Written Answers Nos. 164-183
165. Deputy Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Social Protection if he has implemented procedural changes in the workings of his Department to lessen the chance that the issue of reported delays in maternity benefit, which occurred recently, will not reoccur; if so, the details of such changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26235/17]
View answerMaternity benefit is a payment made to women who are on maternity leave from work and covered by social insurance (PRSI). The rate of maternity benefit was increased to €235 in the 2017 Budget and allowances for dependent adults and children are available to those who qualify.
Maternity benefit section is currently experiencing some difficulty with processing all claims in advance of their maternity leave commencement date. Corrective actions have been taken and good progress is being made. However, there are still a number of mothers that will receive their first payment up to 3 to 4 weeks after they commence their maternity leave. The number has reduced to 700 at 29 May; down from 1,100 at 22 May.
Additional staff have been assigned to the section. Staff have also been moved from other areas in Buncrana and Letterkenny, to work on processing maternity claims as a temporary measure. Information section in Sligo is handling phone calls, freeing up maternity benefit staff for claim processing work. Staff have also been working overtime, including Saturdays, to ensure as many claims as possible get processed and paid by their commencement date.
Operational processes, procedures and the organisation of work are continually reviewed to ensure that claim processing capability is maximised. This is also the case with maternity benefit and the lessons learned from the corrective actions taken will be evaluated and considered as part of this continual review process.
The focus remains on ensuring that all claims are processed as quickly as possible.
166. Deputy Jim Daly asked the Minister for Social Protection the entitlements available to persons returning to education other than the back-to-education allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26072/17]
View answerThe Back to Education Allowance Scheme (BTEA) enables eligible persons to pursue approved education courses and to continue to receive income support for the duration of a course of study, subject to meeting certain conditions. The BTEA is designed primarily to support second chance education.
A new €500 annual Cost of Education Allowance will be made available to BTEA participants with children from the next academic year in September. This will help parents, including lone parents, to return to education
The BTEA is not intended to be an alternative form of funding for people entering or re-entering the third level education system. The Student Universal Support Ireland (SUSI) grant, payable by the Department of Education and Skills, represents the primary support for persons pursuing education. In general, most BTEA customers will also have certain registration and related college fees paid by SUSI.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
167. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will address an anomaly whereby a person (details supplied) who is living alone can be denied a living alone allowance in view of the fact they are in receipt of a qualified adult payment on their partner's pension but 80% of this pension is being taken as part of a fair deal agreement due to the fact the partner is in a nursing home; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26103/17]
View answerState pension (contributory) is a qualifying payment for receipt of living alone increase, payable to primary claimants where the eligibility conditions are met. The increase is not payable to qualified adults of primary claimants.
On 1 February 2017, a form to facilitate direct payment of the qualified adult portion of the spouse’s total pension entitlement was issued to the person concerned. There is no record of that form being returned. A second form has been issued to the person concerned. On return of the completed form, arrangements will be made to immediately direct the qualified adult portion of their spouse’s state pension (contributory) to them, by their preferred payment method.
In addition, the person concerned may wish to make an application for state pension (non-contributory) in their own right. An application form for this means tested payment has also been sent to the person concerned.
Following assessment of entitlement, the person concerned will be awarded the most financially beneficial rate of payment. As a primary claimant, the person concerned would then be eligible to apply for an increase for living alone, if the eligibility conditions are met.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
168. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Social Protection if he has considered introducing a basic income along the lines of pilot schemes in the Netherlands, Italy and Finland; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26195/17]
View answerThe government does not have any plans to introduce a basic income scheme. The tax and social welfare system is continually reviewed, in the budgetary process and otherwise, in terms of its impact in redistributing income while ensuring the maintenance of incentives for people to contribute to society through employment.
We are aware that limited experiments with what might be referred to as “partial” basic income approaches are underway or planned in other countries. We will follow the outcome of these experiments with interest to see if they provide any lessons that might be applied to aspects of the Irish system.
In ongoing review of the system we will also take account of the recent modelling research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that warns that a universal basic income scheme would require large tax increases, provide less effective supports for the poor and result in a large number of people gaining and losing from its introduction.
169. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Social Protection his views on the outsourcing of particular aspects of unemployment services here to private companies, for example, through the JobPath scheme; if he has had discussions with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation regarding international trade deals such as CETA and the potential impact they may have on the delivery of social protection services; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26197/17]
View answerAs 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 (LES) and Job Club providers. The Department has contracts in place with over 60 companies for the provision of these services.
It is important to note, that while these service elements are provided by third parties, jobseekers engaged with these services remain customers of the Department.
The companies themselves employ a large number of staff, with circa 600 staff being employed by JobPath providers, circa 300 by LES providers and circa 100 by Job Club providers. It is the role of these staff to support and assist jobseekers to enter/re-enter employment in the open labour market.
In addition, it is important to note, that the Department has for many years contracted extensively with third parties for the delivery of a range of other services including community based programmes and schemes.
JobPath is a contract model whereby the providers are paid by results, in other words they are paid when they achieve sustained employment outcomes for jobseekers. This payment model contrasts with the approach used to fund the LES and Job Clubs where the providers are paid by inputs. In other words they are paid an amount that is agreed at the beginning of each year based on forecast activity levels. The success or otherwise of the Local Employment Service or Job Clubs provider in securing employment for jobseekers does not affect the payment amount.
When JobPath was developed fears were expressed that it would take-over from or substitute for the LES. However this was not the intention and it has not happened. The purpose of JobPath was, and is, to complement and augment the existing service capacity of the Department including the LES. In fact, the capacity introduced by JobPath has enabled the Department, in line with international norms, to reduce the workload of LES mediators and enhance the service being delivered by the LES: by reducing the LES staff caseloads to a maximum of 1:120 jobseekers.
The department continues to monitor the services being delivered by the various companies in order to provide the best possible service for jobseekers.
In relation to the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), this will not affect the delivery of social protection services.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
170. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will address his recent comments regarding restricting the right to strike in essential services; his views on whether such a restriction would be a breach of Ireland's international human rights obligations, for example, under the European Convention on Human Rights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26198/17]
View answerI have no intention to remove employees’ right to strike. However where a dispute is in an essential service, a strike can give rise to huge disruption for the public. It is my view that, it is in the interests of the public, employees and employers, such disputes should be resolved with the least disruption.
171. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent to which staff can be redeployed within his Department to deal expeditiously with the appeals backlog; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26241/17]
View answerMy Department, like all Government departments and agencies is required to operate within a staff ceiling figure and a commensurate administrative staffing budget, which for this Department has involved reductions in staff.
The staffing needs for all areas within the Department are continuously reviewed, taking account of workloads, management priorities and the ongoing need to respond to new increasing demands in a wide range of services. This is to ensure that the best use is made of all available resources with a view to providing an efficient service to those who rely on the schemes operated by the Department.
The overall average processing time, across all schemes, for appeals requiring an oral hearing reduced from 52.5 weeks in 2011 to 25.5 weeks in 2015, 24.1 weeks in 2016 and 24.4 weeks to date in 2017. The overall average time taken to finalise appeals decided by way of a summary decision has also improved in recent years from a peak of 25.1 weeks in 2011 to 18.1 weeks in 2015, 17.6 weeks in 2016 and 18.1 weeks to date in 2017.
The quasi-judicial nature of the appeals system means that there are inevitable time-lags involved. The time taken is proportionate to the complexity of many of the issues under appeal which require a high level of judgement, and the need to ensure due process and natural justice.
Appeal processing times are kept under constant scrutiny by the Chief Appeals Officer. The Deputy will be aware that significant effort and resources have been devoted in recent years to reducing the length of the time taken to finalise an appeal and that as a consequence processing times have improved quite considerably.
172. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent to which he may review the current system used in the calculation to entitlement to a contributory old age pension to address the imbalance whereby persons with fewer contributions can receive a higher payment than those with considerably higher number of contributions to ensure that equity prevails, particularly for those disadvantaged by method of calculation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26242/17]
View answerExpenditure on pensions, at approximately €7.3 billion, is the largest block of expenditure in my Department, representing some 37% of its expenditure. Demographic change alone will increase this by over €220 million this year. Maintaining the rate of the State pension is critical to protecting older people from poverty.
State pension (contributory) is an entitlement built up through PRSI contributions, and is not impacted upon by the means of the pensioner. It is one of three pensions paid by the Department of Social Protection to those over 66, and its rate of payment is related to contributions made over the years into the Social Insurance Fund, which fund the scheme on a ‘Pay As You Go’ basis. As such, those who have paid more into that fund are more likely to be paid under that scheme.
There are two State pensions related to reaching state pension age. 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.
In Ireland, as in other countries, the contributory pension is primarily aimed at people with sustained contributions towards the Social Insurance Fund which finances it, on a pay as you go basis, and rewards such contributions with greater entitlements and coverage for a range of benefits, including contributory pension entitlements. 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 in the calculation of the pensioners yearly average. This may have the effect of increasing the yearly average of the pensioner, which is used to set the rate of their pension, and may in turn qualify them for a higher rate of payment. The disregard does not involve the award of credits, and entitlements are still subject to the standard qualifying conditions for State pension contributory also being satisfied, including a minimum of 520 paid contributions being paid before reaching pension age.
This scheme was not introduced retrospectively for periods prior to its introduction. 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.
For example, a person with a yearly average of 20 contributions paid or credited per year may qualify for a reduced rate SPC of €202.80. However, they can instead be paid a higher amount through the non-contributory pension, unless their means are over €52.50 per week (or €105 for a married couple), at a minimum payment rate of €204.50 (maximum rate is €227), which would bring their total personal means (including their pension) to over €257 per week. Their household means test ignores their spouse’s state pension, the capital value of their home, and has generous income and capital asset disregards, where applicable. This minimum of €257 doesn’t include rent allowance, household benefits or fuel allowance. It is also higher than the €238.30 received by a person solely dependent upon a maximum rate State pension (contributory), who would receive no benefit from any change to the method of calculation of contributory pension entitlements, and they would experience a loss if such a change was financed by reducing the core rate of the State pension, or by moderating increases in the future.
The Actuarial Review of the Fund in 2012 confirmed that the Fund provides better value to female rather than male contributors, due to the redistributive nature of the Fund.
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.
173. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of women throughout the country that do not qualify for a contributory pension due to the marriage ban which forced them to retire from work particularly in the public service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26243/17]
View answerThe ‘marriage bar’ describes a rule that existed in most of the public service and some private sector employments, where women were required to leave their employment upon marriage. This practice was abolished in 1973 when Ireland joined the EEC. As employees in the public service generally paid a reduced rate of PRSI, which provided no cover for the State pension (contributory), the marriage bar would not generally have impacted on State pension entitlement, as they would not have qualified for that payment in the first place had they remained in public sector employment.
To qualify for a state pension (contributory) a person must satisfy a number of criteria. One of these is that they have at least 520 paid contributions (i.e. 10 years). However this of itself does not qualify someone for a full rate contributory pension. As with such pensions in other countries, there is a separate criterion to decide the rate of payment for those who do qualify.
For those who have insufficient contributions to qualify for a full State pension (contributory), there are supports available in the overall State pension system which assist some pensioners in qualification for a contributory payment. For those who do not qualify for a full rate contributory pension, they may qualify for a means-tested non-contributory pension of up to 95% of the full contributory pension.
There are no statistics available to my Department detailing the numbers of public servants who were required by the Marriage Bar to leave the Public Service, and who didn’t then take up employment in the private sector. Such statistics would include people who have not paid PRSI for many decades, and who in many cases would not have made a claim under the State pension system. The Deputy will understand that if, for example, someone was in the public service up to 1972 or earlier, then left the workforce altogether, and now is dependent upon their spouse who has a public service pension, they will not generally receive a payment from my Department, and so the data required by the Deputy is not held by my Department.
Any questions regarding the number of public servants affected by the Marriage bar would be a matter for the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.
I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
174. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent to which his Department can assist those in danger of becoming homeless with particular reference to situations whereby a primary payment is terminated and rent support likewise as a consequence resulting in hardship, anxiety and despair; if he will ensure that in such cases rent support is not terminated until all else has been decided; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26244/17]
View answerRent supplement plays a vital role in housing families and individuals, with the scheme supporting some 43,700 recipients for which the Government has provided €253 million for in 2017. I can assure the Deputy that every effort is made so that rent supplement tenants are supported by my Department ensuring where possible that they can remain in their homes.
