Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 13 May 2009

Priority Issues: Discussion with Minister for Social and Family Affairs.

Apologies have been received by Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae.

I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Mary Hanafin, and her officials. 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 by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Before I ask the Minister to make her opening statement on her priorities as Minister for Social and Family Affairs as per the timetable circulated to all Members, I ask her to note that the committee agreed at its last meeting held on 29 April to raise with her today the issue of financial disincentives to cohabitation and marriage. In this context, the clerk to the committee sent a letter to the Minister's private secretary asking for an up-date today on progress made in implementing the recommendations in the Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, published in February 2006 by the late Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Séamus Brennan. I would hope the Minister can respond to this in the course of her opening statement.

I ask all members to note that allocated time slots will be strictly adhered to and I hope members will co-operate by staying within their allocated time. I want to ensure that we utilise the available time as efficiently and fairly as possible and have a productive meeting. I now ask the Minister to make her opening statement for the next 20 minutes after which the two Opposition spokespersons will have ten minutes each, and the Minister will then respond.

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for the opportunity to discuss the issues that I regard as the current priorities for the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The reality is that everything to do with this Department has become a major priority over the past year and this will continue for the next year given the range and numbers of people accessing support from this Department. Notwithstanding that, I will set out the key priorities for the Department first and then address each one separately.

The current economic climate is placing ever-growing demands on the services of the Department. Our objective is to ensure that we have the staff, systems and resources in place to meet these demands and our priorities are framed to meet this objective. Delivering services to customers, in particular payment of entitlements, in a timely and accurate manner is the principal priority this year. Allied to this, we will have appropriate controls in place to ensure that payments are made only to those who are entitled to them. We will continue to develop our activation programmes, in conjunction with other departments and agencies, to deliver supports to people of working age to help them re-enter the labour market. Policy development will continue during the year, particularly on pensions and lone parents. The changes in schemes as announced in budget 2009 and in the supplementary budget will be implemented.

The committee members will be aware the budget for social welfare is €21.3 billion in the current year. The live register currently stands at more than 385,000 and the projected average live register figure for 2009 has been raised to 440,000. Despite the pressures on the public purse, Government expenditure has sought to protect investment in social welfare to protect the vulnerable and help those who rely on the State for income support. In this context we are conscious of our obligation to safeguard this money and ensure it is administered in the most effective and efficient way.

The Department has a reputation for delivering a quality service to customers and despite the pressures in the current year we aim to retain that reputation. Each year we process almost 2.5 million claims, and issue more than 1.2 million payments per week and 500,000 million on a monthly basis to customers. The recent, and ongoing, growth in the live register and other schemes is placing pressure on our ability to deliver on our service targets. However, the Department has taken action to address these issues through the recruitment and training of staff, implementing process enhancements and through restructuring the back office supports for local offices.

The live register grew from some 175,000 in January 2008 to 384,500 at the end of April 2009, an increase of more than 125%. Despite this substantial increase we have been able to maintain services at a reasonable level. Some 10,000 jobseekers claims are decided in a given week and processing times currently stand at an average of 3.32 weeks for jobseekers benefit and seven weeks for jobseekers allowance.

During 2008 we commenced a review of the processes and procedures surrounding claim acceptance and decisions and have introduced a number of process improvements to help deal with the rising claim load. For example, we established four central decisions offices to process claims to relieve pressure on the local offices. Further offices will be set up during this year. We are continuing to keep the claim processes and procedures under review, with a view providing additional enhancements during 2009.

The Department has an obligation to ensure that payments are made to the right people, for the right amount, at the right time. Control of fraud and abuse of social welfare payments is an integral part of that process. A variety of control processes are applied across the Department's schemes. These processes are based on the outcome of fraud and error surveys which identify the levels and types of fraud and abuse being perpetrated against schemes.

Almost €476 million in social welfare payments was saved through fraud control measures in 2008, an increase of €29 million on the previous year. We are stepping up fraud control across all of our schemes to ensure the right payments are going to the right people for the duration for which they have entitlement. This year we plan to make further control savings in excess of €500 million. A four-pronged control strategy has been adopted by the Department, namely, prevention of fraud and error at the initial claim stage, early detection through effective review of claims in payment, measures to deter fraud and the pursuit and recovery of overpayments.

In 2009 new measures include stricter identity checks in post offices for people collecting social welfare payments. Members will have noted reference in the media to the Department's participation in multi-agency vehicle checks in recent months. In Border regions there is an increased emphasis on jobseeker claims from applicants with a previous address in Northern Ireland.

The frequency of issue of certification to validate continued entitlement to child benefit is at three-monthly intervals for EU workers and, since April 2009, is also three-monthly for resident foreign national customers. A major increase in reports of suspect activity is evident from the significant increase in anonymous reports made to the control division in Carrick-on-Shannon. At the end of April 2009, 1,735 reports were received, compared to the end of April 2008 when 232 reports were received, which is a 750% increase. That figure does not include reports which were made to other areas or offices around the country.

Criminal prosecutions were taken against persons who defraud the social welfare payments system and employers who fail to carry out their statutory obligations. In 2008, 309 criminal cases involving social welfare recipients were finalised in court, an increase of 82 on the previous year. A total of 354 criminal cases were referred to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor for the initiation of prosecution proceedings.

I and the other members of Government are strongly committed to getting people off the live register and back into employment or training as quickly as possible. In this context, as outlined in the recent supplementary budget, the Department works closely with the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Education and Science, as well as FÁS and other bodies to deliver a range of additional measures aimed at maintaining people in employment, re-skilling and facilitating better access to allowances, while avoiding undue negative impacts on vulnerable individuals. Particular focus will be given to providing support to 18 year old and 19 year old jobseekers to enable them to avail of education and training opportunities with a view to preventing them from becoming welfare dependent from a young age.

A package of measures relating to the back to work enterprise allowance and back to education allowance schemes was introduced in the recent budget to facilitate better access to supports. The range of measures reflects the fact that people at all skill levels are losing their jobs and the importance of providing a mix of responses in training and education best suited to the diverse needs of the newly unemployed.

Under the employment action plan, 64,500 people were referred to FÁS in the period from January 2008 to January 2009, an increase of 8,500 over the corresponding period from January 2007 to January 2008. By the end of February 2009, 58% of those referred had left the live register, including 4,000 who were placed in jobs by FÁS and 4,800 who were placed in programmes, training or education. FÁS, in co-operation with my Department, is extending the job-search national employment action plan, of which capacity will nearly double for 2009 from 6,500 cases per month to 12,250. This is an unprecedented increase in capacity for this programme.

In addition, the Government is providing, through FÁS, a total of 128,000 training and activation places for the unemployed this year. This is a substantial increase on the figure of approximately 66,000 places taken up last year. Furthermore, 147,000 places are available in further education programmes in 2009. These developments demonstrate the scale of activity being supported by this Government to ensure people are best positioned to get back into employment.

Policy development will continue during the year, in particular on pensions and lone parents. The Government has been working since the publication of the pensions Green Paper in 2007 to bring forward proposals to help the pensions industry. Our initiatives started last December with the announcement of a number of short-term measures aimed at reducing the pressure on under-funded defined benefit schemes by allowing greater flexibility and time to recover funding positions.

Recently, I amended the Pensions Act to change the order in which liabilities are calculated on the wind-up of a defined benefit pension scheme. The purpose of the change is to allow greater flexibility for schemes to restructure benefits in the event of under-funding and strengthen the role of the Pensions Board in its pursuit of employers who fail to remit pension contributions they have deducted from the wages and salaries of employees.

