy Butler's name but I want to call two members who have not spoken at all.

I spoke because I had to butt in.

I know. I have to chair this meeting as fairly as I can by taking all things into account, and I am doing that. Several members have spoken more than once but some have not spoken at all. I ask Deputy Keating to make-----

I spoke on a separate issue.

I will bring Deputy Butler-----

I did not speak in-----

Deputy Butler is listed.

I join with the Chairman and the committee in welcoming and thanking the Minister. Having listened to the debate over the past hour or so, it occurs to me that most fair-minded people could not have envisaged the Minister producing such a very positive report even three years ago, when one considers the mounting challenges the Minister faced in one of the most difficult jobs in government. I am delighted the Minister included in her report a commitment to free travel. As she said, there was considerable speculation and a bit of a frenzy a while ago that free travel would be eliminated, so this is a very welcome inclusion in the Minister's report.

The Minister touched briefly on the whole area of combatting fraud. She has made a very significant effort, with considerable success in that whole area. What more can we do, or can the Minister give us a greater insight into what we can do? We hear so many stories about non-Irish people flying into the country, availing of social welfare in one form or another, including child benefit, and then leaving. How much of a handle has the Minister on that, or can she give us an insight into what more she has in mind?

I also thank the Minister for her excellent briefing today. My question relates to a different subject, namely, carers. It is estimated that the care given in the home each year comes to approximately €4 billion. It understandable that given the move away from institutional-----

That is a more general issue, so I will not allow the Minister to answer until we get to that programme.

I will pose the question now, but I understand that.

It is understandable that given the move away from institutional care for cost, psychological and other reasons, the State should encourage care to be given in the home. I understand the constraints and realise the Minister is inundated with requests at this time of the year in regard to increased spending. I refer, in particular, to the Carers Association's submission to the Department and would like to hear the Minister's views on its request to formally acknowledge the half rate carer's grant as a core payment and on the respite grant. The Carers Association made a submission asking that the respite grant be paid twice yearly because it pointed out that the annual payment means that those who lose a loved one during the year would miss out on the June payment.

We are going through this programme-by-programme, so the Minister will have to reply later.

To be fair to Senator Naughton, she spoke for the shortest amount of time of any member who has contributed so far, so I think I have allowed her a bit of leeway.

I agree with the Minister that the JobsPlus scheme has been excellent. Many business people and companies are accessing JobsPlus through my office, naturally enough being the local Deputy and having a direct line. It has been very successful.

I thank Deputy O'Dea for bringing up the issue of the self-employed. The Mangan report proposed that instead of having the S class stamp, we bring in a new stamp at 5.5%. ISME has come back with a report to us. Everybody is in favour of bringing in a new stamp. The elephant in the room is whether it would be voluntary or mandatory. We have spoken to the Minister for Finance and the Minister has spoken to people in her Department. We could introduce it in stages. Currently, a self-employed person pays 4%. We could introduce it for the first couple of years at 4.25%. I would like the findings of the Mangan report implemented because we are going down the road of talking about pensions for self-employed people. This is a huge area where we do not have social security, or social cover, for the self-employed. This would bring in disability and sick pay for the first time for self-employed people.

Now is the time to do this. We are at a low base. There are 340,000 self-employed people in this country. The figure is rising and will continue to rise, given the economic forecasts projected for the next couple of years. We propose that we look at this. The only way it will work is if it is mandatory rather than voluntary.

The Minister has done great work in this area and she has lowered the threshold levels. She has been excellent and has really helped self-employed people over the past couple of years but we need to push on with the findings of the Mangan report and put this stamp in place now. We do not want to go back to the past and to what happened with self-employed people and the horrific stories and the horrific crash self-employed people in this country experienced.

Let us put this new stamp in place. There is no reason not to do so as everybody wants it. We just need somebody to step up to the plate and to say this is the way it will be. Some 4.25% for the first couple of years would only be a 0.25% rise, which is very small. We know retail businesses and other businesses are starting to come right. This is only 0.25%, so why give it in revenue or income tax when one can put a little bit aside to ensure one's family has security at the end of the day and that there will be money coming into one's house? Will the Minister push this with the other Ministers in Cabinet?

