Written Answers Nos. 336-358
336. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection if JobPath providers (details supplied) hired 10% of their staff from the live register; if not, the percentage of staff that were hired from the live register, as committed to in a social clause in the contract between the providers and his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24480/17]
View answer337. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection if monitoring and measuring of employer satisfaction with the JobPath service providers (details supplied) has taken place to date; the frequency with which this monitoring takes place; the way in which it is conducted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24481/17]
View answer338. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection if the fees payable to both JobPath providers (details supplied) have been reduced by between 4% and 16% since the introduction of Jobpath in view of changes in employment levels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24482/17]
View answer339. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of persons who have been reported to his Department by the JobPath providers (details supplied) for repeatedly failing to engage with the providers; the number of payments that have been reduced or suspended as a result of this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24483/17]
View answer340. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of audits his Department has carried out to date as part of the obligation that contracts with service providers (details supplied) will be performance managed by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24477/17]
View answer341. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection when the econometric evaluation of Jobpath by the Labour Market Council committed to in 2016 and 2017 will take place; the estimated time for publication; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24551/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 336 to 341, inclusive, together.
As the deputy will be aware, the State’s Public Employment Service is managed by my Department and delivered directly by its own Intreo service as well as by contracted private companies, such as JobPath, Local Employment Service and Job Club providers. The Department has contracts in place with in excess of 60 companies for the provision of these services. This includes two contracts with JobPath service providers.
The JobPath providers are subject to regular on-site checks and inspections to ensure that JobPath is delivered in accordance with contractual obligations. To date, 33 on-site inspections have been carried out at provider locations around the country. The inspections cover a variety of subjects including service delivery, suitability and standard of accommodation, staffing, signage, Irish language compliance and complaints procedures. Regular inspections will be conducted for the duration of the JobPath contract.
With regards to employer satisfaction both JobPath providers seek to monitor employer satisfaction on an on-going basis by gathering feedback from employers through a variety of means including: regular contact with employers (to see for example if clients placed into employment require further support and assistance), providing employers with dedicated contact points, early engagement with employers to facilitate the recruitment of staff (which may involve the pre-screening of candidates, facilitating recruitment days, in centre interviews, facilitating clients to complete on line applications, training for clients to access specific routes to employment, the funding of work wear and equipment). Both companies will also be undertaking a survey of employers later this year to seek additional feedback to further enhance the services they are providing.
With regard to the fees payable to providers, the department has as part of its contract management approach built in various safeguards relating to the cost of the service - these include mechanisms linked to economic performance and the possible retention of fees should contractor performance not meet the expectations of the department with regards to, for example, the quality of the service being delivered. My Department has reserved the right, at its sole discretion, to discount registration and sustainment fees if employment levels in the economy exceed the reference employment levels asset out in the request for tender: as reported in the results of the quarterly national household survey (QNHS) for the last quarter of each calendar year. The discount is applicable to the fees to be paid in the subsequent calendar year. I can advise the deputy that, in the context of the increase numbers of people in employment in recent years, discounts have been applied to the fees payable to the JobPath providers.
The JobPath request for tender also specified that the successful companies would be required to ensure that no less than 10% of employees recruited to administer the service would be persons who in the period immediately prior to their recruitment had been registered on a national unemployment register within the EU or EEA for a continuous period of at least 12 months. Both JobPath providers have confirmed that at least 10% of their employees were on the live register for at least twelve months prior to being recruited.
With regard to the number of clients engaged with the service who have had a penalty rate applied to their jobseekers payment, failure of a jobseeker to engage, without good cause, with the Department’s employment services can have consequences for the jobseeker’s payments. However it is important to note that the rules and processes for the application of a reduced rate of payment are the same across all of the Department’s employment services whether they are delivered directly by the Department’s own Intreo service or through its contracted services. It should also be noted that only a departmental official (not contractor’s staff) can make such a decision.
The process with regards to such decisions includes written / verbal warnings and an opportunity for the jobseeker to re-engage with the services prior to the application of a reduced payment rate. Of the approximately 95,000 clients who started their engagement period with the service since its inception in July 2015, approximately 19,000 non-engagement cases have arisen. However a reduction in jobseekers related payments has only occurred in circa 4,000 cases.
