Vol. 611 No. 3
6 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the position in regard to the promised review of his decision to withdraw the €9 per week fuel allowance that was previously paid to pensioners living in sheltered housing in inner city Dublin; if he will reverse the decision in view of the relatively small amounts involved and the potential hardship for persons who will lose out; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37218/05]
The aim of the national fuel scheme is to assist householders who are in receipt of long-term social welfare or Health Service Executive payments with the cost of their additional heating needs during the winter season. Fuel allowances are paid for 29 weeks from the end of September to mid-April. A total of 274,000 customers benefit under the scheme at a cost of €85.4 million this year.
As a long-standing policy within the scheme, fuel allowances have not been payable in situations where a person has access to their own fuel supply or is benefiting from a subsidised or low-cost heating service, such as those provided by Dublin City Council at a number of its housing complexes. Local authority tenants who benefit from communal heating arrangements make a fixed contribution towards the cost of heating their homes, typically approximately €6 per week.
Unlike other tenants and social welfare customers generally, who must buy their own fuel at prevailing retail costs, these tenants are protected from increases in heating costs. The true cost of heating their homes is subsidised by Dublin City Council and the other local authorities concerned.
In the course of a routine review of fuel allowance payments, my Department recently ceased allowances which had been paid in error in a specific number of cases where the recipients were in or had moved to local authority accommodation with subsidised or low-cost heating. The allowances in question, which under current scheme rules should not have been put in payment in the first place, were withdrawn in these cases with effect from the start of this winter heating season. My Department did not seek to recover the money which had been paid in error.
In addition to the fuel allowance, eligible persons qualify for electricity or gas allowances though the household benefits package payable throughout the year. As currently structured, these allowances are linked to unit energy consumption, so people are protected against unit price increases. There is also a facility available through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to assist people in certain circumstances with special heating needs.
I am reviewing the position regarding fuel allowances. In view of the cost implications, any changes must be considered in the context of the forthcoming budget.
The fuel issue is the most serious to be faced by the Minister in the budget. A failure on his part to substantially increase the fuel allowance, rather than merely tinkering at its edges, will leave him with a regrettable legacy. All Members know that fuel poverty is one of the biggest issues facing our elderly, particularly given the escalating price of fuel. I refer to the absolutely scandalous increases in oil, electricity and gas prices that must be borne by people, particularly by the elderly. How did the Minister's Inspector Clouseaus manage to find the 237 people who were living in such accommodation in Dublin and the south east? Does the Minister realise that savings of only €1,500 per week are being made in consequence? Moreover, such people pay €6 per week towards their fuel, regardless of whether they use it. They pay €6 for 52 weeks of the year, which comes to €312 per year. However, the Minister's Department only gives them some €260 per annum. Hence, the Minister has caused them to be a great deal worse off.
This is the season of Advent and earlier today, I observed the lighting of the Leinster House Christmas trees. The few miserable shillings taken from the people affected would not pay for the electricity used to light the Christmas trees around the Houses today.
Hear, hear.
In the spirit of the season, can this scheme be restored? There should be no more obfuscation, foot-dragging, or side-stepping of a type that would have served Jimmy Keaveney well at his peak. Those 237 people should have the fuel allowances that were taken from them returned. More importantly, Members should make sure that the increase in fuel allowance in the forthcoming budget is sufficient to ensure no one dies of fuel poverty.
As I have mentioned, 237 people were affected. I have already informed the House that I have instructed the Department to examine precisely what happened in this regard. I propose to make a decision on the matter in the near future. As I stated, the matter arose through an error. That said, the fuel allowance was never intended for people whose fuel was paid for in the first place. Such people do not have the same requirement to buy fuel as would someone else whose fuel is not paid for. It is important to note that the fuel of the 237 people affected is paid for by the local authority. Even though their fuel is paid for separately, I have been asked to extend the fuel allowance to them. Because of the nature and manner of what happened, as well as the limited numbers involved, I am disposed to resolve the matter. I intend to do so in the near future.
What is the cut-off point for a low-cost heating service? When does it cease to be a low-cost heating service, that is, what is the threshold above which people are charged for the service? The Minister stated he was engaged in a review of fuel allowances. When did the review start and when does he expect it to be completed?