Further to the question I asked earlier, I would be the first to be very proud of the achievements of the Department to date in becoming an active Department, in trying to deal with unemployment and in actively engaging in the myriad of programmes it has. In fairness, the Department has been transformed from being just a cheque issuing one to one which actively engages.

The Minister referred to people on the ground. The people in west Cork, including Mr. Sean Murphy and his team, are superb. I get great support from those kinds of people with employers who are frustrated trying to get employees. In the past week, I interviewed 12 random employers ranging from employers employing four to six people to 150 people and asked them what was their biggest concern ahead of the budget and what they would like me, as their representative, to feed into it. Ten out of 12 of them raised the issue of trying to get people off the dole and trying to get them to work. I do not think the issue is that welfare benefits are too generous. The issue I am trying to get at here is simply the black market combined with welfare. I wrote to the Economic Management Council expressing my concerns about this. The Taoiseach passed this on to the Minister in the past day or two days, so I appreciate she might not have seen this but, hopefully, it will be discussed by it.

There is an issue with which the Department of Social Protection will have to grapple which is that benefits cannot be looked at in isolation. They must be coupled with the black market economy where people are working two or three days a week for cash and retaining their benefits in full. It does not pay them to go into the workplace for €360 or €370 a week, the minimum wage jobs that are available, of which there are many and which are proving to be a difficulty for employers. I hope in the run-up to the budget and in the submissions with which we are dealing that the Minister would take on board that particular problem of the combination of welfare and the black market.

I strongly support the recommendations in the Mangan report, which was raised by Deputy O'Dea, Deputy Butler and others. Deputy Butler in particular has on a number of occasions at the committee strongly supported the extension of invalidity and permanent disability benefits to the self-employed. I have seen some organisations representing the self-employed criticising the proposal - Deputy Butler knows who I mean - and I think they are tremendously short-sighted. Where a medium-sized to larger firm is doing very well, it is relatively easy for the proprietors to pay for and invest in private pension benefits and schemes, which are very attractive from a tax point of view, as well as paying very hefty premiums for income maintenance in the event of illness. That is generally way beyond the capacity of self-employed people operating on a small scale. The social welfare system offers extraordinary value for money to self-employed people. They pay 4% contributions, which is a very low rate of contribution. For somebody in employment, the rate between them and the employer is 14.75%, so there is a very big gap. I certainly think that as the economy recovers and as people come to retirement age and as retirement age looms, and it is only then, unfortunately, when they tend to become exercised about the issue, it will make even more sense, but it has to be on a funded basis.

Ita Mangan, chairperson of the advisory group on tax and social welfare, has been asked in the committee and in other public venues about mandatory or voluntary contributions. She and others with a great deal of experience in social welfare have said that there cannot in practice be a voluntary social welfare insurance scheme because what is being done from an insurance point of view is that a significantly large population is being covered in the hope that the number of claimants is a relatively small proportion of that population. It has to be self-financing over a period of time. The more we have a social welfare system where the financial resources flowing into it are adequate to meet the demands on and expectations of that system, the more sustainable the system will be. That has always been a goal of mine. It is a debate that continues.

I am delighted to hear that Deputy Daly has been having a conversation with the Minister for Finance. In the context of the extraordinary pressures that have been on the economy in recent years, I can understand that it is difficult to enter into fresh commitments. The time is approaching when we can move forward and I am happy that a lot of work has been done in the Department. This work has major IT implications and we have staff specifically looking at those. As with all new systems in large-scale welfare or health areas, getting the IT simple and easy for people to use and ensuring it is absolutely reliable is the cornerstone. The Department's senior staff, including the deputy secretary, have been involved - I think it is called the business management system - and I have learned to respect them, because the long-term planning of every element is critical. I remember in earlier years, along with Deputy O'Dea and with Deputy Ó Snodaigh, taking a decision in respect of the Longford office and the carers' payments and so on that were coming from there. I advised moving to much better quality IT platforms and I remember advising Deputies at the time that it would result in some delays. In fact, the outcomes have been well worth it. However, the same applies with moving over to a supplementary pension savings system. It has to be very well organised and I am pleased that the deputy secretary, Anne Vaughan, who is present, has been very involved in guiding the business preparation for that.