In relation to the econometric evaluation of JobPath, it is important to note that jobseekers may be supported through the service for up to 30 months - under the service jobseekers have access to a personal adviser (PA) who works with them over two phases. During the first phase, of 12 months duration, the PA provides practical assistance in searching, preparing for, securing and sustaining employment. The second phase starts if the jobseeker is successful in finding work. During this phase the PA continues to work with the jobseeker for a further period of at least three months, and up to 12 months. In addition to the two phases jobseekers may also undertake training while with the service and this may extend the period the jobseeker is supported through the service for up to a further 6 months.
It will therefore take time to accumulate a sufficient number of clients (who have completed their engagement period with the service) for complete and robust outcome data to be available. With this in mind, it is intended that the econometric evaluation of the service will commence at the end of 2017. The Department has however commenced publishing initial cohort reports on the performance of the service, with the first such report having been published on the Department’s website in January. The next such report will be published on the department’s website shortly.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
342. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to reinstate the State transition pension; his further plans to prevent persons forced to retire at 65 years of age having to apply for jobseeker's allowance for one year until they reach the State pensionable age of 66 years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24485/17]
View answerThe Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2011 provided that State pension age will be increased gradually to 68 years. This began in January 2014 with the abolition of the State pension (transition), which had been available from 65 for those who satisfied the qualifying conditions, thereby standardising State pension age for all at 66 years. This is the current State pension age. It will increase to 67 in 2021 and to 68 in 2028.
In most cases, it is hoped that workers will continue to work up to the new State pension age. Where this is not possible, there are specific measures which apply to someone claiming Jobseeker’s Benefit from a date after their 65th birthday. Where qualified, these recipients may continue to be eligible for that payment until reaching pension age.
Reversing the abolition of State pension (transition) would have a significant Exchequer cost. In 2013, the cost of the State pension (transition) was €137 million. Its abolition was not expected to save that amount of expenditure in full, as some people who were affected would alternatively claim working age payments such as Jobseeker's Benefit (albeit at a lower rate than the rate of the State pension), or may claim an Increase for a Qualified Adult in respect of their spouse’s pension. However, it is estimated that well over half of the gross cost has been saved each year as a result of this measure, and this would be expected to increase as (a) the number of 65 year olds increases, (b) the change results in a higher percentage of people working while aged 65, and (c) there have been two Budget increases in the rate of the State pension since then. It is estimated that the net saving in 2018 is likely to be in the region of €84 million, and this is expected to increase over time. The cost of reversing this decision would depend, therefore, on the effective date of such a measure, and also on any resultant changes in behaviour.
Each year more people are living to pension age and living longer in retirement. As a result of this demographic change, the number of State pension recipients is increasing year on year. This has significant implications for the future costs of State pension provision, and demographic change alone is expected to increase spending on pensions by over €220 million this year, not including the impact of rate increases.
The purpose of changes to the State pension age is to make the pension system more sustainable in the context of increasing life expectancy. This sustainability is vital, if the current workers, who fund State pension payments through their PRSI on a Pay-As-You-Go basis, are to receive a pension themselves when they reach retirement age. Rowing back on these changes, which have already been legislated for, would undermine that sustainability, to the detriment of current workers.
It should also be borne in mind that these changes are modest in the context of increasing longevity among older people, and the duration of the average pension is still expected to increase based on current trends.
There is no legally mandated retirement age in the State, and the age at which employees retire is a matter for the contract of employment between them and their employers. While such a contract may have been entered into with a retirement date of 65, in the context of the previous State pension arrangements, there is no legal impediment to the employer and employee agreeing to increase the duration of employment for one or more years, if both parties wish to do so.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
343. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the alternative income available for a person (details supplied) following loss of their one-parent family allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24489/17]
View answerI confirm that my department received an application for carer’s allowance (CA) from the person concerned on 7 February 2017.
It is a condition for receipt of CA that the carer must provide full-time care and attention to a person who has a disability such that they require that level of care. Social welfare legislation defines a person as requiring full time care and attention where the person has such a disability that s/he requires
a) continual supervision and frequent assistance in connection with normal bodily functions, or
b) continual supervision in order to avoid danger to himself/herself.
The exact amount of hours or days for which care must be provided is not defined. However, one of the tests to decide if full-time care and attention is being provided is whether the care given addresses the above issues.
My Department takes the view that full-time care and attention does not necessarily mean 24 hours in each day. Full-time care and attention can be considered to apply where there is an ongoing and daily commitment by the carer and which also generally results in the carer not being able to support him/herself through normal full-time employment.