Furthermore, I announced the introduction of the pensions insolvency payments scheme, under which if a defined benefit scheme is in deficit and the sponsoring employer becomes insolvent, the trustees of the scheme may apply to the Minister for Finance to purchase pension payments for the scheme's retired members at a lower cost than is available on the open market.

The Government is developing a national pensions framework which I expect to publish shortly. The framework, which will shape the direction of pension policy in Ireland for years to come, will address the many and varied issues that were raised in the Green Paper consultation process and cut across all areas of our pension system, namely, the social welfare pension, occupational and personal pensions, public sector pensions and retirement age.

People need to be confident and secure about their retirement expectations and should not arrive at pension age to find their incomes are well below the levels which were promised. Our system must provide assurance so that all of us can look forward to retirement, confident that our pensions are safe. This should begin with the very basis of our system, namely, the social welfare pension. That is the ground on which everything else lies and the Government will ensure this remains the case.

The current one family payment provides long-term income support to those parenting alone until children are aged 18 years or 22 years if in full-time education. The current duration of the payment is not in the best interests of the recipient, his or her children or society. Social welfare supports for lone parents should be designed to prevent long-term dependence on social welfare income support and facilitate financial independence; recognise parental choice with regard to care of young children but with the expectation that parents will not remain outside of the labour force indefinitely; and change the expectations surrounding receipt of the one family payment, introducing an expectation of participation in education, training and employment, with supports provided in this regard. Income supports are not sufficient in themselves to address issues of parenting alone. Issues including access to child care support, education, training, and activation measures must also be addressed by the relevant Departments and agencies if lone parents are to be enabled to access employment.

Good progress has been made in the provision of child care. Government invested some €1 billion over the past decade in developing a child care infrastructure, under both the national child care investment programme 2006-10 and, prior to that, the EU co-funded Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme 2000-06. As a result of this programme, some 70,000 child care places will be in place by 2010. This investment has made it possible to introduce the recently announced free early childhood care and education, ECCE, year for pre-school children, which will be particularly helpful to those parenting alone. We are continuing to keep policies relating to lone parents under consideration. However, the extent and speed at which these can progress will be impacted by the current economic climate.

Changes in social welfare schemes were announced in budget 2009 and the supplementary budget which impacted on rates of payments, conditionality and entitlement to payments and supports to access employment and training. These changes have been and will continue to be implemented in a timely fashion to meet the policies as outlined. The major legislation requirements have been implemented and guidelines, staff instructions and training are being provided to staff and managers as required.

The Department has an ongoing programme of staff training, recruitment and development to meet the general needs of our business. Allied to this is an accommodation programme and an IT programme. Our staff recruitment processes have been stepped up considerably in the past 12 months to address the pressures of the growth in claims on offices. More than 240 additional staff have been recruited in that period and it is anticipated that a further 300 will be required to meet our needs in the coming year.

We have an ongoing programme of process improvement, including the setting up of central decisions offices, to alleviate pressures on front line staff. We are engaging with the OPW on a programme to acquire additional accommodation and to upgrade other offices. Our ambitious IT development programme is being designed to automate routine processes and thus release our staff for greater engagement with the customers.

There is a wide array of other work, including restructuring of the Department and agencies, social inclusion activities and so on, which will also absorb much of our time and resources. What I have outlined here are the key priorities of the Department for 2009.

I now propose to take questions in the agreed order. The Fine Gael spokesperson and the Labour Party spokesperson will have ten minutes each. I will then invite the Minister to respond for ten minutes.

I welcome the Minister and her officials. My questions are on the priorities for the Department and on certain matters which should be priorities but do not appear to be.

The Minister began her presentation with the delivery of service. She said we knew the figures for the number of claims and payments but the delivery of service is failing many people around the country. The failure of delivery has been most apparent in respect of people who have recently lost their jobs but there have been failures in other areas, such as carers payments and child benefit payments, though I appreciate that child benefit claims are more complicated where children are not in the country. The level of delivery for people coming on to social welfare is unacceptable and has deteriorated in recent months. I appreciate that the live register figures have jumped substantially but the jump in March and April is not in line with the increase in waiting times in social welfare offices as the numbers did not grow in those months as they had in previous months.

I am reluctant to name individual offices because the Minister will probably say somebody is out on sick leave. However, in Boyle the waiting time is now 19 weeks. I spoke to an official in social welfare who was out sick. She was involved in means testing for a number of offices but her files were left untouched by another officer while she was on sick leave. I find that hard to understand. In my former occupation as a solicitor, if I was out sick and I had a court case, somebody could not just turn up and say "Sorry, she is not here today". Somebody had to cover the work. That is what happens in any business. The Department does not have a system to deal with such situations. In the case of delays we have heard the excuse of people being on maternity leave. In any other walk of life where people are on maternity leave, business is planned to cover that and to ensure that the work is done. This is putting massive pressure on the Minister's staff who are trying to make up the shortfall. People who are out sick dread going back to work because they know what it will be like when they return and what they must deal with. Most importantly, people are waiting inordinate lengths of time for the payments. There is a significant knock-on effect, as we have already discussed so often, on the community welfare service, the staff of which are under unbelievable pressure in trying to fill the gaps.

The Minister read a page and a bit on delivering services to customers. I want to know exactly how the Minister will address this. Last week she sought a further 300 staff for whom she must get permission from the Department of Finance. I presume they will be redeployed staff. What has the response been from the Minister for Finance to that request? Is he aware of the length of time it takes to train staff? Obviously, the 240 the Minister recruited in the past 12 months will take a considerable time to train. If the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, decides to wait until mid-summer to announce that he will give Deputy Hanafin 300 more, it will take another few months for them to be trained. I want to know the degree of urgency with which these Ministers, Deputies Hanafin and Brian Lenihan, have addressed this. It is causing tremendous difficulty for the waiting recipients and it needs to be addressed.

The Minister stated that the Government will provide 128,000 places through FÁS on training and activation. I raised this with her previously. Social welfare recipients on FÁS courses, some of which are of five or six weeks duration, must sign off from social welfare and go to FÁS from which they get the exact same payment. They are eligible for child care payments if there are child care issues but, otherwise, they get the exact same payment from FÁS. On completion of the six-week course they must go back to the social welfare office to sign on and start the entire process again. There must be a better way. FÁS staff have pointed out the nonsense of this. If there are 128,000 places for training and activation with FÁS this year, there will be a great many people signing off and signing on. Some of the courses will be a good deal longer than that, but at the same time there must be a way of streamlining that system to ensure that one is not wasting staff time on that.

On the control measures, I welcome any increase in this area and any progress. I am conscious the Minister did not reach her targets last year and that she has set a similar target of 500 million this year.

When a person leaves the country, does his or her entitlement to payment of child benefit, and so on, last for three months? There is an issue in that regard that has been raised with me and sometimes one does not know how genuine or how anecdotal it is. If such persons are entitled to it for three months, that is fine. If they are not, I wonder do we need to change something because the Minister mentioned that the frequency of issue of certification to validate continued entitlement to child benefit is at three monthly intervals. That is something that needs to be dealt with.

On the community welfare service, there is significant pressure on the mortgage interest supplement and the rent supplement or the supplementary benefits. I link the mortgage interest supplement to the issue of debt control. That is a matter on which this committee has spend a considerable amount of time where we had experts in and we will bring forward suggestions in this area. It is a matter that is causing considerable pressure and difficulty for people. FLAC, MABS and different organisations outlined concerns on the matter. We need an alternative system of debt control and debt resolution. I appreciate that some of it is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but I want to know about it in the context of the Department's priorities.