In relation to carers, Senator Naughton asked about the potential-----

Could the Minister please wait until we get to that programme, which we should do very soon?

Okay, fine. What other ones am I to do now?

Any of the ones that were related to this particular programme, which is the working one.

Does the fraud issue come within this?

I suppose it does, because it covers all things.

The compliance on anti-fraud strategy that I launched earlier this year is a rolled out programme for 2014 to 2018, and if anybody wants a detailed copy, it is on the website or we can send it. Under the additional measures in the strategy, I want to move to using what has become a very fashionable term - big data. This means using predictive analytical techniques to enhance the identification of areas of the Department's activities, or individuals or locations, where there is a particular risk of fraud, therefore targeting investigations specifically at high risk areas. Particularly at the request of the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General, we carry out surveys on a phased basis of all the operational headings we have been discussing. These are standard surveys of a population of 1,000 chosen at random following normal sampling techniques. I expect that predictive analytical techniques will help the Department to reduce fraud. Fraudsters are becoming more sophisticated all the time. While the development of online systems has been a boon, it has also been a boon for people who engage in fraud. Using predictive analytics and modelling the risk profiles are going to be very important.

We are also enhancing debt recovery through a new debt management system which we will have live by the end of 2014. This is another IT platform that we have been building. On Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point in this regard, the precise amount we recovered in 2013 was €70.7 million, and the informal figures I have seen for this year are a little more than that. These are very significant recoveries, and they have pretty much doubled since we adopted the new techniques.

The other matter about which I have spoken at some length and which it has taken some time to implement is the secondment of 20 gardaí to the Department's special investigations unit. These officers will increase specifically the investigative capacity of the Department to prevent, detect and deter social welfare fraud. There has been significant interest on the part of serving members of the Garda Síochána in working with the Department. I am delighted by that, and we expect to have them in place in the next month or two.

There was also a reference by Deputy Daly with regard to ports and airports. I am happy to say that with the support of both the Dáil and the Seanad, we changed that legislation two years ago so that social welfare officers at airports can question somebody if they believe that this person has been entering and re-entering the country in order to claim social welfare. There have been a number of cases that were very widely reported by the media around the country, and I think the message has gone out that Ireland is not a soft touch. There have been Irish people who went to work abroad and continued to claim, and there have also been people who immigrated to this country, then returned home and continued to claim illegally. In some of these cases we found that people have had multiple claims because not only have they been claiming wrongly, but they have also been involved in identity fraud. Again, some of those cases have been reported in the media.

And on the black market question?

We make a point through the special investigation units, SIU, of tackling areas like street markets and street traders to check that control savings represent the value of prevented expenditure. We have done a huge number of "feet on the street" campaigns. That involves visiting industrial estates and calling to see that the people on the premises are registered for tax and insurance purposes. We do that on construction sites and at street fairs and markets. We also do it in general where, for instance, somebody's lifestyle and spending capacity seems to be entirely out of sync with somebody who is living on a social welfare payment. For an honest trader or businessperson, it is galling to be undercut by people who are engaging in fraud. That is not acceptable and if Deputy Daly can give us the names of any employees or employers affected by this, we will follow it up in a discreet manner. We receive a very significant number of tip-offs and contacts from members of the public. While some are misunderstandings, a significant number represent valuable information which is followed up by our SIU. The Taoiseach has met a number of staff from the SIU. He had a meeting with them last year in Government Buildings. He also had an opportunity to talk one-on-one with myself and with senior staff from the Department about the things that could be done to improve the Department's detection and elimination of fraud risk.

I would like to remind members that we have just over half an hour left. Although we could spend hours speaking on this topic, we have six programmes and we have only moved through three at this stage. I will give members a choice. We could move on to the other programmes-----

Or sit here and not get answers.

That is not fair, Senator Moloney. I am simply putting it to members that we have very little time and there is a limit to how much time I can spend on questions and answers.

It is a very simple question to the Minister and her officials as to what they consider the term "long-term unemployed" to mean.

Senator, please speak through the Chair.