Continued entitlement to rent supplement is not linked to entitlement to other social welfare schemes, however the rent supplement claim may be reviewed following a decision to suspend or disallow a primary social welfare payment as there may be a change to the claimant’s circumstances that could affect eligibility. During a review of a rent supplement claim, the Community Welfare Service (CWS) staff will engage with the claimant to establish continued eligibility as quickly as possible and limit any delay to payments. Any person in this situation is encouraged to contact the Department’s CWS responsible for their rent supplement claim to discuss their situation.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
175. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of applications received for contributory old age pension, jobseeker's allowance, non-contributory old age pension, disability allowance, invalidity pension and carer's allowance, respectively, by month in each of the years 2015 to 2016, and to date in 2017; the number of cases granted, refused, granted on appeal and refused on appeal, respectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26245/17]
View answerThe information requested by the Deputy is detailed in the following tables:
Carer’s Allowance 2015
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
1,309 |
1,267 |
686 |
66 |
105 |
7 |
104 |
|
February |
1,579 |
1,383 |
756 |
79 |
102 |
19 |
141 |
|
March |
1,722 |
1,342 |
725 |
57 |
96 |
13 |
61 |
|
April |
1,529 |
1,226 |
654 |
67 |
129 |
10 |
105 |
|
May |
1,664 |
1,241 |
585 |
56 |
103 |
8 |
139 |
|
June |
1,694 |
1,139 |
623 |
44 |
127 |
13 |
132 |
|
July |
1,625 |
1,305 |
746 |
17 |
84 |
8 |
97 |
|
August |
1,348 |
944 |
495 |
57 |
124 |
16 |
119 |
|
September |
1,649 |
1,238 |
665 |
33 |
108 |
18 |
143 |
|
October |
1,649 |
1,265 |
742 |
2 |
117 |
15 |
114 |
|
November |
1,761 |
1,267 |
754 |
101 |
138 |
14 |
113 |
|
December |
1,400 |
761 |
489 |
- |
119 |
14 |
87 |
Carer’s Allowance 2016
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
1,391 |
1,023 |
625 |
111 |
100 |
16 |
118 |
|
February |
1,975 |
1,325 |
653 |
2 |
102 |
11 |
136 |
|
March |
1,831 |
1,087 |
610 |
59 |
89 |
13 |
116 |
|
April |
1,856 |
1,190 |
631 |
38 |
88 |
10 |
81 |
|
May |
2,077 |
1,405 |
714 |
68 |
125 |
7 |
97 |
|
June |
1,940 |
1,608 |
864 |
56 |
108 |
17 |
93 |
|
July |
1,928 |
2,137 |
1,294 |
39 |
132 |
11 |
74 |
|
August |
1,864 |
1,934 |
1,290 |
30 |
103 |
12 |
92 |
|
September |
2,036 |
2,366 |
1,411 |
28 |
101 |
15 |
117 |
|
October |
2,137 |
1,848 |
1,217 |
73 |
135 |
8 |
112 |
|
November |
1,976 |
2,107 |
1,187 |
63 |
141 |
7 |
91 |
|
December |
1,711 |
1,278 |
648 |
248 |
151 |
18 |
110 |
Carer’s Allowance 2017
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
1,651 |
1,679 |
964 |
78 |
111 |
14 |
109 |
|
February |
2,163 |
1,594 |
664 |
70 |
128 |
11 |
113 |
|
March |
2,427 |
1,618 |
743 |
64 |
127 |
10 |
95 |
|
April |
2,048 |
1,206 |
537 |
91 |
85 |
10 |
64 |
Disability Allowance 2015
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
1,594 |
1,181 |
1,848 |
108 |
313 |
12 |
132 |
|
February |
1,913 |
1,476 |
1,587 |
110 |
318 |
7 |
196 |
|
March |
1,745 |
1,455 |
1,490 |
132 |
212 |
1 |
148 |
|
April |
1,663 |
1,301 |
1,194 |
147 |
274 |
5 |
142 |
|
May |
2,277 |
1,361 |
951 |
133 |
272 |
4 |
139 |
|
June |
1,872 |
1,089 |
1,155 |
77 |
287 |
10 |
154 |
|
July |
2,312 |
1,291 |
1,267 |
200 |
229 |
9 |
88 |
|
August |
1,590 |
1,198 |
1,125 |
138 |
286 |
9 |
131 |
|
September |
2,246 |
1,378 |
1,345 |
59 |
368 |
7 |
168 |
|
October |
1,737 |
1,464 |
1,054 |
104 |
262 |
9 |
127 |
|
November |
1,976 |
1,429 |
1,317 |
149 |
281 |
7 |
174 |
|
December |
1,613 |
1,191 |
467 |
86 |
282 |
5 |
152 |
Disability Allowance 2016
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
1,634 |
1,146 |
1,468 |
91 |
203 |
13 |
107 |
|
February |
1,936 |
1,053 |
1,265 |
98 |
287 |
7 |
158 |
|
March |
2,155 |
1,165 |
861 |
74 |
221 |
5 |
138 |
|
April |
1,986 |
1,458 |
696 |
63 |
293 |
8 |
131 |
|
May |
1,941 |
1,349 |
909 |
93 |
288 |
8 |
121 |
|
June |
2,203 |
1,490 |
941 |
31 |
201 |
5 |
94 |
|
July |
1,837 |
1,546 |
1,150 |
30 |
234 |
5 |
101 |
|
August |
2,126 |
1,475 |
938 |
169 |
163 |
10 |
80 |
|
September |
1,973 |
1,843 |
876 |
48 |
237 |
7 |
106 |
|
October |
2,155 |
1,632 |
962 |
51 |
260 |
6 |
124 |
|
November |
2,471 |
1,483 |
1,436 |
36 |
198 |
6 |
95 |
|
December |
1,387 |
1,029 |
525 |
31 |
245 |
8 |
112 |
Disability Allowance 2017
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
1,577 |
1,385 |
1,318 |
36 |
137 |
7 |
100 |
|
February |
2,179 |
1,469 |
885 |
31 |
155 |
13 |
105 |
|
March |
2,507 |