The person concerned was refused carer’s allowance on the grounds that she was not providing full-time care and attention as required. The person concerned was notified on 2 May 2017 of this decision, the reason for it and of her right of review and appeal. To date, no request for a review or appeal has been received from the person concerned.
I note that although the one-parent family payment (OFP) has ceased to be paid to the person concerned due to her youngest child reaching the OFP age threshold, she is now in receipt of a jobseeker’s allowance transitional payment from her local Intreo office.
If she does return to employment of at least 38 hours per fortnight, she may have an entitlement to the back-to-work family dividend as well as family income supplement. The person concerned should make an appointment with the case officer in her local Intreo centre to discuss her entitlements, should she return to employment.
The care recipient may have an entitlement to a Home Care Package. A Home Care Package is a set of services provided by the HSE to help an older person to be cared for in their own home. The services, for example additional home help hours, nursing services, therapy services, might be needed due to illness, disability or after a stay in hospital or following rehabilitation in a nursing home. A Home Care Package includes extra services and supports that are over and above the normal community services that the HSE provides directly or through a HSE funded service.
To apply a person must fill in a Home Care Package application form and send it to the Home Care Package Manager at their local health office. I have arranged for an application form to be sent to the person concerned.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
344. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will review a matter (details supplied); his plans to reform the pension system which discriminates against persons, mainly women, who took time out of the workforce prior to 1994 to care for children or elderly relatives; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24495/17]
View answerThere are two State pensions. Firstly, the State pension (non-contributory) is a means tested pension and is funded by general taxation. Secondly, the State pension (contributory) is not means tested and is paid from the Social Insurance Fund.
It is important to ensure that those qualifying for a contributory pension have made a sustained contribution to the Social Insurance Fund over their working lives. To ensure that the individual can maximise their entitlement to a State pension (contributory), all contributions paid or credited over their working life from when they first enter insurable employment until pension age are taken into account when assessing their entitlement and the level of that entitlement.
The home-makers scheme makes qualification for a higher rate of State pension (contributory) easier for those who take time out of the workforce for caring duties. The scheme, which was introduced in and took effect for periods from 1994, allows up to 20 years spent caring for children under 12 years of age (or caring for incapacitated people over that age) to be disregarded when a person’s social insurance record is being averaged for pension purposes, subject to the standard qualifying conditions for State pension contributory also being satisfied. This may have the effect of increasing the yearly average of the pensioner, which is used to set the rate of their pension.
This scheme was not introduced retrospectively. My Department has estimated that the annual cost of extending the Homemakers scheme to allow people to avail of the full 20 years currently allowed under the scheme, encompassing periods prior to 1994, could cost some €290m in 2017, and this figure would rise at a faster rate than the rate of the overall cost of State pensions. This is a very significant cost, and the main beneficiaries would be people who already have significant household means, and who do not therefore qualify for an alternative means-tested payment.
Where someone does not qualify for a full rate contributory pension, they may qualify for an alternative payment. If their spouse has a contributory pension, they may qualify for an Increase for a Qualified Adult amounting up to 90% of a full rate pension. Alternatively, they may qualify for a State pension (non-contributory), which amounts up to 95% of the maximum contributory rate. While this payment is subject to a household means-test, there are very significant disregards which mean that over 70% of such pensioners qualify at the full rate.
The National Pensions Framework (2010) proposed that a “Total Contributions Approach” (TCA) should replace the yearly average approach, for new pensioners from 2020. The aim of this approach is to make the rate of contributory pension more closely match contributions made by a person. Officials of my Department are currently working on the detailed development of the TCA with a view to making proposals for consideration later in the year. This is a very significant reform with considerable legal, administrative, and technical elements in its implementation. An important element in the final design of the scheme will be the position of people who have gaps in their contribution records for various reasons, and this factor is being considered very carefully in developing this reform.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
345. Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social Protection the expected date for submitting the file relating to a disability allowance claim by a person (details supplied) to the social welfare appeals office. [24515/17]
View answerThe application for disability allowance (DA) from this gentleman was disallowed by a deciding officer (DO) who decided that he did not satisfy the medical conditions for the scheme.
