Vol. 848 No. 3
63. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the position regarding the review of the free travel scheme; if she is concerned at the possible withdrawal of private transport services from the scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31161/14]
I congratulate the Tánaiste on her elevation. I also congratulate her new sidekick, the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, on his well-deserved promotion. The purpose of the question is to ascertain the impact, if any, of the review of the free travel scheme, on the people who already enjoy the benefits of free travel.
I thank the Deputy for his congratulations to me and the Minister of State, Deputy Humphreys.
The free travel scheme is currently available to all people living in the State aged 66 years or over, and to persons under 66 who are in receipt of certain disability-type payments or carer’s allowance. When companion and spousal passes are taken into account, more than 1.2 million people benefit at an annual cost of €77 million. The Government, in its statement of priorities for the period 2014 to 2016 published last Friday, is committed to the full retention of the free travel scheme. This commitment recognises the importance of the pass to pensioners, people with disabilities and carers. Since its introduction in the 1960s, it has been highly valued as it allows beneficiaries to participate and remain active in the community. The freeze on funding for the scheme introduced by the previous Government in 2010 has placed pressure on the operation of the scheme as eligible passenger numbers have continued to rise. The Department is aware of the issues being raised by private operators and, in this regard, officials have had discussions with the National Transport Authority and the Coach Tourism and Transport Council of Ireland.
In addition, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport and I established a working group, with representatives from the two Departments as well as from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the National Transport Authority, to review the free travel scheme. I expect that group to complete its work soon and its recommendations will then be considered.
It might also be noted that the Department is investing in the modernisation of the free travel scheme. The introduction of the public services card for free travel customers will provide more accurate information on transport services where integrated ticketing is supported and will also include photo identification and security features. At the start of June 2014, more than 197,000 cards with a free travel variant have been issued. The free travel pass is safe.
As the Deputy will appreciate, there has been a significant investment in the new cards to modernise the administration of the scheme and the identification of people with the photo. The free travel pass is safe.
I appreciate what the Minister has said about the introduction of the new card which will go a long way towards combatting fraud in the system. I note the Minister said her in reply that the Government is committed to the full retention of the free travel pass. Can the Minister give us an assurance today that there will not be a charge, minimal or otherwise, on people who enjoy the travel pass, that the hours during which the free travel pass can be used will not be restricted, that the modes of transport available to people with free travel will not be restricted, and that all the people who are entitled to free travel at the moment will continue to be equally entitled to it?
I have heard some of the suggestions that the Deputy has made, such as annual charges and other restrictions, which have appeared from time to time and have been suggested by people. The Deputy has suggested them here himself.
No, I have not. I said there have been suggestions; I have not made them. I am asking the Minister to rule them out.
Let us say the Deputy has been raising the spectre of charges and restrictions. There are no proposals in that regard. The scheme is almost 50 years old. It has been remarkably robust since its inception in 1967. As I explained in my reply, there are some problems with the issue of identification and a small level of misuse of the scheme. We have now introduced 197,000 of the new public services cards, which are embedded with the photo of the person who is entitled. In this case, the initial roll-out is to retired people. Embedded also in this card is "FT" for the free travel pass. That allows a high level of safeguarding against fraud and certainty as to the identity and entitlement of the person who is seeking free travel.
The Minister will also be aware that in some places where public bus services are not available people have access to privately operated services. Approximately 90 private operators operate the free travel scheme. Some of those are threatening to withdraw from the scheme. Can the Minister give us an assurance that she will be able to retain those 90 operators within the scheme? Does the Government have any proposals to increase the number of private operators? I believe it is the Government's intention for more routes to be privatised or at least that more routes will be given to private operators on some routes currently available only to Bus Éireann.