The allowance is means tested. It applies to a number of schemes, including the old age contributory and non-contributory pensions, widows' pensions, lone parents' allowances, allowances for the blind and so on. It covers a range of schemes and as I noted, some 274,000 people are in receipt of it. It is means tested. I will establish the precise cut-off figure for the Deputy. However, as it is not a particularly significant payment, it is not particularly difficult to get.
As for the review, I will examine the issue in the context of the budget. I will take the statements made by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other organisations, as well as those made in the House, into consideration. Successive Ministers before me took the view that it was better to increase the main rate of social welfare benefit. Consequently, they decided it was better to direct available funds towards increasing the main rates, so that people had access to the money. This explains why there have been fairly major increases across the board in recent years, as far as the main benefits are concerned. However, this was carried out at the expense of a range of ancillary schemes, such as the fuel allowance. That is why the fuel allowance, the child dependant allowance and many other so-called non-main rate allowances were not increased over the years. I am considering whether this policy is still wise and I will conclude my thinking in this regard in advance of the budget.
Is the Minister aware of the rules regarding the provision of heating in local authority housing? The local authority decides the time of year when heating is available and the times of the day at which it is switched on. As we are likely to have the coldest winter in decades, is the decision to withdraw the fuel allowance from the people in question not foolhardy as well as mean? There needs to be co-ordination between the Department and local authorities regarding how they provide heat.
Would it not make more sense economically to give a lump sum to fuel allowance recipients rather than a weekly allowance? As the Minister knows, it is cheaper if one buys in bulk. It is cheaper to buy coal once per year than to buy a bag per week. I suggest that the Minister consider this in his review and it would not cost him anything.
In view of the overall debate on cutting the fuel allowance of €9 per week, does the Minister find it unacceptable that, in this very wealthy country, there are still people, particularly the elderly, living in the conditions that have been described? In his review of the scheme, will he listen to the advice of groups such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which are on the front line dealing with people in poverty and looking after the elderly?
I believe in listening to such groups. I met 35 or more of them in the past year and my officials and I spent an hour or more with each. I have offered each one a second meeting, if it wishes to attend. I am fully available around the clock to talk to the groups and to politicians. As I have said many times, politicians have a special knowledge of this subject because of the clinics they hold every week. They listen to people and hear their stories at first hand. I listen very carefully and the budget will reflect that I have been listening to the groups in question.
I heard what Deputy Crowe said on the need for an annual payment. The logistics are such that it is easier to make the fuel allowance available with other payments. However, I will give some thought to what the Deputy said.
What about heating in local authority housing?
We should, and do, co-ordinate with local authorities. We have been in touch with Dublin City Council on the subject in question because we need to have joined-up administration. The aforementioned 237 people, in particular, have been dealing with me in regard to the fuel allowances and with the council in regard to their present heating arrangements.
Will the Minister assure us that the problem will be remedied before Christmas?
7 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the efforts his Department has made to reduce housing waiting lists; if these efforts were carried out in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37252/05]
21 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when the rental assistance scheme will be fully operational throughout the country; the financial and personnel provision that will accompany the scheme; the provisions for co-ordination between his Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that have been made regarding the administration of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37304/05]
27 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons who were receiving rent supplement for more than 18 months and have subsequently been housed under the rental accommodation scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37283/05]
38 Mr. P. McGrath asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his Department has worked with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to reduce social housing waiting lists; the work to date in 2005 and its progress; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37253/05]
60 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the new rental assistance scheme is intended to be a long-term housing option for housing applicants; if so, the categories of persons to whom this option will be available; the length of time he anticipates housing applicants will be engaged in the scheme before a long-term housing solution will be offered in the event that it is not to be a long-term housing solution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37288/05]
85 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on whether the rental accommodation scheme has been a success; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37282/05]
96 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he or his officials have held recent meetings with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the rental accommodation scheme; when these meetings were held; the outcome of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37281/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 21, 27, 38, 60, 85 and 96 together.
Reducing local authority housing waiting lists is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and neither I nor my Department has any direct role in that regard. However, under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, administered on my behalf by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive, a weekly or monthly rent supplement is available to assist eligible people who are unable to meet their immediate accommodation needs through their own resources.
