Vol. 720 No. 3
45 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of social welfare appeals being processed; the average waiting time to process social welfare appeals; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38980/10]
There was a 46% increase in the number of appeals received by the social welfare appeals office in 2009 when compared to 2008, which in itself was 27% greater than the number received in 2007. I am advised by the social welfare appeals office that as of 26 October 2010 20,936 cases are being processed through various stages of the appeals system, 10, 227 of which are receiving attention in the social welfare appeals office; 9,277 of which are receiving attention in the Department and 1,432 of which are awaiting responses from appellants. As these figures indicate, the nature of the appeals process and its various stages mean that at any one time there are a significant proportion of appeals on hands which have not yet reached the stage of being ready for the attention of appeals officers.
A total of 20,171 appeals were finalised in the period January to end September 2010. The overall average time taken to process all appeals was 27.5 weeks. Of these, 5212 or 25.8% were revised decisions by deciding officers following receipt of the appeal and 2,267 or 11.2%, were withdrawn. The remaining 12,692 decisions were made by appeals officers as follows: 8,701 or 68.6% by summary decisions and 3,991 or 31.4% following an oral hearing. The average time taken to process a summary decision was 28 weeks and the average time to process an oral hearing was 44.5 weeks. A considerable period of time is added to the process when an oral hearing is required because of the logistics involved in such process.
During 2009, 59% of all appeal cases were dealt with by way of oral hearing but due to some of the initiatives outlined below this has been reduced to 31% to date in 2010. To be fair to all appellants, the vetting of appeals and the arranging of oral hearings are dealt with in chronological order.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Of the 27.5 weeks overall average, 13 weeks was attributable to ongoing processes within the social welfare appeals office; 12.4 weeks was attributable to work in progress within the Department and 2.1 weeks was due to responses awaited from appellants. Of the appeals finalised, 8,69 or 43% were favourable to the appellant; 9,207 or 46% were unfavourable and the remaining 2,267 or 11% were withdrawn.
There has been a significant increase in the number of appeals being made to the social welfare appeals office. Currently, it is anticipated that some 33,000 appeals will be received for 2010, which is compared to roughly 15,000 a year in the years up to and including 2007. The scale of the increase has resulted in significant delays in the processing of appeals. Improving these processing times is a major objective of the office and, in that regard, a number of initiatives have been put in place to enhance the capacity of the office to deal with the current caseload and inflows, namely, three additional appeals officers have been assigned to the office since January 2009; additional staff have been assigned to the administration area of the office; more emphasis is now being placed on dealing with appeals on a summary basis so as to increase productivity; a project to improve the business processes in the office was undertaken resulting in a number of improvements being implemented; and significant enhancements have been made to the office's IT and phone systems. In addition, it was decided to use experienced retired appeals officers strictly on a short term basis to supplement the current resources, eight of whom have been operating on a part-time basis since July.
I am assured by the chief appeals officer that she is keeping current processes under continuous review with a view to achieving a more effective throughput of appeals, while ensuring that any progress does not conflict with due process in terms of the rights of appellants and adherence to the requirements of natural justice.
We are in the middle of the worst recession since the foundation of the State. Does the Minister believe it is right that people should have to wait, in some cases six to seven months, for their appeal to be heard? I want to know that from the Minister because I want to be able to tell my constituents, and the people of this country, what he, as Minister for Social Protection, is doing about that. What action is he taking? What staff is he employing to address the problem? Does the Minister believe it is right, with 465,000 unemployed, to bring back retired people when we have graduates with all kinds of degrees that we could train in a very short time and give them these jobs instead of bringing back people who are retired?
The following steps have been taken. Three additional officers were assigned to the office since January 2009. Additional staff have been assigned to the administrative area of the office. More emphasis is now being placed on dealing with appeals on a summary basis to increase productivity. A project to improve the business process in the office was undertaken which resulted in a number of improvements being implemented. Significant enhancement has been made to the office's IT and telephone systems and, in addition, as the Deputy referred to, experienced retired appeals officers have been taken on to supplement the current resources, strictly on a short-term basis, and eight of those have been operating on a part-time basis since July. In terms of the result of that work, because they are very experienced it has been dramatic and that is what has allowed us to increase dramatically the number of appeals dealt with this year. The difficulty we face, however, is that as the number of appeals dealt with has increased so has the number of appeals coming into the office.