From time to time some operators pull out of the scheme while other operators join it. I am aware there are cost issues for some of the operators. We are anxious to maintain those routes. As the Deputy will be aware, a number of rural transport initiatives are supported not just by my Department, but particularly by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. They can make a very specific provision of small-scale local carriage and bus services, for example, from a small village to a larger town, which are particularly popular with people such as retired people, who may be anxious to go into the next big town in order to do business or attend social events or other public events.
64. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her views on the decision to withhold the names of 68% of the companies benefitting from a significant public subsidy via the JobBridge scheme; her views that this creates a secret competitive advantage for those companies funded by the State; her further views that her Department was correct to give companies the option of not having their name shown on the JobBridge website and then to equate this with a commitment of secrecy; and the steps she will take to protect the public interest in the proper and accountable use of public moneys channelled through the JobBridge scheme. [31163/14]
Cosúil leis an Teachta O'Dea, ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis an mbeirt Airí agus tá súil agam go mbeidh an chuid seo dá tréimhse Rialtais i bhfad níos fearr ná an chuid dheireanach agus go mbeidh siad in ann déileáil le roinnt de na ceisteanna a d'ardaigh muid le tamall.
This question is to find out whether the Tánaiste agrees that the public has the right to know the names of the companies which are getting a subsidy of €82.3 million in the form of millions of hours of free labour under the JobBridge scheme and whether she agrees that her Department was wrong to deny my freedom of information request with the release of only 32% of the names of those companies benefiting from this lucrative public subsidy, with 6,500 interns engaged at present and a further 11,000 due over the next year.
Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Teachta mar gheall ar a chomhghairdeas dom féin agus don Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys.
JobBridge has provided a valuable work experience and development opportunity to more than 30,000 unemployed jobseekers with approximately 7,000 jobseekers currently engaged on an internship. Independent research has shown that 61% of interns progress to secure paid employment, a progression rate that is higher than for any other employment programme. JobBridge is designed to overcome the barrier whereby unemployed jobseekers need experience to secure a job offer but cannot gain experience without a job. Although it is a service for the benefit of jobseekers, JobBridge requires the voluntary co-operation and commitment of employers to offer internship opportunities. Host organisations have a responsibility to offer a quality internship and development experience to prospective interns to improve their employment prospects.
Since its inception in 2011, more than 13,000 employers have participated in the JobBridge scheme. All of the funding for the JobBridge scheme goes directly to the intern and no funding is provided to the host organisation. I wish to stress that participation in JobBridge is on a voluntary basis for both interns and host organisations. In line with standard international practice in the recruitment industry, the Department provides employers with an option not to publish their names on the JobBridge website. Regardless of whether the hosts name is published, JobBridge is intensely monitored by the Department. In this regard, more than 6,600 monitoring visits to employers have been carried out to date. In addition, the Department has a mandatory monthly reporting system for both host organisations and interns to ensure compliance with the spirit and rules of the scheme. If any issues are raised, particularly by the intern, these are fully investigated by the Department.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I am satisfied that JobBridge is a very successful programme and I am confident that the extensive monitoring system put in place by the Department is effective at preventing any potential abuse of the scheme.
As I stated, I received a partial freedom of information response within which I obtained some of the briefing documents with which the Tánaiste is provided when answering questions, one of which was from November 2013. At that point, in the event of a question being asked about what control measures the Department of Social Protection had in place to monitor internships, the Department deemed the voluntary nature of JobBridge to be an important matter in this regard and advised it was an important part of the control measures and criteria in place to protect the interns and to ensure the integrity of the JobBridge scheme. The intern could, at any stage, leave the internship if he or she so wished. Why did the Tánaiste decide to jettison this important safeguard just two months later, in January 2014, when she announced that JobBridge would be mandatory for young people under the Youth Guarantee?
I will take the last question first. The reason is that as the Deputy is aware, very young people who have no engagement in the labour market get a reduced rate of payment. If, for instance, they undertake a JobBridge experience, in some cases young people who have left school early may not even have finished the junior certificate or possibly have not completed the leaving certificate. In the whole approach to the Youth Guarantee, the Government wishes to end the position where unfortunately, a small group of young people in some areas opt to go directly onto social welfare.