In recent years, a significant number of people have come to rely on rent supplements for extended periods, including people on local authority housing waiting lists. In response to this, the Government has introduced a new rental assistance arrangement giving local authorities specific responsibility for meeting, on a phased implementation basis, the longer-term housing needs of people receiving rent supplement for 18 months or more. When fully operational, local authorities will meet the housing needs of these individuals through a range of approaches, including the traditional range of social housing options, the voluntary housing sector and, in particular, a new public private partnership-type rental accommodation scheme. These arrangements are intended to comprise a long-term housing option for the people concerned. Some €19 million has been transferred from my Department's Vote for 2005 to that of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to finance this initiative and similar arrangements will apply in 2006 and succeeding years as the new arrangements are implemented.
The rental assistance arrangements will also cater for new applicants for rent supplements and people who have been receiving rent supplement for less than 18 months, as long as the local authority is satisfied they have a long-term housing need. These people will be eligible for some form of assistance from their local authority under the scheme, be it contracted rental accommodation, voluntary housing or a local authority house. Local authorities are in the process of negotiating with landlords to form a stock of contracted accommodation.
The new arrangements are being implemented in 11 local authority areas and arrangements are due to be initiated in all local authority areas by the end of 2005. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has indicated that 56 tenants have been accommodated under the rental accommodation scheme by November of this year and that a further group of up to 200 will be accommodated this December. An initial independent evaluation of the implementation process will be undertaken in 2006 and it will consider remaining issues. Some 59,677 households are in receipt of assistance under the rent supplement scheme. Over half of these, almost 33,000 tenants, have been on the scheme for 18 months or more. My Department and the Health Service Executive are actively assisting the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in implementing the new arrangements. For example, the latter Department has been supplied with detailed information on the 33,000 people who have been on rent supplement for 18 months or more.
Does the Minister agree that the target set earlier this year has been missed totally? Will he confirm what the target was when the scheme was first introduced? Was it not to deal with 5,000 cases by the end of this year? Will he explain why only 56 families have been transferred? Will he guarantee that this figure will increase to 356 by the end of this year?
Is the Minister confident that the scheme will work in spite of the failure so far to meet the very modest target to deal with 5,000 cases by the end of this year and given that 33,000 people are awaiting transfer? If the scheme is unsuccessful, as has been the case to date, what action will the Minster take to alleviate the obvious hardship suffered by people dependent on the emergency payment made under the community welfare schemes? What has gone wrong? Why is the scheme not working as the Minister had planned?
I acknowledge that the progress has been disappointing. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government tells me it will accommodate 256 people under the rental accommodation scheme by the end of the year. It reckons that up to 33,000 households could benefit eventually under the new arrangements. This would probably cost over €120 million.
I do not have a note on any particular targets, nor do I recall a target as large as the one suggested. The target is 33,000, in the sense that this is the number of people on the database who have been on rent supplement for over 18 months and who are therefore technically eligible under the scheme.
My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, is pressing ahead to determine whether more progress can be made under the scheme. This is the correct approach although progress to date has been disappointing.
I would be appalled if 33,000 people were transferred under the rental accommodation scheme. They need to have their own houses and should not be subject to these short-term arrangements. Having said that, the scheme has some merits.
In the case of the 56 people who have benefited from the scheme and the further 200 who are to benefit therefrom by the end of the year, is only one landlord involved in the areas where the scheme is piloted? I have been told that, in the case of the Iveagh Trust, in co-operation with Dublin City Council, 50 persons were accommodated by one landlord. It is significantly different to negotiate with one landlord as opposed to many landlords.
A great deal of negotiation takes place between local authority personnel, landlords and tenants but no additional assistance has been given to local authorities. The Health Service Executive will be relieved of this task and local authorities will assume it. Will the Minister provide assistance by way of personnel to carry out this work? It is unrealistic to expect this scheme to be implemented if the staff are not available to do it. We will see local authority staff chasing around housing estates trying to find landlords with whom they can negotiate. That is hugely time consuming. The local authorities are also concerned about a range of legal issues. The modus operandi of this scheme will indicate whether it will be successful. Can the Minister say if the negotiations were with individual landlords or a group of landlords?
The information I have received from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is that 56 have been accommodated, with up to 256 being accommodated by the end of the year. I do not have a breakdown of whether that is one scheme or a number of schemes. I can get that information for the Deputy. Given how small the number is, I assume it is a small number of schemes as opposed to 256 individually rented houses.