The Minister mentioned earlier the number of appeals that were overturned by the independent appeals officer. In regard to the way the Minister's schemes are being implemented by the staff, are the staff being trained correctly when so many appeals are being overturned because the initial decision was wrong? I am asking the Minister what he intends to do about that because it is not fair on people who are waiting for jobseeker's benefit or carer's allowance. The people who are waiting on decisions on appeals need to get them faster, and we need staff put in place.
I agree fully with the Deputy that we must process more appeals faster. We are doing that, and there has been a dramatic improvement this year. However, what has also happened is that the number of appeals has increased at the same time. While 43% of appeals had a successful outcome for the appellant, of the 8,697 favourable decisions in appeals cases, almost two thirds of those decisions — 5,212 — were revised decisions made by statutorily appointed deciding officers of my Department who reviewed the claim following the initial disallowance. In many cases those revised decisions arose as a result of new facts or fresh evidence produced by the claimant after the original decision on his or her claim. In such cases an appeals officer decision was not necessary. In addition, it should be noted that of the 12,692 appeals decided by appeals officers, a total of 9,207, or 73%, upheld the original decision of the deciding officer.
One of the major challenges faced by us is the information provided on appeal. I am sure the Deputy has experience of somebody who comes in and appeals it, and he then encourages them to provide data which, if it had been available earlier, would have avoided the need for an appeal. The figures bear out clearly what we have to examine, namely, whether there are processes we could put in place that would encourage people to give the full information at the outset because if that happened it would cut out many delays and save a great deal of work in my Department.
46 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social Protection the action he will take to address the problem of sham marriages [39266/10]
Marriages of convenience, or "sham marriages", are marriages which are entered into for the purpose of one of the parties gaining an automatic right of residency based on marriage to a person who already has a right of residency. These marriages exploit Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council which deals with the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the member states. This directive came into force on 20 April 2006. The matter was further compounded by the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Metock case on 25 July 2008, which held that these rights applied to non-EU national spouses of EU nationals. As has been widely reported in the media, the Garda National Immigration Bureau has lodged objections to a large number of marriages involving non-EU-EEA nationals under section 58 of the Civil Registration Act 2004.
Under the Act, if the objection relates to the possible existence of a specified impediment to the intended marriage, it is referred to the Registrar General to be investigated. The objection can only be upheld if it is based on the provisions of the Civil Registration Act and these do not include questioning the reason for marriage.
Since the enactment of the marriage provisions of the Civil Registration Act 2004 on 5 November 2007 a total of 73 objections have been lodged by the Garda National Immigration Bureau for investigation under section 58(4) of the Act. To date, one of the objections has been withdrawn, and the couple in question has been advised that the marriage could proceed. The remaining objections are still under investigation by the Registrar General.
While objections to marriages are upheld if there is an impediment, it is important to point out that issues which go to the identity of a party to a marriage or to consent to marry can also, potentially, render a marriage invalid. In such cases, it would be unsafe to allow the marriage to proceed.
Newly updated Guidelines for Registrars for Marriage Notifications containing requirements concerning notification procedures, including the verification of identity and marital status, have been recently issued by the Registrar General to all registrars.
I am also aware that this matter has been considered by the Department of Justice and Law Reform in the context of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010.
I can assure the Deputy that the matter is being researched urgently with a view to identifying the further measures that may be taken, including the possibility of legislating for any such measures. I am aware that procedures to prevent marriages of convenience are in place in other EU member states, and I would hope that equivalent measures might be introduced here. The General Register Office, GRO, has sought legal advice as to its legal options and will proceed on the basis of this advice as quickly as possible once it is received.
Does the Minister accept that all of the indications are that this is a significant problem? The registrar suggested recently that as many as 15% of civil ceremonies could be sham marriages. We also know that there has been a huge increase in the number of non-EU citizens applying for residency based on marriage to an EU citizen. I understand the figure is over 1,000 in the first six months of this year. All the indications are, therefore, that this is a significant problem.
I want the Minister to clarify a number of aspects. First, is it the case that the Attorney General intervened recently to prevent registrars from asking probing questions and advised them that such an approach was not supported by the law? Second, can the Minister tell us now the legal position? Is it a criminal offence to enter a sham marriage for the purposes of circumventing residency rules? Furthermore, is it a criminal offence to assist or facilitate such a marriage?