The Minister, Deputy Hanafin, did not mention either rent supplement or mortgage interest supplement. Rent supplement is costing €0.5 billion a year. Changes were made in the budget, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, in terms of the increase of the payment for the person. I am concerned about the poverty traps into which it puts people and the disincentive to engage in employment compared to RAS. Sometimes I feel we are repeating ourselves constantly here. What effort will the Department of Social and Family Affairs make to ensure, with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with responsibility for housing, Deputy Finneran, that we get more people into RAS and off rent supplement? It is supposed to be a temporary payment. It is anything but at this stage. From what I can see, and I am sure everyone will say the same, given the numbers losing their jobs who are coming to me, the Minister will be spending more than she has spent and budgeted for this year on rent supplement and mortgage interest supplement.

If mortgage interest supplement facilitates people to remain in their homes and gets them through a difficult period it is the most worthwhile payment one can make. However, I am concerned at how it operates and the inconsistency in which it operates. It is very easy, in the current climate when property prices have fallen, to tell people they were irresponsible to take out a loan, but nobody told them they were irresponsible when they were paying 37% of the value of the house they purchased in tax to the Government. Everyone was happy and willing to take in that money, but now people are finding themselves in dire situations, their houses are about to be repossessed and they have nowhere to turn.

We tabled a Private Members' motion on this issue a number of weeks ago, which proposed to allow MABS to intervene or to have an alternative dispute resolution system. It was proposed because I, and a significant number of others, have a large number of people coming to me who cannot negotiate with the banks and certainly cannot negotiate with the sub-prime lenders. They will lose their homes because they are paying mortgages which are extremely expensive but which did not seem so at the time they took them out. Some people had no alternative but to take out such a mortgage at the time.

On the early child care supplement and child benefit, there is chaos regarding the new suggestion on the delivery of preschool services around the country. I know it is partly the responsibility of the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, but the Minister took away the payment and it is her job to ensure there is something else in place of it. Perhaps it is the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, but there is chaos around the country regarding the delivery of the service. I received an e-mail from one of the Minister’s constituents who runs a preschool service. The proposal will not work unless the Minister examines it urgently, because it is supposed to be in place by January.

There is nothing new in the lone parent's poverty trap. The late Deputy Séamus Brennan came before this committee a number of years ago, before I was a member of it, and told it nothing different to what the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Martin Cullen, told us. It is still a work in progress and we are none the wiser.

Likewise, the changes the Minister made to pensions two weeks ago were insufficient. She told us then we would get the White Paper very shortly. Can she give us a definite timeframe? Can she rule out any of the options the Government has given the media regarding child benefit? Are all three options now on the table, in terms of means testing, reducing or taxing the payment? Has she any idea where she is going? There are many people who are very concerned about what their financial situation will be when the next budget is introduced and want some idea of what to expect.

I thank the Minister for her presentation and welcome her officials. Overall, the presentation on the Minister's priorities has been disappointing, in so far as there is nothing new in it. Having listened to it, there is no sense of where she is going with the Department or what she regards as important.

I want to start with the issue of staff resources. We all recognise that there have been enormous pressures on staff in the Minister's Department because of the escalating unemployment numbers. However, there is a lot of concern about the Minister's failure to address the issue in a timely manner and in a way that ensures people are treated with dignity and respect, and that their claims are processed within a reasonable timescale.

There are constant complaints from people who have suddenly found themselves out of work and go to look for assistance. They are waiting for weeks and, in some cases, months on end. It is unacceptable that people are left waiting that long, very often in difficult circumstances and without any financial support, for a public service to which they are entitled. There are major issues regarding staffing levels in community welfare services, which is an emergency service, and also within the Minister's own Department.

The issue goes beyond simply having sufficient numbers in place. The Minister has taken on some 250 extra staff and said there is a need for another 300 staff. Has the Minister received approval for additional staff from the Department of Finance? When can we expect to see them coming on stream? What is the lead-in time, in terms of training to be provided?

What consideration has the Minister given to the looming staff crisis in the public service? The problem with public service staff is particularly acute in the Department of Social and Family Affairs whose staff face enormous pressures. Public servants have been hit with a pension levy and the doubling of the health and income levies, with the result that they are losing a large chunk of their salaries. Faced with a threat by the Minister for Finance that he will tax the retirement lump sum from next year onwards, public servants are being encouraged to take early retirement this year. Incentives have also been introduced to encourage them to take career breaks.

Public servants have been subjected to a general process of demonisation. The Government has taken a lead in this process by telling public servants how lucky they are to have permanent and pensionable jobs and that it is selfish to criticise Government policies in respect of levies. The cumulative effect of these developments has been to greatly demoralise public servants. As members are finding when we knock on doors, public servants are browned off with the manner in which they have been treated by the Government.

I believe a mass exodus from all ranks of the public service but specifically the senior ranks will take place in the coming year. How does the Minister propose to manage this probability while addressing the enormous pressures placed on her Department by the large increase in the number of people who are unemployed? As a Cabinet member, will the Minister indicate whether consideration has been given to the cumulative negative impact of Government policy on morale in the public service and its likely impact on staff at all levels in her Department in the coming year?

Does the Minister accept that an issue arises with regard to the large number of social welfare appeals being upheld, particularly in respect of claims based on medical evidence? A significant proportion of applications for payment based on medical evidence is refused. Subsequently, however, a substantial number of the decisions that are appealed are upheld by the social welfare appeals office. Does the Minister accept that an issue arises regarding whether different standards apply? Is she taking steps to address this issue because given the high costs involved in processing a large number of cases on appeal? While appeals officers are regarded as independent deciding officers in the appeals process, the fact that they are appointed by the Minister appears to give rise to a conflict. In light of the necessity to separate these two roles, does the Minister intend to introduce legislation to place the appeals office on an independent statutory footing?

On the question of the Department's priorities, the Minister indicated that pensions and lone parents are two priorities. While these are certainly pressing issues, the Minister's two predecessors, including the late Séamus Brennan, also informed us that they were priorities. While these have been flagged as pressing issues that need attention, it is difficult to see that any progress has been made since the late Séamus Brennan brought forward proposals in respect of lone parents, a key aspect of which was that a payment would be made to poor families, irrespective of whether there were one or two parents and irrespective of whether the parents were in or out of work. These proposals had much to recommend them as they recognised the issue of poverty and the need for income support for children in poor families, irrespective of the make-up of those families.

Many years ago this committee commissioned a study that showed there were massive disincentives for low-income couples living together to get married and form two-parent families. That is bad public policy and explains why there is such a high number of lone parents on welfare payments. Those issues were identified in the early 1990s. The issue was recognised, given the proposals brought forward by the late Séamus Brennan, but no progress has been made in introducing a flexible payment that would not act as a disincentive to parents living together. What does the Minister intend to do about that? Other than outlining the proposals, the Minister has made no progress. The same was the case under the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Martin Cullen. How do those proposals stand now? I have no sense that the Minister regards this as a priority or has any determination to introduce change. Does she intend doing anything about them or are they still sitting on a shelf?

Similarly, there has been much talk about the pressing issue of pensions but no indication of what is to be done in that regard. Is it intended that the State pension will become the core of Government pension policy in the future? A huge amount of money, almost €5 billion, is currently being spent on State pensions. At the same time a vast amount of money is being put into tax relief in respect of private pensions, yet the Minister is not in a position to provide a detailed breakdown of the figures. The last figure the Minister produced related to tax relief of €2.9 billion. It is a 2006 figure. It is incredible that she does not have up-to-date figures. She has been through the Green Paper process, a framework White Paper type document is imminent, yet she cannot tell us where that €2.9 billion for tax relief on pensions has gone. If her proposals are to have any credibility, she must provide detailed and up-to-date figures as to the cost of tax relief on pensions. She must provide a breakdown as to how much goes to company directors by way of self-administered pension schemes and how much goes to the very big pension packages under defined benefit schemes, again for high earners, company directors generally speaking, and those at the top of companies in terms of the salaries they earn. We need that kind of detail because a key factor in terms of pensions is fairness in how State support is given in respect of them. We cannot have a situation where people are struggling at the lower end of the spectrum while at the upper end, the State provides massive cash transfers to the high rollers who can have pension pots worth several million euro with the State giving tax relief of 25% in terms of the lump sum being taken out. On the one hand, the Minister is threatening to hit the lump sums of public servants and, on the other hand, she allows people to take out a tax-free lump sum of over €1 million on retirement. That is not tolerable, it is not sustainable into the future and it is not fair. Our pension policy has been over-reliant on tax relief but it has not achieved good pension coverage. It has not been successful and needs to be radically changed.