1,552 |
1,198 |
61 |
165 |
3 |
88 |
|
April |
1,840 |
1,065 |
956 |
61 |
159 |
3 |
75 |
Invalidity Pension 2015
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
819 |
660 |
516 |
51 |
80 |
2 |
32 |
|
February |
727 |
625 |
452 |
43 |
80 |
- |
27 |
|
March |
726 |
619 |
471 |
52 |
102 |
2 |
44 |
|
April |
607 |
547 |
457 |
55 |
109 |
1 |
44 |
|
May |
915 |
765 |
491 |
47 |
162 |
- |
44 |
|
June |
900 |
805 |
425 |
23 |
141 |
2 |
52 |
|
July |
988 |
830 |
413 |
27 |
72 |
1 |
36 |
|
August |
786 |
541 |
308 |
49 |
107 |
- |
31 |
|
September |
763 |
619 |
278 |
35 |
70 |
3 |
27 |
|
October |
828 |
629 |
410 |
1 |
70 |
3 |
22 |
|
November |
792 |
593 |
497 |
126 |
82 |
3 |
35 |
|
December |
603 |
458 |
352 |
2 |
60 |
- |
27 |
Invalidity Pension 2016
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
776 |
562 |
343 |
94 |
83 |
- |
35 |
|
February |
792 |
603 |
291 |
1 |
70 |
2 |
19 |
|
March |
791 |
581 |
384 |
110 |
74 |
- |
30 |
|
April |
734 |
644 |
248 |
67 |
62 |
1 |
27 |
|
May |
710 |
658 |
324 |
87 |
87 |
- |
52 |
|
June |
723 |
666 |
312 |
26 |
55 |
3 |
5 |
|
July |
659 |
599 |
348 |
31 |
64 |
- |
39 |
|
August |
710 |
479 |
261 |
47 |
25 |
- |
15 |
|
September |
940 |
710 |
479 |
14 |
43 |
- |
22 |
|
October |
822 |
729 |
398 |
74 |
35 |
2 |
18 |
|
November |
927 |
672 |
304 |
65 |
46 |
- |
24 |
|
December |
550 |
564 |
217 |
26 |
38 |
2 |
16 |
Invalidity Pension 2017
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
860 |
820 |
488 |
64 |
35 |
- |
27 |
|
February |
1,007 |
798 |
336 |
52 |
45 |
2 |
23 |
|
March |
849 |
817 |
375 |
59 |
24 |
- |
28 |
|
April |
762 |
723 |
338 |
63 |
25 |
1 |
17 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
3,654 |
1,610 |
779 |
- |
3 |
1 |
10 |
|
February |
3,875 |
2,391 |
944 |
12 |
1 |
1 |
13 |
|
March |
3,266 |
2,298 |
849 |
5 |
1 |
- |
9 |
|
April |
3,078 |
2,141 |
791 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
11 |
|
May |
3,337 |
2,239 |
847 |
2 |
1 |
- |
8 |
|
June |
2,876 |
2,378 |
637 |
8 |
6 |
- |
10 |
|
July |
3,330 |
1,848 |
775 |
- |
6 |
- |
11 |
|
August |
2,777 |
1,752 |
601 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
10 |
|
September |
2,910 |
2,544 |
957 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
6 |
|
October |
3,067 |
2,162 |
843 |
1 |
5 |
- |
7 |
|
November |
3,474 |
1,843 |
1,040 |
7 |
2 |
- |
13 |
|
December |
2,258 |
1,456 |
664 |
7 |
2 |
- |
5 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
3,508 |
2,128 |
730 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
8 |
|
February |
3,926 |
2,152 |
844 |
7 |
2 |
2 |
28 |
|
March |
3,126 |
1,938 |
862 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
22 |
|
April |
3,836 |
2,383 |
818 |
5 |
1 |
- |
17 |
|
May |
3,333 |
2,228 |
894 |
8 |
7 |
1 |
15 |
|
June |
3,183 |
2,281 |
684 |
6 |
4 |
1 |
13 |
|
July |
2,946 |
2,221 |
661 |
6 |
2 |
2 |
20 |
|
August |
2,987 |
1,912 |
606 |
3 |
- |
- |
10 |
|
September |
3,405 |
2,442 |
1,078 |
- |
4 |
1 |
17 |
|
October |
3,126 |
2,132 |
954 |
1 |
6 |
2 |
24 |
|
November |
2,902 |
2,448 |
942 |
6 |
- |
- |
15 |
|
December |
2,153 |
1,682 |
630 |
8 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
3,057 |
2,180 |
871 |
5 |
3 |
- |
15 |
|
February |
4,603 |
2,519 |
1,063 |
9 |
4 |
1 |
13 |
|
March |
3,463 |
2,699 |
1,009 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
16 |
|
April |
2,963 |
2,115 |
717 |
5 |
- |
- |
22 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
1,094 |
561 |
236 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
16 |
|
February |
1,016 |
614 |
186 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
8 |
|
March |
928 |
594 |
164 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
7 |
|
April |
815 |
672 |
175 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
12 |
|
May |
802 |
649 |
159 |
3 |
9 |
2 |
17 |
|
June |
804 |
649 |
157 |
6 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
|
July |
805 |
845 |
196 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
9 |
|
August |
654 |
564 |
118 |
5 |
7 |
3 |
23 |
|
September |
705 |
610 |
215 |
9 |
6 |
2 |
16 |
|
October |
718 |
611 |
211 |
1 |
2 |
- |
15 |
|
November |
829 |
755 |
227 |
6 |
11 |
1 |
10 |
|
December |
562 |
551 |
144 |
3 |
4 |
1 |
7 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
852 |
706 |
255 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
12 |
|
February |
953 |
719 |
209 |
8 |
9 |
3 |
14 |
|
March |
786 |
559 |
156 |
4 |
8 |
1 |
14 |
|
April |
794 |
665 |
195 |
5 |
6 |
3 |
12 |
|
May |
863 |
817 |
230 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
11 |
|
June |
802 |
741 |
179 |
7 |
8 |
1 |
14 |
|
July |
668 |
756 |
185 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