With regard to staff, obviously the pressure will move to the local authority as the scheme proceeds. I expect the rate of transfers to accelerate significantly over the coming months, particularly through the voluntary housing sector. New template contract arrangements have recently been put in place to enable local authorities to engage additional landlord accommodation capacity under the scheme through a variety of mechanisms. As these additional units start to come on stream, the rate of transfer of people to the scheme should accelerate. Clearly, if there are staffing and resource implications, both Departments will have to address them.
A number of counties were used to pilot this, one of which was County Westmeath. To what extent have those counties achieved the projected outcome with regard to the use of the RAS? Could people who are offered a house by a local authority in an area in which they do not wish to live decide to stay where they are under the RAS? Is there evidence of that emerging? They might wish to stay where they are for a few years rather than move to another area where they might have no relations, for example, moving from the north to the south of a county.
The objective should be that moneys that were spent on this should be used to build a significant number of houses to ensure that these people do not remain within the private rented system for a long time. Is that not the best way out of housing poverty and adverse housing conditions? Is it not an indictment of the Government that the former Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Noel Dempsey, changed the Planning and Development Act 2000? Many of the people who now find themselves in difficult circumstances would have been far better off if the Government had been sufficiently committed to carry through the objectives passed by this House in that Act.
The rental accommodation scheme is a new, additional housing option whereby a person can opt for either medium or long-term private rented accommodation or social housing or for both. There is a choice. A person can opt to remain in private rental type accommodation provided by the local authority if that best suits the person's needs. Obviously, providing permanent accommodation is the answer. It takes people off the rental schemes and provides them with permanent homes. As always, having that type of security of ownership is better than renting. However, many issues must be worked out as the scheme is implemented. The Deputy asked if people would stay where they are or move. It is a new scheme and they can opt to take part in it or not to take part in it.
The Deputy is correct that the negotiations with landlords should be quality negotiations to ensure that we do not inherit a cadre of landlords who do not look after their tenants. However, there is also strong landlord and tenant legislation on the Statute Book which should give some comfort in that regard.
The overall number of houses built is substantial although there appears to be more to do on the social housing side.
A lot more to do.
The Minister said three options are available. Of the 56 that have been completed so far, can he give a breakdown as to whether they were voluntary housing, local authority housing or other housing? Of the 200 more that are due to be completed, can he say where they will be facilitated? Given that the two Departments have missed the target for the end of this year, what is their target for the end of next year to judge this scheme? So far, it has failed dismally. What is the target for next year, if any?
The ultimate target as of today is, presumably, 33,000 but there is no date for that. We must press ahead and do as much as we can. That number might not remain static because people come in and out of rent supplement. However, that figure is the current number in rent supplement for over 18 months so that remains the target. The number could change if large numbers were to suddenly vanish from the scheme.
What are the chances of that?
I do not have a breakdown of the 56. The impression I get from the file is that it is substantially rented accommodation.
Private rented.
Yes. I will clarify it for the Deputy but that is my impression at present.
I did not hear the Minister respond to Deputy Penrose's question about the number of places in the pilot schemes and whether they have been realised. Cork city has one of the pilot schemes and, to my knowledge, while there is negotiation between the city council and the voluntary organisation, the 50 places in question will not be in place by the end of this year. I hope that 50 is not being counted in the total number of 256 given by the Minister. A treble subsidy is given by the State to many private landlords. There is tax relief for building apartment accommodation, tax relief on the rent received from rental accommodation and, as the Minister has mentioned on several occasions, the State pays 40% of all accommodation costs in the State. Is the Minister discussing with his Cabinet colleagues the option of getting rid of this? It must be the only area in which people who own property are getting a treble subsidy from the State.
The new arrangements are being implemented in 11 local authority areas and arrangements are due to be initiated in all local authority areas by the end of 2005. I can let the Deputy have the names of the areas. Clearly, with 56 completed, they are not widely spread.
Tax reliefs are a matter for the Minister for Finance. He is reviewing the tax breaks across a range of industries, including construction, in the context of the forthcoming budget. He will deal with that issue. What was the Deputy's other question?
I asked about the treble subsidy and the fact that 40% of all rental subsidies are paid by the State.
A substantial amount of taxpayers' money goes into construction in this country, through pension funds, rent allowances, capital allowances and so forth. If one adds it all together, a great deal of taxpayers' money is fuelling the construction boom we are experiencing at present. I agree we should take an overview of that.