The other issue relating to pensions is the fact that so many defined benefit schemes are in serious difficulty but the Minister appears to wash her hands of that matter. We discussed this issue in the context of the Robins case at the European Court of Justice, following which an obligation was put on member states to ensure adequate pension coverage. The UK was found not to comply, so the authorities there moved to deal with it. There are serious issues in this country, such as those affecting pensioners in Waterford Crystal and, to a lesser extent, SR Technics. Those people are taking a case against the State and there may be significant liabilities in respect of our failure to provide adequate pension cover. A proposal was put to the Minister to resolve the issue in respect of Waterford Crystal workers but she rejected it. If the case proceeds, as appears likely, and we end up with a major bill, it will largely be the Minister's responsibility on account of her failure to take action. I have serious concerns on this matter.

Apart from lone parents' pensions, the other priority for the Minister's two predecessors was carers but, unfortunately, they have completely fallen off the current Minister's agenda. In light of the fact that she has abandoned the commitment to produce a carers' strategy, is any work being done in respect of carers?

I ask the Minister to respond for ten minutes.

I thank both Deputies for their comments and questions. Both asked about the delivery of services, which is an issue. However, in the vast majority of offices the processing times are very good, notwithstanding the fact that they have huge numbers of claims. Nevertheless, there are problems with some branch offices and we are working directly to ensure they are targeted and supported. In branch offices such as Boyle where, as Deputy Enright said, there is a problem, nobody deals with decision making as it is a function of the parent office. Having set up four new processing units, applications can now be taken directly so that we can concentrate on clearing the backlog and processing times have reduced accordingly. Between 12 and 14 offices have a problem but the rest of the country has worked very effectively. We do not want anybody to have to wait and we want to support people at this difficult time. It takes time to train extra staff. We start with clerical officer level so that we can cover the basic processing of applications and then we move up to the higher grades.

The Deputy also asked about leave. Short-term sick leave is not covered but long-term leave is and any work arising in that event is distributed among colleagues. We do not have spare capacity, enabling us to take a person who is underemployed and put him or her into an understaffed area. Accordingly, we have sought additional staff from the Department of Finance, which has been very sympathetic though we do not yet have clearance. I have spoken to the Minister for Finance, and the Department is conscious of the fact that people have to be trained.

Although new applicants are creating work, the maintenance of claims also has to be taken into account. If there is any change in circumstance for any individual, such as a new baby in the house, the qualified adult gets work or the claimant happens to get a week's work or two or three days' work, all of that must be managed as well. There is such ongoing management of each of the claims.

On the brighter side and in respect of the green shoots they talk about in America and in Germany, while not meaning to be too optimistic because the seasonal factors can come into play, it is significant that in January we saw the horrific situation of 1,000 persons a day losing their jobs while in recent weeks the number of additional persons coming on the live register is down to 100 or 120. While we do not like to see any increase in the live register, I would hope that such are signs that matters are stabilising a little. That might be grounds for hope but at the same time we need the additional staff.

I mentioned at the outset that the Department has been trying to streamline some of the process. One of the issues is that which Deputy Enright mentioned of persons going off to FÁS and coming back after five or six weeks. The last thing we want is all this duplication and we are working on a system whereby there would be a much simpler method of applying to sign on for the second time. I am conscious that people will be doing short courses.

On claiming when one is not in the country, Deputies will be aware that somebody who has an entitlement here and who moves back home to seek work in his or her country is entitled to carry that claim for 13 weeks, which is paid by the home country and reimbursed by us. However, such persons are not entitled to child benefit unless they are living in this country. They would be entitled to the jobseeker's benefit, subject of to them looking for a job in their own country.

What checks are there on that? Who is responsible for notifying the Department that they have gone back?

For them to continue to be paid, they must notify the Department that they have gone back seeking work and then the two systems, of the home country and of the Department, work out the reimbursement for the home country. On notifying us that they have left the country, the Department notifies child benefit section to take them off child benefit.

If they do not tell the Department they have gone, where does it kick in? Is it when tax and PRSI is not being paid for them? How does the Department find out if the person does not take it upon himself or herself to notify?

For the purposes of the child benefit, we would have that three-month certification letter. If they are gone out of the country, then that is fraud.

It is, but it would be better to catch them beforehand rather than afterwards.

Of course it would. They are meant to be actively seeking work here or at home. We are conscious that there is more than anecdotal evidence of people coming in to claim who are no longer in this country. We have staff working in the immigration bureau in the airport as well and we are seeing how we can make further checks there to ensure people are genuinely actively seeking work in this country.

On the points Deputy Shortall raised on staffing, the Minister for Finance did not say he would tax lump sums next year. The Deputy is correct on the other issues of the levies and the pension levy.

He hinted heavily that he would do that.

He did, but he did not say he would do it.

That was the thrust of what he stated in his budget speech in encouraging people to avail of early retirement because he was going to look at the possibility of taxing the lump sum. The message was one needs to get out this year because if one waits until next year, one's lump sum will be taxed. That is certainly how it has been interpreted by public servants.

Obviously, the pension levy, etc. has had an impact on staff across the public service. The Secretary General is actively working to ensure the impact of that is mitigated as much as possible throughout the country.

I hope, when the 300 extra staff are employed the Department will be able to target where they need to go.

I am asking a question about morale generally and the impact of those actions by the Government in recent months, particularly arising out of the budget but also the demonising of public servants. Has the Minister considered the overall impact the Government approach is having on morale within the public service and the likelihood that very large numbers of people will leave the service in the coming year?

There is absolutely no question of the Government or any member of it demonising the public service. The Government has always worked closely with the public service and appreciates the value of the work it does, in all its guises. It has become necessary, because of the size of the public service——

Is it not the case that all Ministers, by and large, have lectured the public service in recent months that they should be grateful for the fact they have permanent jobs? That has been the tone of a number of Ministers' comments in the public arena.

It has become the case in recent months that the size of the public pay bill has had to be reduced. There are two ways of doing that. One reduces the numbers in the public service and the size of the bill, which is why the pension levy was introduced. None of those decisions was taken easily. We fully appreciate the impact that is having on people.

However, in the same way employers all over the country in the private sector are doing it for their workers, it was the Government, as the employer of thousands of people, who also took this line. We meet public servants who say we are picking on them. That is not the case. People in all sectors of private employment have been called in and had their incomes reduced by 10% or 20% and, even worse, have lost their jobs, which is why we have 384,000 people on the live register. One will not see public sector workers on the live register. There is a job guarantee there——

They will be taking early retirement this year.

——which is why the Government had to take action on the public pay bill by introducing the pension levy.

Any of the new initiatives, such as early retirement, job sharing or term time, all have to be agreed with the Secretary General of the individual Department. In the event of too many people looking for it or too many vacancies being created in particular areas, the Secretary General need not agree to it. From a management point of view, it must be dealt with at that level.