This gentleman lodged an appeal with the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office (SWAO). All the relevant papers requested by that Office are currently being prepared by my department and will be submitted shortly. The SWAO will be in touch with the person in due course in relation to the progress of the appeal.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
346. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 300 of 9 of March 2017, the areas which the 117 persons in receipt of family income supplement work in the Defence Forces; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24519/17]
View answerFamily Income Supplement (FIS) Section is unable to provide any further information over and above the number of Defence Force members in receipt of a FIS payment. The information provided by the customer to the Department on a FIS application includes confirmation provided by the customer’s employer that they are in remunerative employment. The Department does not require the customer to provide information on the area in which they work for their employer.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
347. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of family income supplement recipients who work in the public service; his views on whether the public sector should take the lead in paying decent salaries to employees; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24518/17]
View answerThe number of Public Servants in receipt of Family Income Supplement (FIS) is 3,629.
The most recent aggregate data (based on pay bands) available to the Department indicates that some 93% of all public service staff are on salary points in excess of €25,000 per annum. The commonly referenced living wage rate of €11.50 per hour, based on the Civil Service 37 hour standard net working week, equates to an annual salary of €22,203.
Data on Civil Service staff indicates that only approx 4% of staff (FTE) in the Civil Service are on salary points less than €22,203, with the majority of those on points in the range €20,000 to €22,000. The estimated cost within the civil service, which is some 12% of the overall public service, would be €1.6m. Detailed costings in other sectors of the public service would require collation and estimation on an individual sector level, based on detailed data on the position of staff on each salary scale across the public service and details of the standard working hours per week for each individual grade. This detailed data is only available to individual public service employers.
Any of those currently on an annual salary of less than €22,203 in the public service may be receiving remuneration in excess of the suggested living wage through additional premium payments in respect of shift or atypical working hours or may benefit from salary scales that progress to the referenced living wage through incremental progression.
From April 1st, the €1,000 increase in annualised salaries for public servants earning under €65,000 will further increase the numbers of public servants earning in excess of €11.50 per hour and reduce the potential additional cost accruing to the Exchequer from the introduction of a Living Wage.
The Central Statistics Office (CSO) issued a research paper on the 15th March 2017 which presents an econometric analysis of the public/private sector pay differential for the period 2011 to 2014. It has been prepared in response to user needs to inform discussions relating to the composition of earnings
The main findings were:
- The pay premium for the public service has been declining over the time period (2011-2014).
- In 2014 excluding PRD the pay premium was approximately 5%.
- Including PRD the pay premium marginally favoured the private sector.
- Results are differentiate by gender with male public servants earning less than equivalent private sector (-6.7% including PRD) and females earning more in the public service (+7.8% including PRD). This likely relates to the preponderance of males in senior management positions.
- In keeping with other studies, the analysis shows a pay premium in favour of the public service concentrated at lower levels. In 2014, including PRD, public servants in the 10th percentile of the earning distribution had a premium of 11.19% compared to the private sector while the equivalent figure for the 90th percentile was -12.48%.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
348. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of an application for a carer’s allowance by a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24540/17]
View answerI confirm that my department received an application for carer’s allowance (CA) from the person concerned on 4 November 2016.
The application was referred to a local social welfare inspector (SWI) to assess the level of care being provided, assess means and confirm that all the conditions for receipt of carer’s allowance are satisfied.
The SWI has confirmed that the report will be finalised early next week. Once the report is received, a decision will be made and the person concerned will be notified directly of the outcome
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
349. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of an application for a carer’s allowance for a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24532/17]
View answerI am advised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office that an oral hearing of the appeal of the person concerned took place on 26th April 2017 and that the Appeals Officer is now considering the appeal in the light of all of the evidence submitted, including that adduced at the oral hearing. The person concerned will be notified of the Appeals Officer’s decision when the appeal has been determined.
The Social Welfare Appeals Office functions independently of the Minister for Social Protection and of the Department and is responsible for determining appeals against decisions in relation to social welfare entitlements.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
350. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of an application for a carer’s allowance by a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24555/17]
View answerI confirm that my department received an application for Carer’s Allowance from the person concerned on 1 March 2017.
Additional information was requested from the person concerned on 18 May 2017.
Once the information is received the application will be processed without delay and he will be notified directly of the outcome.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
351. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of an application for a carer’s allowance by a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24556/17]
View answerI confirm that my department received an application for carer’s allowance (CA) from the person concerned on 30 January 2017.