17 |
|
August |
765 |
750 |
178 |
6 |
2 |
- |
12 |
|
September |
748 |
555 |
187 |
8 |
9 |
2 |
17 |
|
October |
778 |
724 |
234 |
11 |
4 |
3 |
14 |
|
November |
740 |
719 |
215 |
15 |
11 |
3 |
12 |
|
December |
464 |
421 |
109 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
17 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
879 |
569 |
205 |
7 |
9 |
3 |
14 |
|
February |
947 |
644 |
168 |
6 |
11 |
2 |
15 |
|
March |
903 |
640 |
184 |
3 |
11 |
1 |
17 |
|
April |
716 |
499 |
147 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
8 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
16,519 |
15,844 |
345 |
61 |
97 |
27 |
260 |
|
February |
11,378 |
10,676 |
333 |
87 |
80 |
18 |
279 |
|
March |
11,373 |
9,280 |
305 |
47 |
55 |
21 |
144 |
|
April |
11,912 |
12,137 |
309 |
31 |
85 |
22 |
185 |
|
May |
8,776 |
7,729 |
236 |
62 |
69 |
14 |
191 |
|
June |
13,626 |
10,303 |
245 |
37 |
73 |
22 |
156 |
|
July |
14,473 |
14,692 |
288 |
43 |
58 |
7 |
162 |
|
August |
8,065 |
7,894 |
234 |
29 |
70 |
26 |
227 |
|
September |
8,866 |
8,016 |
229 |
40 |
57 |
19 |
195 |
|
October |
10,047 |
7,911 |
222 |
43 |
81 |
23 |
234 |
|
November |
11,644 |
11,517 |
331 |
44 |
56 |
17 |
150 |
|
December |
10,452 |
8,153 |
193 |
35 |
39 |
8 |
125 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
14,643 |
14,479 |
244 |
35 |
102 |
19 |
252 |
|
February |
11,648 |
10,874 |
299 |
41 |
59 |
15 |
174 |
|
March |
10,687 |
8,610 |
237 |
41 |
77 |
21 |
241 |
|
April |
11,047 |
11,712 |
251 |
73 |
41 |
13 |
88 |
|
May |
9,720 |
8,248 |
206 |
45 |
64 |
17 |
196 |
|
June |
12,348 |
9,580 |
202 |
38 |
62 |
10 |
152 |
|
July |
13,601 |
13,376 |
225 |
24 |
66 |
30 |
187 |
|
August |
8,984 |
8,909 |
217 |
36 |
52 |
12 |
141 |
|
September |
8,351 |
7,797 |
214 |
55 |
55 |
10 |
178 |
|
October |
7,714 |
6,988 |
219 |
113 |
80 |
32 |
202 |
|
November |
13,067 |
11,797 |
309 |
124 |
83 |
22 |
181 |
|
December |
9,195 |
6,798 |
143 |
37 |
71 |
17 |
169 |
|
Month |
Registered |
Awarded |
Rejected |
Revised Deciding Officer Decision |
Appeal Allowed |
Appeal Partially Allowed |
Appeal Disallowed |
|
January |
15,888 |
14,621 |
186 |
67 |
43 |
17 |
169 |
|
February |
10,132 |
9,014 |
230 |
53 |
69 |
15 |
194 |
|
March |
9,127 |
9,054 |
217 |
39 |
53 |
16 |
139 |
|
April |
11,748 |
9,797 |
198 |
16 |
52 |
14 |
92 |
176. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will ensure that appeals in respect of various decisions in regard to payments made by his Department are dealt with expeditiously or that payment will continue while the case is on appeal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26246/17]
View answerThe average appeal processing times for all appeals determined from 2015 to date in 2017 broken down by all social welfare scheme types is outlined in the tables.
Appeal processing times are kept under constant scrutiny by the Chief Appeals Officer. The Deputy will be aware that significant effort and resources have been devoted in recent years to reducing the length of the time taken to finalise an appeal and that as a consequence processing times have improved quite considerably.
The overall average processing time, across all schemes, for appeals requiring an oral hearing reduced from 52.5 weeks in 2011 to 25.5 weeks in 2015, 24.1 weeks in 2016 and 24.4 weeks to date in 2017. The overall average time taken to finalise appeals decided by way of a summary decision has also improved in recent years from a peak of 25.1 weeks in 2011 to 18.1 weeks in 2015, 17.6 weeks in 2016 and 18.1 weeks to date in 2017.
The quasi-judicial nature of the appeals system means that there are inevitable time-lags involved. The time taken is proportionate to the complexity of many of the issues under appeal which require a high level of judgement, and the need to ensure due process and natural justice. The system is designed to be flexible and fair and allows for review and submission of further information at all stages which is to the benefit of the appellant.
Where claimants have been refused a payment and are appealing the decision, if their means are insufficient to meet their needs pending the outcome of the appeal, it is open to them to apply for Supplementary Welfare Allowance in the interim. If their application for Supplementary Welfare Allowance is not successful, they can also appeal that decision. Supplementary Welfare Allowance appeals are prioritised for attention within the Social Welfare Appeals Office as soon as the appeal file and submission are received from the Department.
The Chief Appeals Officer has advised me that appeal processing times will continue to be a priority for her office.