The second issue raised concerning workers was the whole issue of pensions. We are very conscious of the fact that people in the private sector have had their pensions removed or reduced and are certainly in a very precarious position. Again, that does not happen with the public sector. Given that the public sector had guarantees of job security and a pension, that is why the Government, in an effort to try and reduce the public pay bill, took the difficult decisions it took. It is appreciated it is difficult for public sector workers, particularly those on lower incomes, but the public pay bill had to be reduced.

From our Department's point of view, the fact there are staff in other Departments who can be better employed in our Department is working quite well with the numbers we received. I anticipate getting approval from the Department of Finance for the extra staff we sought. That in itself will help to improve morale, particularly if our own staff do not feel they are under as much pressure, and we look forward to that.

We have had a lot of discussion on rent supplement and mortgage interest supplement over the last number of weeks. MABS can and does negotiate for people, but there is undoubtedly an issue for people on fixed rate mortgages, an issue I spoke about with the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. People on a variable rate are benefitting significantly from the drop in mortgage interest rates but those tied into a fixed rate are suffering at the moment. The Minister for Finance is very conscious of this.

As to whether banks are in a position to release people from fixed rate mortgages without a penalty, this is something that should be done as part of the capitalisation programme and is something we have been in discussions about. Whether people took out the mortgage or loan when they were capable of repaying it, the community welfare officer looks to see if repayments were reasonable at the time for that person, given his or her income expectations or whatever. However, many people who extended their mortgage consolidated other loans, such as loans for cars or holidays, in their mortgage. As a result, their home loan accounts for only a small part of their mortgage. In such cases, people have difficulty qualifying for the mortgage interest supplement because they are not entitled to interest on loans other than their home loan.

The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, informed me that it is achieving success with the more mainstream financial institutions, although it is having problems with one or two other institutions. It can and does negotiate with the financial institutions. I expect to secure additional staff to support its work.

While the money advice and budgeting service can and does negotiate in certain cases, only some of its offices are equipped for negotiation purposes. MABS introduced a pilot debt settlement scheme — I understand it started in Coolock — which is successful in the areas in which it operates. In some places, however, it takes up to eight weeks to secure an appointment with MABS. The Minister will have read the form which those who contact the organisation must fill in. It is clear from the form that the main priority of MABS is to offer advice on money and budgeting as opposed to providing debt settlement and negotiation services, which are different skills. MABS staff who offer money advice to people coming in off the street, for example, by contacting the ESB and other utilities, are pitted against people whose full-time job is to try to generate the maximum amount of money for the financial institution that employs them. In many cases, cut-throat practices are used to achieve this objective.

I am informed, as are my party colleagues, that people are unable to obtain the service they require from MABS when they seek assistance in negotiating with financial institutions. Representatives of organisations such as the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, point out that this service is not available. The Department must focus on addressing this issue to ensure people are able to remain in their homes.

While mortgage interest supplement is available and is certainly a responsibility of the Department, the Government, through the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, must ensure a system is established to enable people to negotiate with financial institutions. Those who negotiate must have sufficient powers and must understand the intricacies of lending and mortgages if they are to negotiate on behalf of members of the public. Every Wednesday, after it concludes, RTE's "The Afternoon Show" is flooded with telephone calls from people seeking assistance. The programme makers voluntarily try to deal with this issue. It is wrong that people must turn to television programmes to access assistance that they cannot obtain from the State. While sub-prime lenders create a particular difficulty, they are not the only problem. This issue requires more attention than it has received.

I know from my meetings with representatives of the money advice and budgeting service around the country that some of its offices are highly effective in doing the type of work the Deputy highlighted. Approximately 90% of calls to the MABS helpline relate to the payment of bills. The immediate issues facing people are addressed and appointments are made quickly when emergencies arise.

It would be more helpful if emergencies were avoided in the first instance.

I appreciate the Deputy's point on debt. As I said, the Department is working with MABS to identify what more the organisation needs and I expect to be able to provide additional staff shortly to support its activities.

Will the staff be qualified and able to do the type of negotiation I described, which is not easy? Anyone can telephone the ESB or Bord Gáis. Both companies, whose representatives have appeared before the joint committee, take a reasonable approach to dealing with people in difficulty. When one telephones a mortgage company or financial institution, however, one deals with people who are on a different level. For this reason, those who negotiate on behalf of members of the public must have the necessary skills to deal with the financial institutions. I am not satisfied such skills are available to those who find themselves in difficulty.

How many additional staff does the Department intend to allocate to MABS?

While I am not in a position to answer the Deputy's question, the Department expects to provide more staff to the money advice and budgeting service.

On child benefit, only two options are outlined——

To return to my point, will the Department ensure the staff allocated to MABS are qualified and able to deal with the issue of mortgage debt? Given that a person whose house is repossessed receives some form of social welfare payment, it would be much better if the Department were to pay to keep people in their homes.

I accept it would be much better and much less traumatic for people to be able to stay in their own homes. The MABS companies are separate individual companies which conduct their own recruitment. They recruit qualified people. We will ensure that in recruiting any additional staff they will try to target people who have those skills.

With regard to child benefit, only two options were put forward by the Minister for Finance. He said he intended to examine whether it could be means tested or taxed. They were the only options he said the Government was considering. No decision has been made in that regard yet.

Is it incorrect that the Government is considering cutting the flat rate, which was reported in the media? Is that on the agenda?

No, and the Minister for Finance made that clear that day.

Is it anywhere on the agenda?

No. He said the only two options being examined were means testing or taxing. Obviously there are logistical issues attached to both, but they are the only two being examined. The Minister for Finance made a statement to that effect that day.

With regard to appeals, medical evidence and so forth, the question is not whether a person has a medical condition or complaint but their capacity to work. The majority of cases are not appealed. However, I accept that of those that are appealed, there is a success rate for the appellant. We are examining the reason for that. There is an increase in the number of people going onto DA, which I do not like. Apparently, it happens with economic recessions around the world. The numbers have been increasing in recent months.

This was an issue before the recession.

Yes, but although the numbers were increasing, that increase was reasonably constant.

There are issues relating to different standards being applied by medical officers. All Members will have received complaints about medical officers allegedly not looking at evidence, not examining the person and so forth. I brought this to the Minister's attention a long time ago. Has she done anything about it?

If medical evidence and consultants' reports are sent, it is not for officials to second guess the medical evidence.

I am not talking about officials but about the medical officer in the Department.

As I have said, this is not about the medical condition but about the capacity to work.

It is about the medical condition as well.

It is the medical condition and how that affects one's capacity to work, not necessarily in the job one was doing formerly but the capacity to work at all and the capacity to work for the next 12 months.

The Minister is not denying there is an issue with the fact that so many of the appeals on medical grounds are upheld. Has she done anything to address that?

As I said, we are examining that.

Has anything been done about it?

The officials within the Department are examining it.

That is the same answer as the Minister gave me several months ago.

No, it is not.

It is. I brought it to her attention a long time ago and asked if she was doing anything about it.

The majority of cases are not appealed. However, there is an issue with the increase in the numbers applying for disability allowance. It is a worldwide issue but I am not satisfied with the direction it is going. Disability allowance should not be linked to recession.

I asked about a different issue.

I know, but I am entitled to make my point as well.

It would be nice if the Minister would answer the question.

With regard to the other priorities about——

Before the Minister proceeds to another matter, I asked about the legislative independence of the appeals office.

Yes. I have no plans for that.

Does the Minister not think there is an issue in that regard?

I have no plans to make it legislatively independent.

I just do not have any plans to do it.

The appeals officer has brought this to the Minister's attention.

Yes, but it is not part of the legislative priorities for the year.

Does the Minister think it would be desirable to move towards a situation where the appeals office was fully independent?