We want to offer them instead an opportunity to engage in education and training, including apprenticeships and work experience that includes learning. This is part of a strategy of asking young people to engage positively, rather than claiming social welfare and limiting their prospects of securing employment and financial independence.
The Tánaiste referred to progression rates. A recent article listed the number of people who have taken part in JobBridge, the number currently on the scheme and the number of interns who subsequently found employment in the Department in which they did an internship. It found that of 261 interns in Departments, only one was offered a job and in that case the offer was for a six month contract only. Contrary to the figures the Tánaiste repeatedly cites from the Indecon report, only one quarter of interns in the public sector got a job afterwards and many of the positions they secured were not related to the internship.
The Indecon evaluation of JobBridge found that more than two thirds of internships were in private sector organisations, 22% were in the public sector and 9% were in community and voluntary sector organisations. As the Deputy is probably aware from his experience in the community sector, internships are highly sought after because of the number of fantastic people graduating from different courses and training, right up to postgraduate level and other senior levels, who find it almost impossible to get a job because they cannot get experience. Without experience, these graduates are locked into a catch-22 scenario.
The reason for the higher rate of employment among participants who complete their internships in the private sector is that private sector organisations frequently take on an intern in anticipation of hiring the person subsequently. The internship offers a mechanism for commencing a hiring process and giving experience. In the case of small and medium sized companies interns are frequently recruited when the internship finishes. The figure in public sector organisations is 41.2% and the figure in the community and voluntary sector is 43%, which is not as high as in the private sector.
The figure for the subsequent employment of interns in Departments is 0%.
That is not true over the-----
We must move on.
65. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her views on whether 21.8 medical assessors, including the chief and deputy chief medical advisers, is an adequate number to assess applications for social welfare payments in view of the fact that more than 56,000 social welfare applications required a medical assessment in 2013; her plans to tackle the backlog and ensure any such assessments are carried out in a timely fashion; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31166/14]
If I may, I will congratulate the Tánaiste on her appointment and election as leader of the Labour Party. I also congratulate the new Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, on his appointment to the Department.
The question arises from the extraordinary delays being experienced in having social welfare applications assessed by medical assessors in the Department. In 2013, 21.8 medical assessors had responsibility for dealing with 56,000 applications that required a medical assessment. The purpose of the question is to elicit from the Tánaiste the plans she has to clear the backlog of medical assessments.
I thank Deputy Pringle for his words of congratulation to me and the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys.
There are no backlogs in the provision of medical opinions on welfare entitlements. At the end of December, the number of medical opinions in process had fallen by 19%, from 3,617 to 2,923. The number of assessments in hand equates to less than four weeks' work. Some 48,000 medical opinions were provided in 2013.
Deputy Pringle will recall the problems caused by the large backlog I inherited when I became Minister. The Department made significant changes in work processes, especially in the area of information technology. I remember that Deputies were extremely patient when we discussed the matter in the House.
We have actually cleared those backlogs, although I do not know whether the Deputy has a specific case in mind. Service delivery is a key priority for the Department and we have invested heavily in IT and business processes to ensure claims and appeals are processed as expeditiously as possible. We have made good progress over the past two years in clearing backlogs or schemes involving medical eligibility criteria. Medical assessors have a key role in advising on eligibility.
The Department has a core authorised number of 27 medical assessors, including the chief and deputy chief medical advisers. To ensure there are sufficient medical assessor posts available, the Department recently reached agreement with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform for the allocation of four additional medical assessor posts to increase the number to 31.
I thank the Tánaiste for her reply. I have experience of trying to get applications processed that involve a medical assessment. When one tries to find out how long it will take to get such an assessment, the response one gets from the Department is "How long is a piece of string?" There is basically no time limit on medical assessments being carried out. Very often I have had to table a parliamentary question to get the process speeded up. It is noticeable that when one tables a question, one gets an answer within a couple of days whereas it could have been going on for months in advance of that. That is not an adequate way to carry out the assessment process.