Through the Chair, it was a very simple question and I expect an answer. I asked a question earlier to which I did not get an answer, but I let it be.

Can the Minister answer the Senator's question?

The official definition in Ireland of long-term unemployment for statistical and other purposes is anyone who has been unemployed for more than one year. For Senator Moloney's benefit, I would point out that in my view, in most modern economies anyone who is unemployed for more than six months falls off a ledge in regard to the willingness by employers to give them serious consideration. In America, employers speak about a "gap". Employers and HR departments tend to look much less favourably on candidates who have a gap of more than six months on their CV than on candidates who have only recently become unemployed. This is a major problem because huge numbers of people became unemployed through no fault of their own, and if six months becomes one year, then two years, their chances of returning to work become progressively slimmer. This is why the education, training and work experience the Department of Social Protection provides are so important in getting people back on track and into work.

I understand that there are to be statements of sympathy to the House on the death of former Taoiseach, Albert Reynolds. Would it be possible to find out when this will occur, as I am offering sympathy on behalf of the Labour Party, and am thus under a time constraint?

If that is the case, we would have to reconvene the meeting at another time. We will make inquiries.

Will we have the opportunity to meet on another day to finish the other items?

We can, but we will first ascertain the situation.

Subject to the Minister's availability.

And subject to the agreement of all the members. However, I would remind members that even if there is a second meeting not all questions can be answered, unfortunately, so members must prioritise questions. If members are agreeable, we can move straight to the Illness, Disability and Carers programme. Is that agreed? Agreed.

We have only half an hour left anyway, despite events in the House-----

I am prepared to stay, I just had that one query. I understand the clerk will ascertain the position.

My understanding is that we must be out of here by 3.30pm in any event. We will have to adjourn then and come back another day.

The wage subsidy scheme is part of the working age employment supports. This scheme is designed to increase employment for people with disabilities. Some €10.9 million has been allocated to it. The rate of unemployment among people with disabilities is far higher than the overall average rate. Does the Minister have any statistics to hand on the rate of unemployment among people with disabilities?

Does the Minister have details of the number of those who are receiving partial capacity benefit and the review of this benefit? How much money has been allocated to the Youth Guarantee scheme for this year? On the Gateway scheme, under which people must compulsorily take up a position which will pay them €20 a week more than social welfare-----

It is going very well, it is very popular.

There are 620 people on this scheme at the moment. Were there many refusals to take part in the scheme and what sanctions, if any, were imposed?

On the wage subsidy for people with a disability, in 2014, 1,308 people received this to June 2014. In total in 2013, 1,100 people received the subsidy and in 2012, 1,000 received it. In 2011, 916 received it, and in 2010, 833 people received it.

There are now 812 employers, to the end of June, involved in the scheme. The situation is improving but nowhere near the rate of improvement that I, personally, would like to see.

We also have the disability activation programme in the BMW region which has been under way for the past two years. I secured funding from the European Union for a pilot programme relating to people with a disability. The programme particularly involves very interesting work among organisations working with young adults with a disability. It has been an enormous help in generating public support in towns and areas and among local employers. The work ranges from retail to hospitality and other services. If it is difficult for an unemployed person who is fully able bodied to find work then it is even more difficult for somebody with a disability.

As people will know, in the education system we are now mainstreaming young people with a disability right up to leaving certificate level which I think is a great achievement for this country. A small number of young people proceed to further education and third level and when they emerge they have another step to go to secure employment. The numbers are increasing but I would like to see them increase much more.

We took over the employability services and we have done a lot of additional work. I want to take the opportunity to say that we coach and mentor the person with a disability and we do the same work with the employer and the employer's human resources department. One of the difficulties can be a lack of appreciation of the needs of the person with the disability and a lack of knowledge on the part of both the would-be employee and would-be employer of what precisely the needs are. We have small capital grants as well as the wage subsidy. The current budget for this year is €10.85 million and to date, that is to the end of June, we have spent over €6 million.

I have spoken here before about the European Youth Guarantee. Our funding proposals are with the European Union. We have engaged very extensively with the European Union on the youth employment initiative which is the vehicle the European Union uses specifically for people under 25 years of age. Within the Department this is being used to part fund some of the activities within the Youth Guarantee.