Not necessarily at present. It is not a legislative priority. There is a great deal of legislation which we have had to work through quickly.

It is only two Bills in the year.

We have had to deal with pensions issues and there are more pensions issues. I have no plans at present regarding the appeals office.

It would not be particularly difficult to do. As a principle, does the Minister not consider it desirable to have a separate appeals office that would be legally independent of the Minister?

I have no plans in that regard.

Would the Minister consider it?

Not at present. On the question of lone parents and the financial disincentives, I accept there are issues in that regard. The original proposal that came forward was wider than the lone parents issue. It related to qualified adults and all low-income families. Issues arise in that regard currently, especially given that jobs are not as available as they were previously. It is possible to progress some of the issues relating to lone parents because we now have better access to child care and educational opportunities. I hope to be in a position to progress some of those issues.

Are they not side issues? The Minister has been dodging the key issue since she assumed responsibility for the Department, namely, that there is a huge disincentive for parents to live together with their children, either on a cohabiting basis or as a married couple, because they lose so much money if they live under the one roof. The Minister needs to address that issue. It was recognised as far back as when the late Séamus Brennan was Minister. There is a need for a flexible payment that would be targeted at poor children, irrespective of their parents' circumstances. Does the Minister accept the principle, that she needs to move in that direction?

The Minister referred to the non-pay aspects of the matter and the pilot programmes on activation.

I never mentioned them.

The Minister has not referred to the key issue. It has been recognised that there is a serious disincentive. Does the Minister accept that it is bad public policy if low-income parents are discouraged from living together with their children?

I never mentioned pilot projects.

Any time the Minister is asked about the issue that is what she talks about.

I have not mentioned pilot projects at all.

The Minister does not talk about the key aspect of the matter.

The overriding policy consideration is to ensure there are no major disincentives to people forming stable relationships.

We know that there are disincentives. The study that was carried out in the early 1990s shows that was the case. The committee is in the process of commissioning an updated study to prove to the Minister that that is still the case. The late Minister, Séamus Brennan, recognised there were disincentives. Is the Minister going to do anything about it?

I did not say there were not disincentives, but the overriding policy consideration is the fact that there should not be any financial disincentives. It has long since been recognised that there are disincentives. That was the original premise of the paper to which the Deputy referred. The removal of financial disincentives would have a broader impact, not just on the lone parent but on the qualified adult who is a central part of that document also. That has broader implications than just the lone parent. Not all financial disincentives would be removed because where somebody is in employment he or she might be disinclined to declare that also.

I understand that the committee is considering seeking further advice. I look forward to that study being updated also. I hope to be able to progress some of the issues relating to this matter but it could have the impact of getting more people onto the live register and on the system being more costly to the State, which we have to bear in mind at this time also. However, we would like to progress the issue further this year. The current economic situation will undoubtedly impact on us to the extent that conditions will be attached to payment, including that one may have to seek work. We do not wish to appear anti-family. It is not just a financial disincentive, it has to do with all those other issues also. I will welcome whatever new evidence may be provided to the committee.

It sounds as if the Minister is continuing to kick to touch on this issue.

Perhaps the Vice Chairman would be able to advise when the report is available.

The purpose of the study is not to provide the Minister with another excuse to delay doing anything in this area.

The study would be very useful.

All the Minister is doing is talking about it. The issues have been recognised. The proposal is in place to deal with those issues since the days of the late Minister, Séamus Brennan. Is it the Minister's intention to do anything about this issue or will she continue to ignore it?

I will repeat all that I said if necessary. The economic situation has impacted to some extent on the issue. The fact that it refers to the issue of qualified adults will have an impact on putting conditionality on them. Putting conditionality on people seeking work, as one would be doing for them——

The Minister obviously does not intend to talk about it.

I am being realistic about it. The current situation affects things. On the positive side, any lone parents' group that I have met speaks about child care as being one of the key issues to enable its members change their way of life. The fact that more places have become available will act as a support to those people especially. While progress might not have been made on the initial document that was published, progress has been made in the other support areas that will help us in formulating a new policy.

Quite a lot has happened on pensions since December. The current changing situation has impacted greatly on the rate of change and on the number of new measures we have been able to introduce, all of which have been welcomed and which have been of benefit to some of the companies that were mentioned. Measures include the PIPS scheme, from which people will be able to benefit. Some of the companies that are currently insolvent and that have pension schemes in deficit are getting a double whammy, and this is difficult for them. Many of those companies have an integrated pension scheme which is integrated with the State pension, so even though the private pension element has fallen, that has not had an impact on the State pension element. Therefore, by giving that extra percentage under PIPS, we are hoping to support people. We are currently looking at other measures, as we are very conscious of the fact that in double insolvency cases, we need other measures to support the people affected.

The €2.9 billion cost in tax benefits is provided by the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners. They do not take full account of the tax forgone in the same way as they take account of tax coming into them. The benefit of this is nearly €3 billion. Part of the long-term pension strategy is to ensure that pension relief and tax relief can be more evenly spread, so that it is not just the high earners who benefit from it, but that other workers can benefit from it as well. The coverage is at about 55%, and it has gone up in recent years. The promotional publicity campaigns for the Pensions Board are successful, even if it is hard for people to see the value of investing in such a fund when other funds are running into difficulty.

Unless one is rich and there is much value in it. The State facilitates the rich.

Because one gets the tax benefit.

Why is the Minister not counting the tax forgone?

One of the aims in the long-term strategy is to try to ensure that there is a more equitable distribution of any kind of relief available.

The problem is that it is not equitable. Has the Minister got a more up-to-date figure than 2006, given that there apparently has been much work going in the Department? Why is the tax forgone not counted? That is a charge on the Exchequer. If a full picture on pensions is to be obtained, that tax should be counted.

The Department of Finance indicated that the Revenue Commissioners do not do this. All they do is check for compliance and there is a success rate in looking at that. The question about the tax forgone should best be put to the Revenue Commissioners. The Deputy should have asked that when they were in with the Committee of Public Accounts.

The Minister is in charge of pension policy. If she is bringing in pension proposals, they will be incomplete if she does not have costings for them.

The most up-to-date figure from the Revenue Commissioners is that of €2.9 billion.

Is there no breakdown of that figure?

One could presume it is slightly more in recent years. There is no breakdown because the Revenue Commissioners do not take full account——

Therefore, the Minister does not know what it costs to provide pensions.

If I remember correctly from reading the transcript, the Deputy asked the same question when the Revenue Commissioners were before the Committee of Public Accounts. They indicated to the Deputy that they did not have the time or staff to carry out that work. They are responsible for that issue.

They have been formally requested to find the figures for us.

I believe I have answered the key questions.

The Minister mentioned the term "long-term strategy" which is a bit worrying. When will that be published? The Minister said people welcomed what she did two weeks ago. I am sure the limited number of people who will benefit have welcomed it, but I and colleagues meet people every day from Bord na Móna, the ESB and other companies who will not benefit from what the Minister did a fortnight ago.

The Minister stated that people should not arrive at pension age and find their incomes are well below what was promised to them. However, that is what thousands of people aged 60 years plus, who are due to retire in the next few years, are facing. They want to know what strategy is to be put in place and when that will happen. Perhaps the Minister will outline the position in this regard. She has had ample opportunity already to do so. It is almost a year and a half since the Green Paper was published. I presume the person dealing with the carer's strategy is also dealing with the pension strategy. Obviously, he or she is not now tied up with the carer's strategy given that it has been cancelled. I presume then that person is dealing full time with this matter. When will the White Paper be published?