The application was referred to a local social welfare inspector (SWI) on 14 March 2017 to assess the level of care being provided, assess means and confirm that all the conditions for receipt of carer’s allowance are satisfied. Once the SWI has reported, a decision will be made and the person concerned will be notified directly of the outcome
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
352. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of an application for a carer’s allowance by a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24557/17]
View answerAn application for carer’s allowance (CA) was received from the person concerned on 13 January 2017. This application has been awarded for the period from 19 January 2017 to 25 January 2017 and payment issued to the nominated post office on 26 April 2017.
The person concerned has no entitlement to carer’s allowance from 26 January 2017 as another person was awarded carer’s benefit from that date in respect of the same care recipient. Two carer’s payments cannot be paid to two people at the same time, for the provision of care to the same person.
The person concerned was notified of these details on 26 April 2017 and of her right of review and appeal.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
353. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of a carer's allowance application by a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24571/17]
View answerCarer’s allowance was awarded to the person concerned on 28 April 2017 and the first payment issued to their nominated post office on 11 May 2017.
Arrears of allowance due from 15 December 2016 to 10 May 2017 also issued to the post office.
The person concerned was notified of these details on 28 April 2017.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
354. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 140 of 11 May 2017, the number of persons who owe his Department less than €1,000, between €1,000 and €2,000, between €2,000 and €5,000, between €5,000 and €10,000, between €10,000 and €15,000, between €15,000 and €20,000, and in excess of €20,000 respectively, in tabular form; the total value of debt in each of the categories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24590/17]
View answerOverpayments of benefit or assistance arise where a person is paid in excess of their entitlement or paid where no entitlement exists. At the end of 2016, the outstanding value of these overpayments was €482.4m in respect of 174,440 persons involving 191,600 individual overpayments. The breakdown sought by the Deputy is provided in the following table.
TABLE: Overpayment outstanding at end 2016 broken down by value and number of persons
|
Value Bands |
Number of Persons |
Outstanding value at end of 2016 |
|
Less than €1,000 |
114,959 |
€34.4m |
|
€1,000 - €1,999.99 |
20,692 |
€29.3m |
|
€2,000 - €4,999.99 |
18,443 |
€58.5m |
|
€5,000 - €9,999.99 |
9,398 |
€66.0m |
|
€10,000 - €14,999.99 |
3,964 |
€48.4m |
|
€15,000 - €19,999.99 |
2,143 |
€37.1m |
|
€20,000 or more |
4,841 |
€208.7m |
|
Total |
174,440 |
€482.4m |
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
355. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 140 of 11 May 2017, further to the €41 million stated to be owed as a result of customer fraud, the number of persons that owe the Department less than €1,000, between €1,000 and €2,000, between €2,000 and €5,000, between €5,000 and €10,000, between €10,000 and €15,000, between €15,000 and €20,000, and in excess of €20,000 respectively in tabular form; the total value of debt in each of the categories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24591/17]
View answerOverpayments of benefit or assistance arise where a person is paid in excess of their entitlement or paid where no entitlement exists. In 2016, the Department overpaid customers by €110 million. Of this, customer fraud accounted for €41 million and relates to cases where customers were deemed to have intentionally provided incomplete or inaccurate information in order to receive benefits or deliberately failed to inform the Department of relevant changes in circumstances.
The number and value of the cases of customer fraud in 2016 is broken down in the following table.
|
- |
Number of cases |
Original value of overpayment |
|
Less than €1,000 |
12,302 |
€3.6m |
|
€1,000 - €1,999.99 |
1,677 |
€2.3m |
|
€2,000 - €4,999.99 |
941 |
€2.9m |
|
€5,000 - €9,999.99 |
476 |
€3.4m |
|
€10,000 - €14,999.99 |
210 |
€2.6m |
|
€15,000 - €19,999.99 |
134 |
€2.3m |
|
€20,000 or more |
485 |
€23.9m |
|
- |
16,225 |
€41.0m |
Of these cases, a total of 5,984 cases had fully repaid their debt by the end of 2016 to the value of €6.0 million. A further 3,665 cases had repaid €3.0 million in respect of overpayments of €13.6 million by the end of 2016.