The Department proposes to claim €41.4 million from the European Social Fund and €35 million from the youth employment initiative over the period 2014-20, under the relevant operational programmes. These claims will be submitted under arrangements with the Department of Education and Skills which is the certifying authority for these programmes for the EU in Ireland.

Let me outline the schemes which will be covered and the range of almost all of our activation schemes such as Tús, JobBridge, JobsPlus and the back to work enterprise allowance. Expenditure relating to clients on these schemes who are under 25 years of age will be claimed for both the ESF and the youth employment initiative. That means for every €300 of eligible expenditure, €100 of ESF and €100 of the youth employment initiative will be refunded by the European Commission.

Obviously the administration and paperwork required for European funding is extremely challenging. We have got most of ours done and completed but all of the countries have to go through the same process. We are early movers on the whole thing. We also got the OECD to look at what we were doing and there has been significant support. A very successful pilot has been under way for some period in Ballymun.

In terms of our contact with employers and the labour market council, we have had numbers of employers, such as Diageo, specifically working with ourselves and local educational institutions to provide FETAC level training in retail and hospitality. There are also a number of the supermarkets on the retail side and they are taking on young people who are under 22 years for the main part, and subsequently employing quite a lot of them.

I remind the Minister that statements will take place at 4.54 p.m.

I can stay then.

We could resume the meeting in the morning but at that stage we would just talk about administration and so on.

I will try to get through it.

We agreed the timetable at the beginning of the meeting.

Are we dealing with illness and carers?

We agreed a timetable at the beginning of this meeting which would have us out of here at 3.30 p.m. We can still do this but that is up to members. We can come back tomorrow if people prefer but we have until 3.30 p.m. Do members agree to move on to illness and disability?

I had already indicated. I can assure the Chairman that my question will be very brief as the Minister knows my position on JobBridge and other initiatives. What is next year's target for JobsPlus in terms of numbers? It has been a successful programme and is one of the schemes that we should encourage.

Is that the Deputy's question?

That is my question.

I have a slightly complicated answer. We originally had an allocation of 2,000 for this year. As the Deputy will know, we only launched the scheme this time last year and it takes time for any scheme, in terms of word of mouth and spreading the news, to penetrate. It has been so popular that we raised the allocation of 2,000 places for this year to 2,400 earlier in the year. We have now exceeded that figure. We are slightly under 3,000 and I anticipate at least that figure, plus.

We have a very flexible allocation. Let us look at JobsPlus and Tús. At any one time there are about 7,700 people on a monthly basis on Tús and at any one time there are somewhere around 6,500 people undertaking JobBridge. I anticipate that over the next year or two, the JobsPlus scheme will move strongly. We have moved from a standing start this time last year to 3,000 places now. I would anticipate a similar demand for both the JobBridge and Tús programmes, which are very popular.

Deputy O'Dea asked about Gateway. We have a significant number of counties where county managers and their staff have initiated the Gateway scheme, together with local councils. As I speak there are 782 people participating in Gateway, which I am happy to say.

Deputy Jim Daly is here. Gateway is essentially the same as the community employment scheme except that it is offered by county councils. Gateway has the same terms and conditions - 19 hours and an extra €20-----

There is no specific training budget so it is not the same.

It depends on capacity.

The demand for the scheme is very strong. After the floods in Limerick, young family men in St. Mary's Park asked me if they could go on a scheme. They did so because they wanted to help with the work in Limerick after the disastrous floods last year. In this instance Sinn Féin should wake up and smell the coffee. There is a huge pent up demand for people, particularly former construction workers. Many of them are in relatively isolated areas. They are either on their own in a house or are in a more isolated rural area. These people want to get involved. The scheme is a pathway back to work, like lots of other pathways.

It is exactly the same as the social employment schemes initiated in the 1980s and the community employment schemes.

It is not exactly the same as community employment.

I am disappointed -----

If the Minister even read her own documentation on the conditions tied to it, she would see that it is not exactly the same as community employment schemes across the country. If it was, I would support it. The difference is that the training budget is not included.