Based on the Department's own figures, each medical assessor is dealing with in excess of 2,000 applications annually. That is not counting reviews and other work such assessors have to carry out. Is it the case that only the chief or deputy chief medical assessor can sign off to ensure payment once an assessment has been made?
The Deputy has raised an interesting point. He may be frustrated with the scheme but one of its great flexible points is that if one makes an application for something that requires a medical assessor's opinion, we allow the application to be continually subject to review through the input of additional information. The alternative would be to use a flat system of rejection, not allow a review and instead go to appeal. That would have a much less satisfactory outcome for clients who are using the system. We allow appeals, as the Deputy knows. From time to time one meets people who say they applied for something which was refused. With the Deputy's skills, expertise and knowledge, however, he can examine the application and judge whether the medical evidence submitted is strong enough to warrant whatever payment or other request is made. Allowing the review is an important part of the scheme because it permits people to put in more pertinent, up-to-date and stronger medical evidence which in turn will assist them with their applications.
There is no doubt that the review system allows extra medical evidence to be submitted. However, the fact that each medical assessor must process more than 2,800 new applications every year, not to mention further reviews, is surely a heavy workload. That workload issue is identified by the fact that the Minister has received approval for four additional assessors. Is it the case that one of the two senior medical assessors must sign off on the medical evidence review after it has taken place in order to get a payment out to a person?
As I said, in the business process structure we would expect a medical assessment to be done and the application to be dealt with in four weeks. That is a reasonable timeframe in the context of the work that has to be done.
More importantly, we also provide significant resources amounting to approximately €47 million to the Citizens Information Board and the Money Advice & Budgeting Service specifically to provide people with a confidential and private information service on how they can progress their applications and submit the appropriate information, accompanied by the relevant medical certification, in support of their cases. We come across quite a few cases where people supply general certification which does not really support their case, as opposed to direct certification. Currently, there is no backlog in terms of the processing times.
66. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the actions she will take to address the increasing poverty levels here; if she will commit to protecting the universal payment of child benefit at its current levels; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31162/14]
My question relates to the fact that the most recent statistics on levels of poverty and income distribution in Ireland are two years old. I want to ascertain the progress made by the Government in dealing with these matters in the past two years.
The Department of Social Protection will spend approximately €19.6 billion on income support payments in 2014. Core weekly payment rates have been fully maintained over the past three years in line with the programme for Government. Child benefit is paid for almost 1.2 million children in over 600,000 families, with an estimated expenditure of €1.9 billion in 2014. Income support payments play a major role in reducing poverty. CSO data show that in 2012, income supports and other social transfers reduced the at risk of poverty rate from 50.3% to 16.5%, thereby lifting one third of the population out of relative poverty. This represents a poverty reduction effect of 67.2%. Ireland is among the best performing EU countries in reducing poverty through social transfers.
Child benefit assists all parents with the costs associated with raising children and is a key component of income support for children at risk of poverty. Child benefit is complemented by targeted payments such as qualified child increases at just under €30 per week per child, back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and family income supplement to support low income families.
The Statement of Government Priorities 2014–2016, which we announced last Friday, contains a commitment to introduce measures in budget 2015 to assist low-income families by improving the system of child income supports, particularly for families in which one or both parents are moving from welfare to work. This will be informed by the work of the advisory group on tax and social welfare.
We know that social welfare will always work to reduce poverty. If we did not have social welfare, we would obviously have much more poverty. Regrettably, however, the latest statistics on the incidence of poverty and income distribution are two years old. I do not blame the Minister specifically for this situation but it should be addressed by the Government. We are in the unusual position whereby I can get up-to-date CSO figures on the number of cows in County Limerick but I do not know the incidence of poverty in that county for 2014.