The Green Paper, on which we received 380 submissions, was published at the end of 2007. There was a consultation conference with the international conference. The strategy will be a long-term framework, not just a mechanism for dealing with immediate issues. The measures taken in December and last month deal with immediate issues. We must bear in mind that, while people are extremely worried about their pensions and pension funds, they are private investment funds, and it is important the State is not exposed to enormous risk from those private investment funds. We understand that 90% — up to €30 billion — of defined benefit schemes are in deficit. Obviously, we would have to protect the State's interests in any measure we might take.

We have introduced new measures in the past few weeks and are considering what other measures can be introduced to support people. We are particularly conscious of cases involving double insolvency, namely, where a company is insolvent resulting in a person losing his or her job and that person losing his or her pension rights or entitlements. While other countries have set up pension protection funds, the liabilities on them are phenomenal. It would not be possible at this stage for us to put a levy on pension funds which are already in difficulty. We are, however, considering other issues. The framework document will be a long-term one, the aim of which is to kick-start the process in three or four years' time.

The fact that it will not commence for three or four years means publication is even more urgent. It is important the strategy is published so that we know what will happen.

It is hoped it will be published in the next couple of weeks, but our attention has been diverted in the past few weeks to the more immediate issues.

This issue requires immediate attention. A number of reports on pensions have been produced in the past 12 years. It is a time bomb that will cause real difficulties for the State if it is not dealt with immediately. The Minister is looking at this from the point of view of people not being due to retire for a number of years and as such for them it is not an immediate issue, but thousands of people are facing the prospect of having no pension on retirement despite their having paid into pension funds. Perhaps this issue will not be dealt with in the strategy. When will the strategy be published? I am disappointed the Minister does not accept this is an immediate priority.

It is an immediate priority but the framework will deal with the long-term issue of pensions and probably will not commence until approximately 2012-13. That will be the starting point. There are immediate issues affecting companies and these are the ones with which we have been dealing during the past few weeks.

Are there other issues with which the Minister would like to deal?

It is a matter of concern that, while the Minister has stated she will publish a document that will set out a long-term strategy, nothing will happen in that regard for the next three to four years. As the Minister said, more than 90% of defined benefit schemes are underfunded. She needs to bring forth more radical proposals than that.

One good reason the framework should not have been published this week or last week is that we have been dealing with the immediate issues.

However, that is for a very limited number of people. It is very disappointing that the Minister does not seem to intend to deal with the fundamental problems of the underfunding of defined benefit schemes. Various approaches have been proposed to the Minister, including investing in a universal State pension rather than investing in tax relief that benefits the better off. The Minister has received proposals to nationalise some of the defined benefit funds. At a point when the State needs funding for recapitalising the banks there is considerable scope for something creative in that regard. However, having waited many years for Government proposals it is very disappointing that it sounds like it will be a damp squib and will not address the fundamental underfunding problems. The Minister has a legal obligation to ensure adequate pension coverage, which was at the heart of the Robins case. She seems to be washing her hands of that.

There are two very distinct issues, both of which we have been addressing. One is the long-term framework which has been in the making and which concerns making provision for the futures of existing workers. It deals with the issues of the importance of the State pension and any additional provision that people would make in that regard. It deals with the retirement age, which is part of the final document that is due to be published. Given the current problems we are also trying to address, there is an argument in favour of not, as it were, confusing the issue and just considering the long term and not the short term. However, we are also addressing the immediate issue. The evidence of that is that we have already introduced measures in December and recently. There are other issues that we are also considering. I accept suggestions were made by various bodies, including the unions, which are being considered by my Department and the Department of Finance. They do not contradict what is proposed in the long-term framework. While the framework does not necessarily deal with those immediate needs either, they are both being dealt with separately, recognising that they are two very distinct issues.

Has the Minister any other issues?

I do not believe so.

That being the case, I will move on. I hope members were happy that I allowed flexibility in the agenda, which I believe helped the discussion. However, I do not have flexibility over this meeting ending in approximately 25 minutes, which is what we agreed. We also have some private business to deal with. By order of the committee each member now has two minutes to ask questions, followed by the Minister's responses. Members would expect me to conclude the meeting by 11.55 a.m. and I am asking them to co-operate in that regard.

I want to raise the issue of the self-employed who find great difficulty when seeking assistance from the social services. This issue has arisen on many programmes recently. Has the Minister considered the issue? Unlike at any other time, more professional people are unemployed now than heretofore. Many of these people find it very difficult to get the services. We might deal with that issue.

I listened to Deputy Shortall's bleeding heart for people who have permanent jobs. She is opposed to the levy system and the health increases. She wants to give medical cards to millionaires. Does she not realise that we borrow €20 billion to pay the public service workers, including nurses? We need to find the money somewhere. Let us get a bit real here. This is not a piggybank. We borrow money from abroad. We must ensure the public finances are balanced. I would love to hear solutions from the Labour Party because I have heard nothing in the past three——

Senator Butler has not been listening.

I have heard nothing on the Labour Party's solutions in the past three to six months. It is all things to all people and, while that might be a great policy to have, many people are beginning to see through what the Labour Party is doing. It simply is politicising the entire situation.

The Senator has a brass neck to come out with such rubbish.

I did not interrupt Deputy Shortall while she was speaking.

The Chair is trying to be impartial and has not interfered with anyone——

What is the point of this contribution?

——but were Senator Butler to conclude, I would appreciate it.

I will be quick. In respect of the national pension fund, serious consideration must be given to what is being done at present. Certain speakers have made proposals with which I do not greatly disagree. At present, between 30% and 50% is being lost on our pension funds. I favour a compulsory pension fund that would give people an option whereby contributions either would be made to the national pension fund or, for those who so choose, into private pension funds. Something must be done in this regard.

On rent supplement, I draw the Minister's attention to the reduction in rents by most private landlords of between 15% and 20%. She should adjust rent supplement downwards to take account of the present position. Some negotiations must be entered into with the banks in respect of the low interest rates that obtain. Given that the Government is dealing with the banks, this would be helpful for those who are struggling.

As many professional people are unemployed, would it be possible to put together a skills directory in this regard? Perhaps people such as solicitors, architects, accountants and others of that ilk could be paid and put to work. They are professional and, while one cannot teach them anything, they can teach others a lot. For a small additional sum of money, the establishment of such a skills directory might facilitate the use of professional people to help others who are unemployed but who do not have the same skills, and this could be beneficial. On the bigger picture, everyone could tap into a national or European skills directory to ascertain where the jobs are as well as the type of professional jobs that are available. That would be helpful and, given the technology available, Ireland could be a leader in that regard. Instead of someone going to Australia to find out there is no work there, this would be a much better idea. The Minister should consider such a measure.

I apologise to the Minister for my absence earlier but I was caught up in my father's business. I wish to mention a couple of matters. I was canvassing in Dublin last night and as the subject of the Bord na Móna pension scheme arose, I wish to put on record that it, together with many other similar pension schemes, is a major issue for families and is causing much anxiety. The issue of the self-employed, which was raised by Senator Butler, is a matter about which all members are very conscious. For example, I mention the circumstances of builders who have gone into near-bankruptcy and who lack money to put food on the table.

I welcome the efforts to control abuse or waste. I have already mentioned this case in the Dáil, where controls have gone over the top. It concerns a 70 year old who returned from England and is home five years. He never looked for anything but his money is spent on restructuring and renovating his old home. He looked for a top-up and the social welfare officer who visited him questioned how the man could live on the amount of money he was getting from England. The man replied that he occasionally works for his brother and gives a hand with cattle in return for the odd bit of dinner there. When the returns came back, it showed an income from his brother of €5,200 and an allowance to cover the dinners of €2,500.