In Cork county more than 100 people are anxious to take up this opportunity. I understand that some people in parties who wear badges about being left wing and for working people oppose this. I do not know whether the Deputy's party is involved in that particular county. I am not going to enter that discussion but, for heaven's sake, give people a chance to get back to work. That is what it is about.

I have no problem with that. I would encourage it if it was a proper scheme. It is not a proper scheme, it is a scam.

I asked a specific question.

It is not an employment scheme.

Please speak through the Chair.

What is the training budget?

I will answer the Deputy if he gives me an opportunity to do so. The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has sanctioned 150 acting-up allowances for existing local authority staff to support the supervision of Gateway. That has been agreed with the trade unions and management in the county councils. I do not know if the Deputy's party colleagues are aware of that.

I am aware of it and I know exactly where they are coming from. They are not additional staff; they are diverted from other work.

There is Lotto funding worth millions of euro for training grants for participants.

Through the Chair.

It is not available for these schemes.

Sorry, from the dormant accounts.

The Department has provided €2 million for health and safety training, for specific tasks and for personal protective equipment. Can the Deputy open his eyes and go out to visit some of the fine work that has been done by people who would otherwise be sitting at home? When the local authorities begin to recruit again, which I am sure will happen before too long given the way in which the recovery is proceeding, the people who have gained valuable experience through Gateway will be in a good position to apply for these jobs and be seriously interviewed for them, unless the Deputy's party has a problem with people who have been long-term unemployed getting back to work.

By the time they come around there will have been the six-month gap that the Tánaiste mentioned earlier.

Deputy O'Dea had a specific question.

Some 61 people are due to start this week and Deputy Ó Snodaigh wants to stop them. I think he is wrong.

I do not want to stop them. I want to encourage them by making sure they have proper jobs.

The Deputy's party wants to stop them.

No, I want them to have proper jobs.

I want to bring in Deputy O'Dea.

I refer to the question I asked initially. I do not doubt that a number of people who are unemployed want to get on the scheme but my understanding is that people are selected for and sent on the scheme by the Department and that sanctions are imposed if a person refuses to go on a scheme.

Have there been instances of refusals or sanctions?

I will get the exact figures for the Deputy. The scheme also allows local authorities to take on people who approach them, provided that they qualify, namely, they have been unemployed for the requisite period. A number of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil Deputies have reported that people approached them to seek to go on schemes. We provide for that but there is also an element of random selection. The reason for this is very simple. Sometimes when people are called to a random selection, they are too busy to make time to drop down to their local Intreo offices. If they are that occupied we need to find out why. Sometimes they have even left the jurisdiction. The random selection is very helpful. Some people who are randomly selected, particularly in respect of Tús, are delighted to be invited because they have never seen themselves as being able to work in their local community and do something valuable. The random selection is helpful.

According to figures from the middle of July, the data collected in respect of the 6,430 jobseekers who were selected to date for Gateway indicate that six jobseekers were subject to sanctions resulting in the temporary disallowance of up to a maximum of nine weeks of jobseeker's payments. A further 80 jobseekers' claims have been closed following engagements between officials and jobseekers. In some of these cases a different payment was deemed more appropriate to the individual's circumstances and processes are ongoing in a number of cases which are not represented. If we make contact with somebody through our activation process and he or she does not respond, we follow that up. In some cases there are good reasons for this. The individuals concerned may be ill, for example. However, we want a response from them and, as people show up to collect payments, I see no reason they cannot show up to discuss an opportunity.

In regard to these opportunities, approximately 10,000 people are in receipt of enterprise allowances and 20,000 are on the back-to-education allowance. There is a huge flow of people in and out of these allowances. In respect of the numbers on JobBridge and Tús, to date more than 32,000 people have been on JobBridge schemes.

I will stop the Tánaiste there.

If people do not show up, we call them back and if they do not have a reasonable explanation -----

Members agreed a time limit of 20 minutes for this subject. As we have spent more than 20 minutes discussing it, we will proceed to deal with illness, disability and carer's allowances.

Did the Minister receive the submission prepared recently by the Carers Association and how does she intend to respond to it?