I trust this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
Appeals processing times by scheme 01/01/2015 – 31/12/2015
|
Average processing times (weeks) Summary Decisions |
Average processing times (weeks) Oral Hearings |
|
|
Blind Person’s Pension |
21.1 |
30.7 |
|
Carers Allowance |
20.6 |
25.9 |
|
Carers Benefit |
19.7 |
21.8 |
|
Child Benefit |
24.8 |
34.7 |
|
Disability Allowance |
15.8 |
21.4 |
|
Illness Benefit |
26.3 |
33.1 |
|
Partial Capacity Benefit |
25.7 |
43.4 |
|
Domiciliary Care Allowance |
21.7 |
28.7 |
|
Deserted Wives Benefit |
19.7 |
26.2 |
|
Deserted Wives Allowance |
- |
16.2 |
|
Farm Assist |
21.0 |
28.6 |
|
Bereavement Grant |
65.7 |
26.0 |
|
Death Benefit (Pension) |
- |
22.6 |
|
Family Income Supplement |
19.4 |
27.7 |
|
Invalidity Pension |
26.2 |
28.4 |
|
Liable Relatives |
22.8 |
31.2 |
|
Maternity Benefit |
22.6 |
17.5 |
|
One Parent Family Payment |
22.9 |
33.9 |
|
State Pension (Contributory) |
26.0 |
46.0 |
|
State Pension (Non-Contributory) |
20.4 |
30.8 |
|
State Pension (Transition) |
80.1 |
53.4 |
|
Occupational Injury Benefit |
20.3 |
35.0 |
|
Disablement Pension |
23.7 |
35.3 |
|
Incapacity Supplement |
41.2 |
51.5 |
|
Guardian's Payment (Con) |
18.2 |
27.5 |
|
Guardian's Payment (Non-Con) |
18.7 |
31.0 |
|
Jobseeker's Allowance (Means) |
15.8 |
26.0 |
|
Jobseeker's Allowance |
15.2 |
21.9 |
|
JA/JB Fraud Control |
- |
46.1 |
|
BTW Family Dividend |
14.1 |
- |
|
Jobseeker's Transitional |
12.9 |
21.3 |
|
Recoverable Benefits & Assistance |
21.0 |
30.3 |
|
Jobseeker's Benefit |
14.3 |
21.2 |
|
Pre-Retirement Allowance |
15.0 |
- |
|
Treatment Benefit |
17.9 |
- |
|
Carer’s Support Grant * |
21.2 |
23.6 |
|
Insurability of Employment |
47.6 |
69.4 |
|
Supplementary Welfare Allowance |
13.1 |
23.5 |
|
Survivor's Pension (Con) |
24.1 |
46.6 |
|
Survivor's Pension (Non-con) |
23.7 |
38.3 |
|
Widows Parent Grant |
18.4 |
- |
|
All Appeals |
18.1 |
25.5 |
* Previously called Respite Care Grant
Appeal processing times by scheme 01/01/2016 – 31/12/2016
|
Average processing times (weeks) Summary Decisions |
Average processing times (weeks) Oral Hearings |
|
|
Blind Person’s Pension |
18.2 |
33.8 |
|
Carers Allowance |
17.6 |
21.6 |
|
Carers Benefit |
20.7 |
22.4 |
|
Child Benefit |
22.1 |
38.2 |
|
Disability Allowance |
14.6 |
20.1 |
|
Illness Benefit |
27.2 |
34.3 |
|
Partial Capacity Benefit |
27.3 |
33.6 |
|
Domiciliary Care Allowance |
24.3 |
30.6 |
|
Deserted Wives Benefit |
13.0 |
32.8 |
|
Farm Assist |
21.9 |
26.0 |
|
Bereavement Grant |
23.1 |
- |
|
Death Benefit (Pension) |
19.7 |
- |
|
Liable Relatives |
14.0 |
16.9 |
|
Family Income Supplement |
20.4 |
25.5 |
|
Invalidity Pension |
21.3 |
28.2 |
|
Maternity Benefit |
18.9 |
21.7 |
|
One Parent Family Payment |
21.7 |
31.9 |
|
State Pension (Contributory) |
25.6 |
45.9 |
|
State Pension (Non-Contributory) |
22.7 |
32.9 |
|
State Pension (Transition) |
67.7 |
61.3 |
|
Occupational Injury Benefit |
25.0 |
31.9 |
|
Disablement Pension |
25.8 |
26.8 |
|
Incapacity Supplement |
27.7 |
50.9 |
|
Guardian's Payment (Con) |
15.8 |
24.5 |
|
Guardian's Payment (Non-Con) |
18.4 |
23.3 |
|
Jobseeker's Allowance (Means) |
16.7 |
25.5 |
|
Jobseeker's Allowance |
16.0 |
20.9 |
|
BTW Family Dividend |
21.0 |
- |
|
Jobseeker's Transitional |
19.0 |
22.3 |
|
Recoverable Benefits & Assistance |
32.5 |
31.6 |
|
Jobseeker's Benefit |
16.0 |
27.2 |
|
Treatment Benefit |
17.1 |
- |
|
Carer’s Support Grant * |
18.1 |
23.3 |
|
Insurability of Employment |
36.6 |
85.7 |
|
Supplementary Welfare Allowance |
15.0 |
24.1 |
|
Survivor's Pension (Con) |
16.6 |
28.8 |
|
Survivor's Pension (Non-con) |
18.4 |
23.4 |
|
Widows Parent Grant |
23.5 |
63.8 |
|
All Appeals |
17.6 |
24.1 |
* Previously called Respite Care Grant
Appeal processing times by Scheme 01 January 2017- 30 April 2017
|
Average processing times (weeks) Summary Decisions |
Average processing times (weeks) Oral Hearings |
|
|
Blind Person’s Pension |
16.2 |
30.1 |
|
Carers Allowance |
19.6 |
22.7 |
|
Carers Benefit |
16.3 |
21.2 |
|
Child Benefit |
21.2 |
26.1 |
|
Disability Allowance |
15.6 |
20.9 |
|
Illness Benefit |
23.4 |
29.9 |
|
Partial Capacity Benefit |
40.9 |
35.4 |
|
Domiciliary Care Allowance |
23.7 |
29.9 |
|
Deserted Wives Benefit |
- |
13.7 |
|
Farm Assist |
21.9 |
22.1 |
|
Bereavement Grant |
15.1 |
- |
|
Death Benefit (Pension) |
102.1 |
- |
|
Family Income Supplement |
17.7 |
34.9 |
|
Invalidity Pension |
15.2 |
20.6 |
|
Liable Relatives |
18.0 |
24.1 |
|
Maternity Benefit |
17.6 |
13.2 |
|
One Parent Family Payment |
25.9 |
30.8 |
|
State Pension (Contributory) |
25.7 |
36.2 |
|
State Pension (Non-Contributory) |
22.1 |
35.0 |
|
State Pension (Transition) |
- |
81.4 |
|
Occupational Injury Benefit |
14.5 |
32.4 |
|
Disablement Pension |
18.2 |
29.4 |
|
Incapacity Supplement |
54.2 |
56.9 |
|
Guardian's Payment (Con) |
19.1 |
19.1 |
|
Guardian's Payment (Non-Con) |
12.9 |
- |
|
Jobseeker's Allowance (Means) |
16.2 |
24.5 |
|
Jobseeker's Allowance |
15.5 |
23.6 |
|
BTW Family Dividend |
17.6 |
41.1 |
|
Jobseeker's Transitional |
15.2 |
29.4 |
|
Recoverable Benefits & Assistance |
31.9 |
- |
|
Jobseeker's Benefit |
15.7 |
18.8 |
|
Carer’s Support Grant |
15.8 |
23.7 |
|
Treatment Benefit |
14.0 |
- |
|
Insurability of Employment |
38.1 |
115.5 |
|
Supplementary Welfare Allowance |
18.1 |
24.5 |
|
Survivor's Pension (Con) |
17.8 |
21.6 |
|
Survivor's Pension (Non-con) |
18.2 |
20.6 |
|
Widowed Parent Grant |
14.1 |
- |
|
All Appeals |
18.1 |
24.4 |
177. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent to which community welfare services are readily available to meet the needs of those in society that may ordinarily have had no reason to call on the social services that may, due to circumstances outside their control, have to rely on exceptional needs payments to get by in a crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26247/17]
View answer178. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if arrangements can be made to ensure that emergency payments are available in cases in which an emergency exists out of hours or weekends; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26248/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 177 and 178 together.