To deal with the first question the Deputy asked on the figures, it is not possible to state the number of marriages of convenience that have been solemnised in the State but it is recognised that this is a significant issue. What we do know is the number of marriages between EU and EEA nationals and non-nationals since 2008. In 2008 there were 2,292. In 2009 there were——
Minister——
The Deputy was interested in the figures.
I told the Minister that. I am asking him to answer the two specific questions I asked.
The answer will elucidate what we are doing. In 2009——
Is it a criminal offence?
Please allow the Minister to answer.
In 2009 the figure is 3,362 and in 2010 to date——
I did not ask for any of that.
——it is 770. It would be inaccurate and unfair to characterise all such marriages as sham marriages but it is noteworthy that the number of such marriages has been falling dramatically this year. That is because of increased vigilance and scrutiny surrounding marriages of convenience in this country and abroad.
Will the Minister answer the two questions?
As to whether it is a criminal offence, the position is that there is no such legal offence as a sham marriage but if a marriage is not valid it is not valid. My understanding of this issue, although I am not a criminal lawyer, is that the position regarding these marriages is the same as that concerning any other marriage wrongfully entered into.
And the other question.
It is in regard to the Attorney General's intervention.
I understand legal advice was given on the application of the rules. We are examining the possibility of changing the law as well as best practice in other jurisdictions and, if necessary, legislation will be brought in to deal with this issue.
It is all very well for the Minister to say he is reviewing the matter. Most other EU states have laws to prevent such sham marriages and the fact that we do not means that Ireland has become a soft-touch location for such marriages. We are told by reports in the media that there has been intense lobbying of the Government by several EU countries about the growing problem of sham marriages. We also know that since as far back as 2006, the Latvian Government has been making regular approaches to this Government asking for the law to be changed in view of the large number of young Latvian women who have been enticed into this practice. Can the Minister tell us how many other countries have lobbied him to change the law? When are we likely to see some movement in this area, given the level of concern that has been expressed by other EU member states?
The Deputy is right in that Latvia has been very much to the fore in protecting its female citizens in this regard. I understand other foreign embassies have stated their concerns by contacting the General Register Office. The feedback from these embassies suggests that the requirement in the new guidelines to obtain official authentication of foreign birth certificates is of assistance to embassies in identifying marriages of convenience. In such cases the embassy in question can interview the person concerned and advise him or her of the implications and risks of what they are undertaking. I assure the Deputy——
There is no requirement for people to approach their embassies. That is the problem.
Sorry?
There is no requirement for such people to approach their embassies.
Yes, but in the short term we are dealing with that by seeking authentication of foreign birth certificates.
Is that being done now?
That is happening, yes. That is what I am saying to the Deputy.
Since when?
I am also saying to the Deputy that I am very concerned about this issue. The Árd Chláraitheoir is working on the issue, and it is my hope that we will introduce legislation because I believe every possible step should be taken. I understand consultations are taking place——
This was first brought to the attention of the Department in 2006.
Allow the House to move on to the next question.
When can we expect legislation?
As I pointed out in the original reply, this became a matter of serious concern following the European Court of Justice judgment in the Metock case.
When can we expect legislation?
I do not have a definite date for legislation, but the matter is being worked on proactively and I have had consultations with the Árd Chláraitheoir. The Deputy can be absolutely——
We are over time on this question, Minister.
I have not seen it on any list.
47 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social Protection his Department’s fraud savings target for 2010; the amount that has been saved to date [38981/10]
The prevention of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system is an integral part of the day to day work of the Department. A key objective of the Department's control strategy is to ensure that the right person is paid the right amount of money at the right time. A four-pronged control strategy has been adopted by the Department, namely, prevention of fraud and error at the initial claim stage; early detection through effective review of claims in payment; measures to deter fraud; and the pursuit and recovery of overpayments. The rapidly changing economic environment, with large increases in the number of people unemployed, poses challenges for the prevention and effective management of fraud and control. The Department's response to these challenges has been to introduce new, evidence-based measures to target control activity at high-risk categories of claimants.
Control savings are an estimate of the value of the various control activities across the schemes in payment, and represent an estimate of the value of prevented expenditure on fraudulent claims. Actual recoveries arise where the Department raises overpayments in individual cases. A target of €533 million was set for control savings in 2010. At the end of September this year, some €323 million in estimated control savings had been recorded. However, work-to-rule measures in the Department earlier this year affected the reporting of the value of control activities.