I have called the brother and his wife. His brother's wife is not able for the work through serious illness so she is not providing a fancy dinner for him. His brother is not making a payment of €5,200 per year. This has gone overboard to try to save the Department money. I agree that in Border counties of Cavan and Monaghan and in towns such as Ballyconnell there is a danger of people trying to gain access to social welfare both north and south of the Border. There are cases where personnel from the Department go over the top when trying to save money. I dealt with this case on a personal basis because I was so angry about it. That is going too far and I realise that there has been much waste in throwing money away on gimmicks.

We have encouraged people who had to leave in the 1970s and 1980s to come back to this country. They worked hard in the UK but were not there long enough to get a full pension. They need some help and they will be an asset to the country. Money will not go into some external account, it will be spent on dinner and petrol. When living in a rural area, one cannot live on buttons. I apologise for bringing up this case but it angered me more than any I have come across in a long time.

I apologise because I had to leave to attend another committee. The administration of the rent allowance must be examined. While it was necessary, there was much abuse. Property and rent prices have reduced and we must consider this.

Some of those who are young, self-employed and work very hard, having set up in business in recent years, are penniless. They are unable to provide for themselves and must return to their parents. It is very tough.

The issue of pensions has been well aired today but there is room for improvement. There must be surety that there will be a pension if people pay into it. I compliment the staff in the offices and exchanges. I can only comment on my county. They are working very hard under enormous pressure. Reference was made to people on maternity and sick leave. I cannot understand how staff who are underutilised, especially in this downturn, could not be transferred from other areas. Why must we beg the Minister for Finance for extra staff and wait for approval? I refer to staff at the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, where the capital programme is suspended. I am sure there are other areas where one does not need be a genius to work out that they are not very busy. As a result of the recession, the workload may have diminished somewhat so why can people not be moved? I am not suggesting that people should be instructed to move across but surely the slack can be taken up by people swapping around.

There is a plethora of agencies in existence; at the other committee meeting I attended this morning, we got a list of 20 different agencies with a staggering number of employees and associated cost to the State. Many give a very valuable service. Why can the staff of the National Employment Rights Authority not be transferred on to the front line if they have qualifications, which I am sure they have, to take up the slack in these Departments during this crisis? When things settle down afterwards, they can be brought back to their own agencies.

Is there freedom to move around in the public service? I am a small business person and all my staff, including me, perform every task at different times. The same ideology must come to Departments and if it does not, we will not be able to cope. We must have that flexibility from trade unions and everybody else. We must put our shoulder to the wheel and where the work exists, we should do it.

I thank the Deputy. There might be another day when I will have a couple of questions for the Minister. I notice that in two hours, nobody mentioned Tallaght, but we will do that again.

It has been mentioned now.

I invite the Minister to respond. I would like her to confine her response to ten minutes so that the meeting can be concluded.

A couple of issues were raised by Senator Butler and Deputies Crawford and Mattie McGrath. With regard to self-employed people, inspectors have been advised that they should not take future income projections into account in the same way as they used to up to now. Future income used to be based on past income, whereas now that is not a determining factor. Inspectors have been advised in this regard and this has freed up the process around the country. Self-employed people may expect an automatic entitlement to the jobseeker's benefit but the stamp paid as a self-employed person does not entitle a person to the benefit. They would qualify for any means test assessment and with regard to projected earnings, inspectors have been much more flexible, as they have been advised.

Rent supplement is being reduced from 1 June and the amount which the individual has to pay has gone up to €24 and there is an 8% reduction. When rent reviews come up, there will be further reduction, taking into account that the private rented accommodation market has seen increased availability and decreased rents. That issue is certainly in hand.

With regard to a skills directory, to date we have not enough information on who is on the live register but in the most recent Social Welfare Bill, we took the authority to be able to get that information from people so we have their skills and qualifications. That would enable us in future to be able to make best use of that, not only in the way discussed by the Senator but in advising people as to what opportunities might be available for them.

I know Deputy Crawford appreciates the importance of the control measures. The aim in any of our investigations is not so much to save money as to ensure that people are entitled to what they get. The two most senior officials with me today have indicated that if the Deputy would give them details, they will follow up on a particular case.

That will be no problem.

There is a €200 per week disregard from earnings for the non-contributory State pension.

The person is on the PAYE system.

They are earnings of any form.

Deputy Mattie McGrath asked about staff and the freedom to move. There are all sorts of staffing arrangements and agreements in place agreed with unions over the years. As we have seen in recent months, it has been possible to move people, particularly from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to our Department. It is not as easy to move people from agencies into the Department because they may have a different status. We have found this with the Combat Poverty Agency and people coming from there to the social inclusion section of the Department. There has been good movement and we look forward to getting the additional staff.

The Minister referred to early retirement and stated that the Secretary General of the Department has discretion in this regard. Have guidelines been issued to Secretaries General in respect of this matter and would it be possible for a copy of such guidelines to be circulated to members?

Ms Bernadette Lacey

The Department of Finance produced the guidelines and has written to the Departments with regard to them. A circular has been issued to all Departments.

Is that circular in the public domain?

Ms Bernadette Lacey

I am sure it is available. Such circulars are normally in the public domain.

I thank Ms Lacey. My second question relates to mortgage interest supplement and the 30-hour rule which applies. In circumstances where a husband loses his job and seeks assistance with mortgage repayments, many families are shocked to discover that he is automatically precluded from receiving such assistance if his partner is working 30 or more hours a week. This preclusion applies irrespective of the amount of the mortgage or of how much his partner is earning. This rule appears to be extremely arbitrary and it does not reflect families' need for assistance. Has the Minister any plans to review the position in this regard?

I apologise on behalf of my Secretary General, who intervened earlier but who is apparently not allowed to do so. I am advised that the cost of extending the 30-hour rule could be significant. We are keeping the matter under review.

Assistance is available to people who are better off but who are not working 30 hours a week.

Yes, but it is still means tested.

I know that. However, a person could be working 30 hours a week and might only be in receipt of the minimum wage. The rule applies, irrespective of his or her financial circumstances.

I know. I have considered this matter but I have been advised that it would be extremely costly to extend it beyond 30 hours a week because it would then apply to a greater number of people.

I would have thought that it should be extended, particularly on grounds of fairness. Why should the Department be helping those who are better off?

It is still means tested, even when one has completed one's 30 hours.

I know that it is the case. However, this does not take account of the circumstances of those who may be working 30 hours a week for the minimum wage and who require support.

I have examined the matter from that perspective. However, the cost of extending it could be massive. I will see what further information I can obtain for the Deputy.

Due to the fact that the State, on foot of arbitrary rules, is refusing to assist people, a family might eventually lose its home and become dependent on the former to supply it with social housing. That does not make sense.

As a result of our discussing this matter so often, I wondered whether the rule led to people being excluded. As stated, however, the cost involved in extending it could be enormous. I will reconsider the matter to see if anything can be done.

I am not sure whether it is possible to confirm whether people are being excluded. What is happening is that when people discover that they cannot avail of assistance, the partner who is working 30 or more hours usually gives up his or her job because he or she will be better off on the dole. The latter should never be the case.

That should never be the position and it would be a consideration in our reconsidering the matter.

I appreciate what the Minister said in respect of the self-employed. Were written guidelines relating to this issue circulated to social welfare officers? There appears to be a difference regarding the way individual officers are dealing with the matter. It is important that the current rather than the historical position be taken into account.

I understand all social welfare officers have been advised that this should be the case. However, I do not know whether written guidelines have been issued.

I hope such guidelines will be sent to them.

I thank the Minister and her officials, particularly the Secretary General, for attending and I thank members for their co-operation. I hope the flexibility we have shown has made an impact. I propose that we go into private session to deal with some matters that are outstanding.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.50 a.m. and adjourned at 11.55 a.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 May 2009.
Top
Share