Senator Naughton also raised that issue.

It arose in the context of the pre-budget forum.

The submission contained a number of practical suggestions, some of which would not cost much. Some of them would even save money for the Department in the long term.

With regard to the carer's allowance, I ask the Tánaiste to give her commitment to retain the half-rate carer's allowance in the forthcoming budget. With regard to the disability allowance, problems arise in the processing of applications. If the application is refused on medical grounds, the appeal can take up to ten to 12 months. If the applicant wins the appeal, he or she may have to wait months for means testing because it was not carried out in the first instance.

I am also encountering problems involving people who are very sick but are finding it difficult to access invalidity pensions when the two-year period for illness benefit expires. They cannot return to work because their GPs will not allow them to do so but they have nowhere to turn to because the medical officer is saying they are fit for alternative work, which is not quite true.

The third issue I wish to raise may seem minor but it is a big issue to some people. When one applies for illness benefit, the only choice on the form is in regard to whether it should be paid to the employer or into a bank account.

However, there is certainly no facility to go through the post offices, which we are trying to keep alive and kicking. Perhaps the Department could examine that in order to give people a choice.

As regards the number of appeals on disability, at the beginning of 2013 there were over 4,000 appeals on hand. By the beginning of 2014, a year later, that figure had gone down to just over 3,000. That was a fall of 1,000. I am happy to say that as of 1 September, the number has dropped to 1,700.

We operate an open-ended repeat review system. We have been looking at the letter that is sent out and people have a legal right to enter an appeal. Very often, as members know, they will come to a public representative after they have lodged an appeal. Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I have discussed this matter on a number of occasions. They would be much better off getting better medical evidence on their condition. There are a lot of new Deputies in the House this session, so I keep telling people to leave the appeal until the last minute.

We have a facility, particularly in a serious case, to withdraw the appeal if the amount of evidence that has become available is more significant. The office does that regularly. It should be remembered that the appeals process is a legal one. It is like planning appeals - once one goes into that process one is better off having pre-planning discussions so that one has cleared out all of the difficulties and one knows the mind of the local authority on planning. Similarly, I would strongly suggest to members of the joint committee to get that additional information that may make the difference for people to lodge an appeal. Some doctors, even though they may be much loved by their patients, do not give very detailed information that sufficiently supports the claim a person is making. That is the factual situation.

I am delighted to say that the number of appeals on hand has fallen dramatically. However, if it is a question of introducing fresh information that the Senator experienced in this area, as I know she has, I would seek to withdraw the appeal and have a fresh review instead.

The Appeals Office is quite good at returning it for a review without having to withdraw it, so that works as well.

Yes. That is because we have improved the platforms and have really invested in technology at the Appeals Office. In the context of the recession, there was a vast increase in the number of applications and appeals. If one meets an application at an early stage and it is not successful, I would advise members to seek to obtain more appropriate and stronger evidence to support the application, rather than having to go into the appeals process which, by its nature as a legal procedure, tends to be a bit longer.

I have a quick query on that because people seem to be constantly seeking advice on appeals. In the event of additional information becoming available, do they send it to the appeals office or the review office?

Staff are aware - and the legend is - that if one withholds some of the stronger medical information until the appeal it will help the case. I think that goes back to a period when the times were a lot longer. My personal recommendation is that if one has the evidence and one is still in the application process or review - we allow multiple reviews which very few social welfare systems do - one should use it when it becomes available and, if possible, avoid having to go into the appeals system.

What I and other Deputies have found is that sometimes the appeal is lodged and that is when there is a delay in obtaining medical information. There is a huge problem in getting letters from consultants.

It could be two months down the road in the appeals process at that stage, so does a person give the information to the appeals office or back to the Department?

As with the domiciliary care allowance, we looked at it and significantly reduced the waiting times. We also ran a number of information seminars for Deputies and their staff. If the Deputy feels that would be helpful, given the IT changes and other reforms in the Department, I would be happy to arrange that.

I would appreciate it. We can look at that in the committee.

Would the committee let me know through the Chairperson?

Yes, we will.

We will arrange it in the AV room.

I suggest that members should ask any outstanding questions now so that we can finish our business today. I am sure people have many questions at this stage.