The figures from 2012 revealed that one in six people was living below the internationally accepted poverty line. The poverty line had decreased because of the economic downturn in the preceding years. One in six of the population equates to 750,000 people. The 2012 figures also showed that the deprivation rate, whereby people go without at least two of the 11 basic necessities, was 26.9%, which equates to a staggering 1.2 million people. Is the Minister confident that the statistics for 2014 will show an improvement in that situation?
As the Deputy is aware, preparation of statistics in this area is a matter for the CSO. I would welcome the provision of statistics on a more timely basis.
The EU is currently publishing the statistics on income and living conditions, SILC, for Europe and Ireland compares very favourably, principally because we have a level of social transfers which we maintained during the depression. The poverty reduction effects of social protection payments in Ireland are among the highest in the European Union. The best route from poverty or being at risk of poverty is to find employment. Over a period I have emphasised family income supplement, expanded the programme and made it easier to apply for when parents with children are returning to work. That will provide significant support for parents returning to work.
The best obvious route from poverty is to find a job but the Minister may find it surprising that 16% of the people ascertained as living below the poverty line have a job. There is a specific commitment on page 22 of the programme for Government to combat and reduce incidence of poverty. In the Government's national reform programme for 2012, the target for Ireland was that consistent poverty would be reduced to 4% by 2016 and 2% by 2020. The figure in 2012 was 7.7%, so how confident is the Minister that we will achieve the target?
The national social target for poverty reduction is to achieve 4% by 2016 and 2% or less by 2020. A diverse range of actions in support of the target are set out in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion, with annual updates in the national reform programme under the Europe 2020 strategy. We have also recently adopted a child-specific poverty sub-target in the policy framework for children and young people, which is to reduce the number of children in consistent poverty by 70,000 by 2020, which is a reduction of two thirds on 2011.
The Deputy may be aware the Government's proposals published last Friday referred to people in work on very low wages. We have committed to the establishment of a low pay commission, as there are a number of issues. The minimum wage, at €8.65 per hour, is relatively good but if a person only has ten hours of work per week, he or she will rely on social welfare for the balance of income. We have put significant extra resources into family income supplement to assist families in low income at work with children. We will continue to extend initiatives in that area to support families.
67. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her plans to provide unemployment and disability benefits for self-employed PRSI contributors; if she will consider introducing changes to PRSI contributions to provide for same; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [31168/14]
This relates to self-employed PRSI contributors and the Minister's plans, if any, to provide unemployment and disability benefits for them.
Self-employed people are liable for PRSI at the class S rate of 4%. This entitles them to access valuable long-term benefits, including benefits such as the contributory State pension and widow's, widower's and surviving civil partner's contributory pension, as well as maternity benefit. The advisory group on tax and social welfare found the current system of means-tested jobseeker's allowance payments adequately provides cover to self-employed people for the risks associated with unemployment. The group was not convinced there was a need for the extension of social insurance for the self-employed to provide cover for jobseeker’s benefit.
The group also found that extending social insurance for the self-employed was warranted in cases related to long-term sickness or injuries. To this end, the group recommended that class S benefits should be extended to provide cover for people who are permanently incapable of work because of a long-term illness or incapacity through the invalidity pension and the partial capacity benefit schemes. In this regard the group recommended that the rate of contribution for class S should be increased by at least 1.5 percentage points, payable on a compulsory basis. This recommendation will require further consideration in conjunction with the findings of the most recent actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund, which indicated that the self-employed achieve better value for money compared with employed workers.
If we are to extend the benefits, we would have to have an additional contribution. The Deputy is probably aware that in the legislation, which was passed recently by the House, we extended the right to insurance to the spouses and partners of people who are self-employed. I estimate that will benefit an additional 5,000 to 6,000 people, many probably coming from the farming community.