Is there a timescale for the roll-out of this scheme? A similar question was asked but I did not hear the answer. With regard to saving money in the long term, is there evidence that this is happening? Some of the officers involved in the scheme have suggested that because the landlords are getting guaranteed tenants for a certain period, the rents are decreasing. Are there savings for the State? Does the Minister agree that with the population we are discussing, the solution is to provide long-term social housing? Affordable housing and shared ownership, laudable by themselves, are not going to help the people on this scheme.
The timeframe is such that arrangements are being put in place to ensure that all local authority areas initiate the scheme by the end of the year. Clearly it will be into next year before the process is concluded. Some months ago there was evidence that rents were decreasing or levelling off. As Deputy Stanton has stated, it is important that limits are not set that would push up rents, as many people in the State pay rent. This could easily happen. There is recent evidence that rents are beginning to harden once more and we should monitor the issue closely to ensure that an adequate level of rent support is provided without facilitating rises in rent.
With regard to the Deputy's point of social housing being the answer, it is only part of the solution. Many people on rent supplement for more than 18 months aspire to going out into the private housing market themselves at some stage. Our job is to help them get there if that is their wish.
It is based on the last year's income so taking the 18-month timeframe, it is a long way down the road.
If we had an immediate stock of social housing, it would be the answer. As we move down the road we will have a choice for people between rental, voluntary, social and private housing etc. To have a range of options under this scheme is probably the right way to go as one option may not necessarily suit everybody.
When was the €19 million transferred? Was it intended to cover all of 2005 or is the intention that the funding will roll into 2006 and 2007? If it does not roll into 2006 and 2007, will further moneys be transferred from the Minister's Department to the other Department next year? If the €19 million was for 2005, how many houses will it provide? Will the Minister confirm the Department of the Environment and Local Government's target of 5,000 for the end of this year, of which I was informed by way of a parliamentary question last June?
The €19 million was designated for 2005 and we did not have an agreement on the number of houses it would supply. It is current money as well as capital in that sense. It is given to the Department of the Environment and Local Government which may use it for acquiring a supply of rented accommodation, if necessary, but can also use it for capital purposes. It is between definitions. The €19 million is to begin the scheme and to get on with the projects. There will not be a second tranche in 2006.
Will the €19 million roll into 2006?
The €19 million has not been spent.
I would hope not. Does it roll into 2006?
I will not transfer any more until that is spent. It rolls into 2006. The funding was transferred to the Department of the Environment and Local Government from my Department and it will move the schemes forward. If additional funding is required, that Department will get back in touch with my Department. We will be able to go beyond that figure for 2006 and 2007 if the output is produced.
I call Question No. 8 as we have gone over allotted time.
I wish to ask a question relating to Question No. 60. Does the Minister consider that the residential assistance scheme will replace the provision of social housing for any category of people on it? If so, what will the category of people be? I am surprised by the Minister stating that people who would qualify for a rental assistance scheme or support from a community welfare officer would have any prospect of purchasing a house. They would not qualify for a loan of any description, be it a local authority loan or otherwise. I do not see how there can be a transition for that group of people from rental assistance to owning their own homes.
I take the Deputy's point that there may not be many prospects. I have met many of these people in my political career and many have the ambition or aspiration to do so.
Of course they do.
Our role is to help these people realise these aspirations of getting on the ladder. Rent allowance for rental accommodation is part of this process, as is the mortgage supplement. I would not set limits to where people in that difficulty can rise.
It is impossible.
My approach to the entire brief is not to block or categorise people by stating that people cannot reach a certain goal. I want people to look at the stars and believe they can go there, and I look to help them on their way. This is not meant to replace social housing which is only one of the options.
8 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he intends to take as a result of his decision to make old age pensioners a priority for the social reform agenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37274/05]
The needs of older people have been a priority for this Government since taking office in 1997. Since then we have delivered record increases in pensions. Pensions increased by 81% up to January this year, 50% ahead of the increase in the consumer price index over the same period. The household benefits scheme is now available to all those over 70 years of age regardless of their income or household composition, and a range of other measures, including easing of qualifying conditions for pensions to enable more people to qualify for contributory payments, have been introduced.
As I indicated at the publication of the 2006 Estimates, older people are a priority for my social reform agenda. The main aims of this agenda are to deliver a decent pension for all our workers, to offer choices on how older people want to spend their later years and to ensure older people have adequate income. In a social welfare context, the Government has already made a number of commitments to pensions and other matters and I will be working to see the targets in this regard are met over the next two budgets. Chief among these commitments is a target rate of €200 per week for pensions to be reached by 2007.