A total of 6,576 overpayments valued at €21.4 million were not being repaid at the end of 2016. Of these, some €5.3 million worth of overpayments are in respect of 329 cases where recovery action was suspended due ongoing processes or pending appeal outcomes from the Social Welfare Appeals Office. The remaining 6,247 cases involving €16.1 million in overpayments are categorised as follows:
- 1,821 cases valued at €4 million were overpayments were assessed in Q4 of 2016 and had not yet commenced making payments to the Department by year end;
- 1,231 cases valued at €5.6 million involved customers who had a previous overpayment which they are required to repay in full before commencing repayment of any subsequent overpayment; and
- 3,195 cases valued at €6.5 million were not repaying at year end and were subject to further recovery action by the Department.
The outstanding balance of the fraud overpayments raised in 2016 at the end of April 2017 was €29.1 million.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
356. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 139 of 11 May 2017, if there is a memorandum of understanding between his Department and the Revenue Commissioners regarding non-insolvent businesses and non-registered businesses including partnerships and sole traders with debts due to the social insurance fund; the reasons his Department is unable to independently verify the status of non-registered businesses, with debt to the social insurance fund; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24592/17]
View answerThe Department of Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners have a Memorandum of Understanding which governs the exchange of all information between the two bodies, including all redundancy and insolvency scheme liaison and communication.
The employer PAYE number provided by the Revenue Commissioners is used to identify a company or business which is subject to redundancy or insolvency.
There is no central information source on the trading status of non-registered businesses.
357. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question Nos. 138 and 139 of 11 May 2017, the number of individuals and organisations that owe the social insurance fund less than €10,000, between €10,000 and €50,000, between €50,000 and €100,000, between €100,000 and €250,000, between €250,000 and €500,000, between €500,000 and €1 million, between €1 million and €5 million, between €5 million and €10 million, in excess of €10 million respectively, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24593/17]
View answerEmployers pay into the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) at a rate of up to 10.75% of employee salaries. This payment is designed to contribute to the cost of benefits paid out of the social insurance fund.
One of the benefits funded by the SIF is the provision of redundancy related payments in circumstances where the employer making the redundancies is unable to fund these payments itself – in the majority of cases because the employer concerned is insolvent.
In this way the payments made into the SIF by all employers help to protect the interests of workers when any individual employer cannot meet its obligations under law to pay salary arrears and redundancy settlements to employees who lose their jobs.
Notwithstanding that payments out of the SIF are properly made in accordance with this insurance principle the Department pursues recovery of the amounts paid. The Department has a dedicated debt management unit which has responsibility for recovering as much as possible of the amount paid out in redundancy related payments. It does this through raising a debt against the employer concerned and then seeking payment of this debt either directly from the employer (typically by means of an agreed repayment schedule) or from any liquidator that may be appointed to wind up the affairs on an insolvent business.
A total of €10.5 million in funds paid out of the SIF to cover redundancy related payments was recovered by the Department in 2016. The balance of any funds paid out but not recovered is recorded and disclosed as a debt in the financial accounts of the SIF. Debt is only written-off at the conclusion of the liquidation process – a process that can take up to seven years.
The total employer debt to the SIF at 31 December 2016 stood at €459 million. This debt is comprises 13,400 individual debts owed by employers - many of whom ceased trading during the period of the recession 2008 – 2013.
Fifty percent of the individual debts owed to the SIF comprise of amounts of less than €10,000. A further 35 per cent relate to individual amounts of between €10,000 and €50,000. The remaining 15 per cent relate to debts in excess of €50,000.
The table below details the distribution of debt by individual amounts owed by employers as of March 2017.
|
Debt Amount |
Number of Debts |
|
less than €10,000 |
6822 |
|
€10,000-€50,000 |
4746 |
|
€50,000-€100,000 |
983 |
|
€100,000-€500,000 |
757 |
|
€500,000-€1m |
64 |
|
€1m-€5m |
27 |
|
Greater than €10m |
1 |
|
Total |
13400 |
358. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if a review of overpayment can be undertaken in the case of a person (details supplied) who it appears was placed on the incorrect rate of payment in 2013 and who could not have reasonably known that they were on the incorrect rate of payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24646/17]
View answerIt is the policy of the Department to seek recovery of overpayments. The client concerned accrued an overpayment of rent supplement during the period 1/6/12 – 28/2/13 as her combined household income from one parent family payment, family income supplement and maternity benefit during this period, exceeded her rate of rent supplement entitlement. While the client concerned has repaid a portion of this overpayment, there remains an outstanding balance which must be recouped by the Department.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the deputy.