The extension of the class S contribution to allow for invalidity pension is a welcome development for self-employed people. A greater issue than the cost and value for money is the fact of having a safety net if one is self-employed. Many are forced to be self-employed and do not choose it. To have the safety net of an entitlement to jobseeker’s benefit would be of great benefit to them and would encourage people to take up self-employment. Self-employed people would be less likely to become unemployed and would be less of a drain on the State.
While the Department of Social Protection has moved to ease the burden for self-employed people to get jobseeker’s allowance, having an entitlement to jobseeker’s benefit would encourage them to become self-employed. That should be examined. The Minister says that people entitled to invalidity pension and unemployment assistance would also be entitled to a disability allowance, which is a continuous payment. I do not see why she can extend some payments and not others.
The advisory group found that the current system of means-tested jobseeker’s allowance payments, to which the Deputy refers, adequately covers the self-employed. I am not sure that many people appreciate the point that almost nine out of every ten self-employed people who claimed the means-tested jobseeker’s allowance during the three-year period from 2009 to 2011 received payment. Many of those would have been working in construction or allied trades. A very high percentage of those who applied for jobseeker’s allowance got it. The group recommended the extension of social insurance cover for self-employed people who are permanently out of work through long-term illness or incapacity. It recommended a compulsory basis rather than an opt-in or out system because for social insurance one needs national cover. The contribution rate for the self-employed is 4% for the important benefits they get, whereas the contribution for people in employment, through the employer’s and their own contribution, is close to 15%. If self-employed people wanted the full range of cover they would have to contribute 15%.
While I recognise the contribution for the self-employed is much lower than for those in employment, there should be recognition that they are self-employed and are quite likely to be employers themselves through the nature of their business. A lower rate of around 8% should be brought in to allow them have all the benefits such as jobseeker’s benefit if they become unemployed through no fault of their own.
While people who ended up unemployed got jobseeker's allowance, this did not happen until after they had gone through a tortuous process. In some cases I have dealt with, people have had to wait for between a year and a year and a half to get their payments. The demands made when the Department placed the onus on them were difficult to achieve. The nub of the problem is that the contributory old age pension is the only thing self-employed people who made contributions but ended up unemployed through no fault of their own are entitled to. It is very difficult for people in their 30s to comprehend that they will have to wait until they are 67 or 68 to benefit from their PRSI contributions. We should give serious consideration to this proposal in recognition of the contribution of the self-employed and the fact that they are likely to be employers. It should be taken on board.
Everybody present in the Chamber will recall that the set of circumstances outlined by Deputy Pringle was a strong and sad feature of the 2011 general election campaign. Each of us met many people who had been left in this precise situation. It seemed to be taking years for them to have success in applying for the means-tested jobseeker's allowance. When I became Minister shortly after the election, I changed the way the applications worked by allowing people to detail their current circumstances. The previous Administration had based the applications on having full sets of accounts, tax data and everything like that.
That is incorrect.
We updated the information that people could bring in. We allowed them to bring in details of their current circumstances. As a consequence of that review and update, far more people qualified to get jobseeker's allowance.
There is no difference in practice between now and before.
That is why nine out of ten people now qualify to get it.
If the Minister checks the record, she will find that it was always allowed under the current circumstances, as opposed to the historic circumstances. If she checks the replies to parliamentary questions that I gave as Minister, she will find that she has given the House incorrect information. I hope she will study the matter and correct the record of the House.
Perhaps the experience was different in the Deputy's local area. In Dublin and many city areas, it was quite difficult for one to access a jobseeker's assistance payment unless one had very detailed accounting records. I assume this could partly be attributed to the sudden and serious nature of the collapse, particularly as it applied to self-employed contractors and subcontractors. The situation is now clarified. People can bring in and use their current details. The rules may have permitted that when the Deputy's party was in power, but the system was not operating in that way. Anyone who knocked on doors during the 2011 election campaign will recall repeatedly coming across families who found it extremely difficult to access these benefits. I am pleased to say the advisory group has acknowledged that nine out of ten people who can qualify for assistance payments are now qualifying for them.