Control activity is being focused on the prevention of fraud and error at claim application stage, as this is the most cost-effective mechanism of reducing losses in social welfare schemes. This is what I call a gate-keeper effect. However, savings made at application stage cannot be estimated as the claim does not go into payment.
In my view welfare fraud is theft. It is a serious crime and the Department is doing everything it can to target the people who abuse the system. The consequences for social welfare fraud can be severe. Criminal prosecutions may be taken against persons who defraud the social welfare payment system and employers who fail to carry out their statutory obligations. Fraud detection measures have increased and improved significantly over the last number of years and will continue to be reviewed to prioritise resources in order to achieve results.
The Department is committed to ensuring that social welfare payments are available to those who are entitled to them. In this regard, the control programme of the Department is carefully monitored and the various measures are refined to ensure they remain effective.
I want to put a straight question to the Minister. In the week of the volcanic ash crisis this year, 3,500 fewer people signed on for the dole. I ask the Minister to confirm to the House and to the country that welfare tourism — that is, people flying in from other countries on cheap flights to claim social welfare — is not taking place. Did the Department investigate the reason 3,500 fewer people signed on during that crisis?
Why has the Minister reduced the projected savings due to reductions in fraud? He was hoping in 2009 to achieve savings of €616 million but this has been reduced in 2010 to €533 million. People are concerned about two different types of welfare fraud — one type in another jurisdiction not far from us and the other type perpetrated by people flying in from abroad. I want the country and the House to be reassured that this is not happening.
I answered that question comprehensively with facts and figures on Committee Stage of the Bill we debated during the early summer. However, I will send the detailed facts to the Deputy. These show that the week in question was not exceptional in terms of the number of people not signing on. Off the top of my head, around 90% of the people who did not sign on that week were Irish. Of the rest, some of the applicants were from faraway parts of the world, such as Pakistan, India, Australia and America, which does not fit in with the "cheap flights" idea. If anything, the figures from that week show that few people were discommoded by the ash cloud. The data shows that it is not true that thousands of people are flying in to collect social welfare payments. All the evidence is that because people must now collect unemployment payments every week — they must physically attend the post office and provide their identities to the postmaster or postmistress — that is not the area in which the greatest savings are to be made.
As the Deputy knows, we have done a lot of work on control savings. As I said in my reply, in the early part of the year the control measures were in place and savings were being made but, because of the industrial action, these savings were not reported. It did not make any difference to the savings that were made on the ground, but it did make a difference to the reporting, and that has affected the figures.
I am not sure the Minister has answered the question or that he has reassured this House or the country that fraud was not going on.
The Deputy——
Allow the Deputy to ask the question.
I am very worried. I asked the Minister whether there was an investigation by his Department; I hope there was.
Yes.
I am glad. My next question follows on from this. When will we have a system of identity cards for those collecting social welfare in order to prevent fraud? We need to do something. Money is valuable now and people are under extreme pressure. Those who need social welfare should get it, but those who are defrauding the social welfare system are taking money from the Minister's pocket and from everybody else's pockets. I want to make sure that social welfare goes to the people who should have it.
I ask the Minister for a breakdown of the savings made in the area of fraud and overpayment. How much of the overpayments were as a result of mistakes by the Department and how much were due to fraud?
On the Deputy's first question, I will obtain the information for him. I hope that when he gets the information he will consider it factually and objectively.
Of course I will.
He will see that the story is not as it has been portrayed. We are very keen to eliminate fraud and, as the Deputy will be aware, we have made substantial savings through, for example, the fraud control measure on child benefit this year. I will do anything I can to try to eliminate fraud.
The Deputy asked about the identity card. I would hope to have the first of them by the end of the year and to introduce it early next year. It will be a chip and PIN card with a high-quality photograph — a similar arrangement to that which exists in a passport. However, it is not strictly speaking an identity card and perhaps we should not use that term; it is a social services card. While it will enable people to avail of State services, it has nothing to do with the justice system so a garda will not be able to stop someone on the street looking for——
No, but we want to know——
Please, let the Minister finish.
I believe it will stop many of the abuses that are taking place and is a necessary step in the right direction.
We are also stepping up on the national employment action programme. If one listens to what is being said on the street, there is a temptation for people to work and draw at the same time. We need to activate people back into work and to close down on that.
What was the Deputy's final question?