I have three brief outstanding questions. The report of the child and family income supplement advisory group recommended dramatic changes in child benefit. Where are we with that? Second, has the Minister taken any decision on the rent supplement caps? Third, would the Minister consider a suggestion that the names of people who receive rent supplement from the State, that is landlords, should be published? It is taxpayers' money so I suggest the recipients' names should be published.

I have two brief questions. One concerns the Children's Rights Alliance which made a specific appeal about the habitual residency condition concerning child benefit. The CRA said the State was out of touch with Article 2 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which deals with non-discriminatory aspects. I ask the Minister to examine that matter.

Has any consideration been given to increasing the PRSI rate on high wages - that is, the portion over €100,000? We are out of sync with other countries in that regard. Such a move would significantly increase the social insurance fund and that would allow some recovery for the fund.

I have a lot of other questions but I will table them as parliamentary questions.

I will probably put the Minister on the spot in saying this but I hope she will not allow herself to be pressurised into making cuts in her Department to supplement other Departments. Social welfare has taken enough hits, so the Minister should avoid any more. If she is in a position at some stage to reverse cuts, she should do so. I never want to go back to a position where there were giveaways prior to elections because that is what got the country into this mess. At some stage, however, when we have a surplus, we might consider restoring the free telephone allowance for carers.

On the child and family income supplement, following the large amount of detailed, informative and good work that the Mangan group has undertaken, we have arrived at a general agreement to support families with children and, in particular, the activation of proposals.

We are maintaining the child benefit system. We have significantly increased levels of funding this year and last for family income supplement as people go back to work. My proposal is to continue that policy and as I said earlier to have the additional payment to families with children who have been unemployed. That work is ongoing. Senator Moloney raised a number of valid questions and we will take them into consideration as the work on the scheme is being planned. That is the reform path.

Child benefit payments are a significant payment to families, many of whom are in the age cohort of those who are troubled by mortgage debt. Cash flow is very important to the budget of those families, particularly those with two or more children. Child benefit is paid to families irrespective of whether they are in work or out of work and is paid directly to the caring parent. I propose to continue with the child benefit payment structure. A very important feature of the payment is that the cash flow is getting to the children.

We have revised the family income supplement scheme. It is now working in a much faster and better way than was the case before the improvements to IT. I hope the qualified child increase changes, whereby people will retain a portion of them over a period of time as a working family dividend, will be attractive. I am conscious of the fact that we have roughly 80,000 people on the live register. In the main these are men who lost their jobs during the construction collapse or lost jobs in areas related to construction and many of those men are in family relationships with children. I hope that this will be a significant assistance to that group of people, as we see the construction industry slowly but surely increasing its activity levels.

We are reviewing the rent caps at present. On previous occasions I spoke to Deputies O'Dea and Ó Snodaigh about the emergency protocol which came officially into force during June. That has worked very well. At this point, more than 100 cases that we know about have been addressed and sorted out in relation to rent increases by landlords. A number of parliamentary questions have been tabled on this topic, but the outcome is working very well. I know that Deputy O'Dea on a previous occasion spoke about it being extended to Limerick. I understand the community welfare officers in Limerick are pretty much available to apply the same system. There has not been anything like the number of cases there as in Dublin but again, there is an intervention to support a family with a difficulty with their landlord.

As I have said, the way to address this difficulty in the short or medium term is to increase the housing supply. We have had extensive discussions with Dublin City Council on ending the policy of boarding up vacant houses and putting the contents of the house or the apartment in a skip. If we can bring those apartments and houses back into the available housing stock for families, it will assist a significant number of people over the remainder of this year and the first half of the next year.

On the issue of the free telephone allowance for carers, the Minister probably cannot answer that now.

I am not in a position to answer that.

I would imagine not but I am only raising it.

My lips are sealed as regards the budget, with the exception of the agreement that the Taoiseach and I reached in public.

I thank everybody and if members are happy that will conclude our discussion. I propose with the agreement of members to deal with the private business of this meeting at our meeting next week. We will possibly meet a little earlier on Wednesday, 24 September.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 24 September 2014.
Top
Share