The Deputy will be aware that my Department has re-engineered its business model to support the provision of integrated services across all business streams involved in the delivery of localised services. As part of this strategy, the Department is engaged in the delivery of integrated Intreo centres, which provide a full range of services, including the Community Welfare Service (CWS), generally available in one location.
People claiming supports under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme generally only interact with the Department on an occasional basis, for example, when seeking an exceptional needs payment or in claiming additional supports such as rent supplement, which are usually reviewed once to twice yearly. The availability of the CWS during normal office hours is therefore sufficient for general day to day requirements.
However, in response to emergency situations such as those caused by severe weather events, local staff are proactive in contacting households affected and in providing targeted supports to those in need as swiftly as possible. This can include the provision of service outside normal office hours and to people that may ordinarily have no reason to engage with these services. The Deputy may be aware that following the recent fire at the Verdemont complex in Blanchardstown, a multi-agency clinic comprising the CWS, Citizens Information and Fingal Council was quickly put in place for people affected. Supports available under my Department's Exceptional Needs Payments (ENPs) and Urgent Needs Payments (UNP) schemes are considered in these circumstances.
I trust this clarifies the arrangements and supports in place.
179. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent of youth unemployment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26249/17]
View answerGovernment policy to reduce unemployment is twofold. First, through policies set out in the Action Plan for Jobs, to create an environment in which business can succeed and create jobs; and second, through Pathways to Work to ensure that as many of these new jobs and other vacancies that arise in our economy are filled by people taken from the Live Register, including young unemployed people.
To date, these policies have been effective in reducing youth unemployment. The Irish youth unemployment rate has fallen from a peak of 31.0% (76,000) in Q2 2012 to 13.7% (24,300) in Q1 2017, bringing this rate from well above the EU average in 2012 to well below the EU average of 17.3% at the latter date (latest Eurostat data available). This places Ireland as one of the best performing Member States in terms of reducing its youth unemployment rate.
These trends indicate that together with improvements in the labour market and economic recovery, our approach to youth employment, which focuses in the first instance on enhancing processes and policies for assisting young unemployed people to find and secure sustainable jobs, has been relatively successful.
I am confident these measures, and continuing economic recovery, will support further reductions in youth unemployment and add to the substantial improvements that have already been seen over the last few years.
180. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent of long-term unemployment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26250/17]
View answerGovernment policy to reduce unemployment is twofold. First, through policies set out in the Action Plan for Jobs, to create an environment in which business can succeed and create jobs; and second, through Pathways to Work to ensure that as many of these new jobs and other vacancies that arise in our economy are filled by people taken from the Live Register, and in particular the long-term unemployed.
Reflecting the impact of government policy, and the overall improvement in the labour market, the long term unemployment rate has fallen rapidly since it peaked at 9.5% in Q1 2012. The most recent figure is 3.6% in Q1 2017, and a strong downward trend continues.
The Pathways to Work 2016-2020 strategy continues to prioritise actions for the long-term unemployed. This includes the payment-by-results services of JobPath to engage more systematically with the long-term unemployed; providing targeted wage subsidies under JobsPlus; and reserved places for long-term unemployed jobseekers on employment and training programmes.
I am confident these measures, and continuing economic recovery, will support further reductions in long-term unemployment and add to the substantial improvements that have already been seen over the last few years.
181. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if he can ensure the availability of replacement income for those in receipt of one-parent family allowance whose allowance may have been reduced or discontinued but that may not be in a position to go to work; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26251/17]
View answerIt is important to note that my Department provides a number of income supports to lone parents. These include the One-Parent Family Payment (OFP) scheme until the youngest child is 7 years of age and the Jobseeker’s Transitional Payment (JST) payment where the youngest child is aged 7-13 years. The Jobseeker’s Allowance (JA) payment can also be paid to lone parents where the youngest child is aged 14 or over. The Family Income Supplement (FIS) is also available to lone parents who are working 19 or more hours per week.
In most cases entitlement to the OFP payment ends when the youngest child reaches 7 years of age. There are special provisions for those caring, in receipt of Blind Pension or recently bereaved that extend the age of the youngest child beyond 7 years of age. The majority of customers transition to the JST, FIS or JA schemes when their OFP entitlement ends.
Lone parents who are not working outside the home can transition to JST when their OFP ends. These customers do not suffer an income loss when they move to JST as JST is paid at the same rate as OFP. JST is available to lone parents (both former OFP recipients and new lone parents), until the youngest child reaches 14 years of age. JST customers are exempt from the JA conditions that require them to be available for, and genuinely seeking, full-time work. As such, no lone parent with a youngest child aged under 14 years is required to take up employment in order to receive income support from the Department. They can also move into education and/or employment, including into part-time employment, and still receive payment, subject to a means test.