Significant increases in qualified adult allowances have also been given in recent years and the aim in this regard is to bring these into line with the personal rate of the old age non-contributory pension. Qualified adult allowance rates for those over 66 are now between 66% and 77% of maximum personal rates compared with between 60% and 67% in 2000. Allowances on invalidity pensions have also been brought up to the level of other contributory pensioner rates.
One of my priorities is to offer choices to older people on how to spend their later years and I am anxious to ensure the social welfare system does not limit the choices people can make. In this regard, I am examining the different pension schemes to see to what extent we can facilitate more choice for people.
Occupational pensions are an important part of our overall pension system and, as the House will be aware, I have recently received the report on the national pensions review from the Pensions Board. This is a large and complex document which will need to be fully studied by the Government, and when this is finalised, arrangements will be made to publish the report. I hope it will engender a national debate on our pensions system which will assist us in determining the most appropriate and effective way of delivering a level of income to older people which will allow them to enjoy a long and active retirement.
Does the Minister intend to change the retirement age for old age pensioners shortly, what is his thinking on the issue and when does he intend to make an announcement? Is the Minister aware of problems with private pension schemes that, on maturing, are not really worth much? Is he aware of the deliberations of the most recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, particularly the questions asked by my colleague, Senator Terry? Pensions used to have regard to the qualified adult allowance. Is the Minister aware of representations from the National Women's Council, among other groups, which is concerned at what it sees as an inequity in that area? What is the Minister's thinking in this regard?
To be blunt, is it not time to abolish the limitation rule and to boot out this antiquated social welfare system, which is predicated on male superiority and anathema to the constitutional position? Is it not time to ensure that women are treated equally in the social welfare system?
The people most victimised by the social welfare system are widows who lose their partners at a vulnerable time. The partner might have worked and contributed to the family income, as well as ensuring that the woman was entitled to a contributory widow's pension following the death of the partner. If the woman works, when she reaches the age of 66 insult is added to injury when her contributions are thrown in the bin. She is not allowed to get her old age pension and retain the widow's pension, which she is entitled to because her husband had paid his contributions until his death. Is it not time we got rid of the anomaly which means that a widow does not get her due entitlement?
Is it not time for a radical overhaul of a social welfare system which came into being in the 1920s, which virtually has not been updated since that time and which has treated women in particular as second class citizens and appendages of their partners?
Deputy Stanton asked if I have plans to change the retirement age for the old age pension. The answer is no, I have no proposal to change the age limit of 66 years. However, I am interested in what the UK is doing in this area. There may be a case for encouraging those who choose to work for longer to perhaps receive a higher or enhanced pension. Many countries are examining this issue to find how it can be made more friendly for the individual who might want to work and get on. Many people between the ages of 66 and 76 are keen to work and do not wish to have their pensions interfered with if they do so. Our system, in the 21st century, must reflect this. However, I reiterate that the age limit will not change.
With regard to private pension schemes, the Pensions Board is examining a number of issues with regard to funding. Some companies have holes in their pension schemes and there is a major technical argument as to what constitutes a funding deficit. A safety net system applies in the UK but not in Ireland. My counterparts in the UK tell me that the UK would not take this route again if it had the choice because the system has become more than a safety net and the cost has run to millions of pounds.
On the qualified adult allowance, I met representatives of the National Women's Council, who explained their thinking in this area and with regard to the issues raised by Deputy Penrose. I have stated many times in the House that the social welfare system is not as fair to women as to men, a fact I will not hide. What we must do is to ascertain whether, through the qualified adult allowance system, we can perhaps find a mechanism for paying the allowance directly. I have asked the Department to examine the matter, particularly with regard to occupational pensions. I realise I am like a long-playing record in this regard but of the 900,000 people without pensions, 500,000 are women. There is a real issue with regard to women and the social welfare system, and I intend to return to the subject.
Not much time is left to make the changes.
All budgets and Social Welfare Bills, and every decision I will make as Minister, will reflect what I have said. That will get us some of the way but not all the way. I am not promising to get us to a utopian situation but I am determined that we should begin to move in a better direction, for example, by ensuring that women in the welfare system get a better deal.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