How many are Department errors and how many are fraud? The Minister can send the details to me later.
It is very hard at times to identify whether——
The Minister might revert to the Deputy.
I will revert to him, but I must warn him that it is very hard to know in some cases whether it was genuine error or whether someone purposely gave wrong information. Where we know it is genuine fraud, we prosecute and if it is a genuine error, obviously we do not.
48 Deputy Michael Ring asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will provide details on his plans to extend the rural social scheme and the community services programme at no additional cost; the number of new places that will be provided; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [40183/10]
Activation and support for those who are unemployed is a key priority for Government. Earlier this year, the Taoiseach announced a number of changes to improve the delivery of employment, training and community services to the public by bringing together related responsibilities in these areas. These changes included the restructuring of departmental responsibilities with the objective of providing a streamlined response to the income support and job search needs of people who are unemployed.
In this context, my Department is devising proposals for the development of new initiatives based on the rural social scheme and the community services programme which will offer social employment opportunities. This new initiative will be an important element in the development and delivery of employment and community services and will aim to provide quality work opportunities to the unemployed and beneficial outcomes to the community. A key feature of the new scheme will be to provide a new activation route that will support unemployed people in remaining job-ready for re-entry to employment as the economic environment improves.
In the summer during the Dáil recess, the Minister announced that he would create 10,000 to 15,000 community scheme places. The rural social scheme has worked very well and while I would like to see more places on that scheme, it would only deal with a certain section of society. How does the Minister propose to get the other 300,000 people on to community schemes such that there is no extra cost to the State?
Approximately 270,000 people are getting payment for a full week; in other words, many people on the live register are working part-time. It is intended to focus particularly on people on jobseeker's allowance who have been in receipt of unemployment payment for more than a year. It will be done using the model of the rural social scheme but extending eligibility to people who have been on long-term jobseeker's allowance; in other words, it will take away the requirement to be either a fisherman or a farmer. It seems to be the most efficient and simplest way to do it. It will require an extension of the scheme into the cities where there is serious unemployment as well as in rural areas and I hope to be able to roll it out in the near future.
However, it must be linked to the other part, which is an employment action plan. The idea is to identify the people eligible for a scheme and to get agreement to provide their names to the various groups that would be organising the schemes and then to allow them to provide the employment. Obviously, those who are not available to go on a scheme, including those who do not respond to employment action programmes, will be intensively interviewed. People who do not turn up for interviews after two requests without some valid excuse will have their payments suspended. We cannot have people available for work and actively seeking work, but unavailable for interview when asked to do so.
Will this be compulsory? We do not want unemployed accountants and doctors asked to go out and clean the streets, which would be a very unfair way to get people off social welfare and I hope this scheme will not do so. When people lose their jobs and go to their local social welfare office, they are advised of their entitlements, but are not told of the training or job opportunities available and how they can get retrained. When will we have a one-stop shop so that they do not need to go all over the place to get the information? What plans does the Department have to develop such a solution?
There are two questions there. I said that we would make the names available to the various community groups. The Deputy has been working with the community sector for long enough to know that a community group will try to place people in jobs that suit them. I am astounded that the question of whether community groups would force people with qualifications to do jobs that do not suit them keeps coming up; I have never come across a community group that would do that. However, it will be mandatory for an accountant on the dole or a doctor on jobseeker's allowance who is called for interview to attend that interview. Obviously, the first avenue for people attending interview will be to try to get them into productive employment; the second avenue is training or education; and the third avenue would be a scheme job. It is absolutely fair to say that people will be placed in occupations that would be suitable for them. The level of community work goes way beyond trimming the hedges on the side of the road — important and all as that is. I have a list of all the different community work jobs, which is considerably wider than that. It is very degrading of community work to continually refer just to trimming of hedges.
I hope the Deputy will facilitate this happening. As he knows, I will shortly introduce a Bill, which I hope to enact before Christmas, to facilitate the final transfer of responsibility for FÁS to my Department. The purpose of that transfer is to do precisely what the Deputy suggests. In future when people go into an employment exchange they will also be activated in the same place in a seamless service. I look forward to the Deputy's full co-operation in getting the Bill through quickly so that we can move early in the new year on that.
We will wait until we have seen the Bill.