All JST recipients also receive a one to one meeting with a case officer from the Department who assists them to produce a personal development plan and guides them towards appropriate education, and employment opportunities. While the customer is on the JST payment access to these supports are potentially available for up to seven years. This is a much broader support than the 12 month engagement that normally applies for jobseekers from their one to one meeting. The aim of this broader support is to improve the individual’s employment prospects.
When the youngest child reaches 14 years of age lone parents can transition to the JA payment. To qualify for this payment a person must be available for and genuinely seeking full-time work. However, lone parents on a JA payment also gain access to the full range of Intreo supports available to assist them into training, education and employment. These income and activation supports combined ensure that there are effective resources available to lone parents.
182. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection if gaps in a person's contribution record in the assessment of entitlement to contributory old age pension, which now may entitle them to a lower level of payment, notwithstanding the fact that they were in insurable employment during a multiplicity of employment of up to five years and in which previously his Department's policy was, that they receive credit for such voids in their payment record on the grounds that contributions should have been returned on their behalf; if this policy has been discontinued; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26252/17]
View answerExpenditure on pensions, at approximately €7.3 billion, is the largest block of expenditure in my Department, representing some 37% of its expenditure. Demographic change alone will increase this by over €220 million this year. Maintaining the rate of the State pension is critical to protecting older people from poverty.
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.
At the moment, to qualify for the State pension (contributory) a person must have at least 520 paid contributions and satisfy a yearly average test (a yearly average of 48 contributions paid and/or credited is required for a maximum rate pension). The yearly average test has been in existence since 1961 when contributory pensions were first introduced. The scheme was designed with a view to ensuring that people could qualify for contributory pensions immediately and to suit a system where social insurance coverage was limited.
The primary purpose of credits is to secure social welfare entitlement of employees by covering gaps in insurance where they are not in a position to pay PRSI such as during periods of unemployment or illness. Credits do not, on their own, give an individual entitlement to social insurance benefits. However, they may assist insured workers to qualify for them.
If someone believes that their PRSI record is inaccurate and does not have a record of certain contributions which were deducted from their pay, they should contact my Department with evidence, and this will be investigated.
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.
It is planned to replace the yearly average approach with a Total Contributions Approach (TCA) 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. 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.
183. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of young persons under 26 years of age that are in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit and signing for credits for 12 months or more; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26257/17]
View answer184. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of young persons under 26 years of age that are in receipt of jobseeker's allowance, jobseeker's benefit and signing for credits for six months or more by county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26258/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 183 and 184 together.
The information requested by the Deputy (as at the end of April) is detailed in the following tables:
|
Jobseeker’s Allowance |
||
|
County |
6-12 months |
12 months and over |
|
Carlow |
182 |
211 |
|
Cavan |
154 |
241 |
|
Clare |
221 |
237 |
|
Cork |
557 |
758 |
|
Donegal |
466 |
686 |
|
Dublin |
1,771 |
2,464 |
|
Galway |
352 |
534 |
|
Kerry |
256 |
285 |
|
Kildare |
272 |
450 |
|
Kilkenny |
109 |
171 |
|
Laois |
198 |
322 |
|
Leitrim |
58 |
82 |
|
Limerick |
402 |
514 |
|
Longford |
126 |
170 |
|
Louth |
361 |
516 |
|
Mayo |
271 |
327 |
|
Meath |
190 |
292 |
|
Monaghan |
84 |
121 |
|
Offaly |
192 |
366 |
|
Roscommon |
61 |
130 |
|
Sligo |
111 |
127 |
|
Tipperary |
362 |
535 |
|
Waterford |
273 |
333 |
|
Westmeath |
239 |
398 |
|
Wexford |
410 |
602 |
|
Wicklow |
192 |
305 |
|
Totals |
7,870 |
11,177 |
|
Jobseeker’s Benefit |
||
|
County |
6-12 months |
12 months and over |
|
Carlow |
2 |
- |
|
Cavan |
6 |
- |
|
Clare |
9 |
- |
|
Cork |
24 |
1 |
|
Donegal |
22 |
4 |
|
Dublin |
83 |
6 |
|
Galway |
24 |
3 |
|
Kerry |
18 |
- |
|
Kildare |
19 |
5 |
|
Kilkenny |
3 |
- |
|
Laois |
9 |
2 |
|
Leitrim |
4 |
- |
|
Limerick |
18 |
- |
|
Longford |
- |
- |
|
Louth |
11 |
4 |
|
Mayo |
8 |
1 |
|
Meath |
7 |
1 |
|
Monaghan |
3 |
1 |
|
Offaly |
10 |
- |
|
Roscommon |
4 |
- |
|
Sligo |
8 |
- |
|
Tipperary |
14 |
2 |
|
Waterford |
16 |
3 |
|
Westmeath |
5 |
2 |
|
Wexford |
20 |
3 |
|
Wicklow |
6 |
- |
|
Totals |
353 |
38 |
|
Jobseeker’s Credits Only |
||
|
County |
6-12 months |
12 months and over |
|
Carlow |
1 |
1 |
|
Cavan |
1 |
1 |
|
Clare |
2 |
0 |
|
Cork |
4 |
4 |
|
Donegal |
3 |
0 |
|
Dublin |
12 |
11 |
|
Galway |
1 |
1 |
|
Kerry |
5 |
1 |
|
Kildare |
4 |
2 |
|
Kilkenny |
1 |
|
|
Laois |
1 |
2 |
|
Leitrim |
2 |
0 |
|
Limerick |
1 |
1 |
|
Longford |
2 |
|
|
Louth |
3 |
0 |
|
Mayo |
1 |
0 |
|
Meath |
2 |
0 |
|
Monaghan |
1 |
1 |
|
Offaly |
1 |
1 |
|
Roscommon |
2 |
|
|
Sligo |
1 |
0 |
|
Tipperary |
7 |
3 |
|
Waterford |
1 |
3 |
|
Westmeath |
2 |
0 |
|
Wexford |
1 |
1 |
|
Wicklow |
5 |
4 |
|
Totals |
62 |
42 |