49 Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of defined benefit pension schemes which fail the minimum funding standard; the number of persons affected by this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39269/10]
Under the Pensions Act, defined benefit pension schemes must meet a minimum funding standard which requires that schemes maintain sufficient assets to enable them discharge their accrued liabilities in the event of the scheme winding up. Where schemes do not satisfy the funding standard, the sponsors or trustees must submit a funding proposal to the Pensions Board to restore full funding within a three-year period.
At the end of 2009, there were 254,325 members in 1,192 defined benefit schemes subject to the funding standard. It was estimated at that time that in excess of 75% of these schemes were in deficit. A recent survey undertaken by the Pensions Board found that 70% of schemes were reported to be in deficit. However, the extent of the level of under-funding will not be fully apparent until all schemes carry out their next actuarial assessment and report the results to the Pensions Board.
The Government is conscious of the pressures on both sponsoring employers and pension scheme trustees, arising from the very significant losses incurred by pension funds during 2007 and 2008. While schemes recovered some of their losses in the past year or so, I am anxious to ensure, in so far as possible, that pension scheme trustees and employers have sufficient time and space to assess fully the implications for their schemes and the remedial action they can take. This was the thinking behind the implementation of a number of temporary measures in December 2008 to ease the funding pressures on pension schemes.
In addition, the Pensions Act was amended by Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2009 to provide for a number of measures which would support the trustees and employers in responding to the significant challenges they encountered following the down turn in the financial markets. In March this year, the Government launched the national pensions framework. It sets out the our intention for a radical and wide-scale reform of the Irish pension system. I announced last month that work on the new defined benefit pension model, as outlined in this framework, would be expedited. My Department will aim to introduce this new model following legislative changes on 1 July 2011.
Following this announcement, the deadline of 30 November for the submission of funding proposal to the Pensions Board was deferred. It is anticipated that the deferral of this deadline will allow schemes time to take account of reforms to the defined benefit model in the preparation of funding proposals for submission to the Pensions Board by a date which will be announced by the board.
Does the Minister agree that the ineptitude of the Government is best reflected in its failure to deal with the issue of the pensions time bomb for more than a decade? Does he also agree that it is disgraceful that 200,000 people who have paid into defined benefit schemes might not have their expectations met and that nothing has been done by the Government in the interim other than to defer dates? When will there will be positive results? When will the new defined benefit scheme be established? Everything appears to have been put on the long finger. What proposals has the Minister to deal with the shortfall? What message can he send to the 200,000 people who will not receive the pensions they expected?
As I announced recently, it is our intention to bring forward a new defined benefit model, the idea of which is to have core benefits and then to have top-up benefits, depending on the market. It will not be mandatory for schemes that are properly funded to transfer to this scheme but it will be available for schemes with funding difficulties. There is a tight timeframe for introducing all the necessary legislation by 1 July 2011 and, therefore, the Deputy cannot say we are dragging our heels on this. Legislative changes will be required and that is our intention.
The Government also published a comprehensive pensions framework last February and I reject the contention that it has not been active on this issue. The collapse in the value of equities on markets worldwide has had a devastating effect on the pensions industry and while some of the losses have been made back this year, they do not compensate for the losses of previous years.
I disagree with the Minister. The Government has dragged its heels on this issue for more than a decade. With regard to the pensions framework, when can we expect the implementation group to be established?
The Minister referred to returns on equity investments being bad over the past number of years. Returns were not bad over the past year. However, the National Pensions Reserve Fund only achieved a return of 2.5% on an investment of €7 billion in 2009. The fund was set up to protect pensions into the future but every policy from every political party proposes to raid the fund. At this stage it has probably been raided ten times over. What is the Minister's view on the raiding of the fund? Has he considered other measures to deal with the pensions shortfall such as increasing the pension age or reducing pensions? Has he thought of anything outside the box?
An implementation group has been set up and four sub-committees are working on various aspects of the framework. I have expedited the work on the defined benefit scheme, which is important, because I agree with the Deputy that this is an urgent issue. I am dealing with it as an urgent issue and will continue to do so.
The Minister has deferred it. He has not expedited anything.
I have. I said I will bring forward new proposals, which include legislation, and I will have them implemented by 1 July 2011. I have expedited the process because of its urgency. What happened subsequently was the Pensions Board decided to defer the date to give schemes the opportunity to avail of the new scheme. That makes a great deal of common sense.
The National Pensions Reserve Fund is a matter for the Minister for Finance. It does not relate to this discussion because the fund was established specifically to cover public service pensions.
