Priority Questions
100. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection when she will publish the report of the advisory group on tax and social welfare; the conclusions of the report on child benefit rates; her future plans for child benefit rates; if the child benefit rate will be protected; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49974/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraCreating jobs and tackling poverty are two of the key challenges that Ireland now faces and it is essential that our tax and social protection systems play their part in addressing these issues.
To this end and in line with commitments contained in the programme for Government, I established last year the advisory group on tax and social welfare, with the aim of harnessing expert opinion and experience to examine a number of specific issues and make cost-effective proposals aimed at improving employment incentives and achieving better poverty outcomes, particularly in dealing with child poverty. Total social welfare expenditure on children is some €3 billion this year. The group's overall method of working is based on producing modular reports on the priority areas identified in the terms of reference. The group commenced its work programme by prioritising family and child income supports and subsequently submitting its report to me. I am considering the findings of the group's report which I intend to publish n due course. The report is, therefore, not yet in the public domain and I do not propose to comment on it or disclose the recommendations of the group at this time.
The Government is conscious that child benefit, as a universal payment, is an important source of income for all families with children, especially during a time of recession and high unemployment. It is envisaged that any proposed change to the child benefit payment would be considered in the context of the annual budget and announced on budget day. Therefore, in line with normal practice, I do not intend to say anything about the Government's intentions at this time.
I remind the Minister about some of the sentiments expressed by her and her party leader in opposition. For example, in February 2011, in the teeth of a general election campaign, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, when asked what would be of central importance to the Labour Party in entering government, stated, "[Things] like not cutting child benefit any further. Enough is enough. Families can take no more." Exactly one year before he stated: "It is the only State recognition that there is of mothers because it is paid directly to mothers ... Does Labour see room for some cuts? No, we don’t." On 19 February 2011 he stated: "Fine Gael need to drop their plans to cut child benefit, that's one, so let's start with that one."
In 2010 the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, stated: "There's a lot of big houses all around the country where, inside those houses, there's actually very little money because people are at the pin of their collar paying their mortgages and the child benefit is a critical income support to put food on the table."
A question, please.
At the launch of the Labour Party policy on 23 February 2011 it was stated child benefit was often the lifeline which helped to keep food on the table and the house warm and that any further cut would create a genuine crisis.
Despite these clear, definitive and unambiguous words, the basis on which many voted for the Minister's party in the general election, in last year's budget she imposed cuts. As she is aware, some of the cuts extend over a two year period and some have yet to take effect. People will move into 2013 with a cut already due as a result of the provisions included in last year's budget. I ask this question in response to a significant campaign and a considerable number of requests I have received from constituents and further afield. Does the Minister intend to impose more cuts on top of those already imposed?
The Deputy will be aware that when he was a member of the Government-----
We are talking about today and tomorrow, not yesterday.
-----one of the first actions of the Government of which he was a member in the context of the crisis it brought onto the country when it introduced the fatal bank guarantee was to cut child benefit.
"Enough is enough" is what the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, stated.
As I stated, child benefit is an important support, particularly for parents. It is paid to the caring parent. There is strong recognition in Ireland that it is an important payment to families because we do not recognise children in the tax system in terms of tax allowances. Child benefit accounts for a sum of €2 billion. Family income supplement accounts for another €200 million, while qualified child allowances amount to €700 million.
The back to school clothing and footwear allowances amount to €63 million. That is a total spend of €3 billion on child and family income supports. The purpose of the review group is to determine how we can best use that funding to maintain support for families and how we can target it in a way that produces better outcomes for children who may be at risk of poverty. I am conscious, because of what Deputy O'Dea's party did to this country, that there are many families for whom child benefit is an important part of family income.
The situation has not got any better in the last two years.
That is also true of the other payments to children. It is wrong of Fianna Fáil to decide that it is not even possible, given the way Deputy O'Dea is exclaiming here, to review or examine the entire set of payments to children and families to see if we can spend money in a way that is more targeted while retaining a strong universal element. We are trying to determine whether we can spend the funds in a way that is targeted particularly towards poorer families with children, whether in or out of work, so that poverty outcomes for children are improved.
The Minister stated that the spend is €3 billion, but it was also €3 billion two years ago - when one takes account of the change in the value of money - when Deputy Burton said that enough was enough and there should be no more child care cuts. The Minister spoke about what she said, but what she said does not have any meaning. I am reporting what she said, as opposed to what she did.
I am not opposed to targeting at all and neither am I opposed to making people who are earning colossal amounts of money pay tax, at the very minimum, on their child benefit. I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the Irish League of Credit Unions recently conducted a survey which showed that there are 1.85 million people whose disposable income, after all of their bills have been paid, is less than €100 per month. The survey also showed that 40% of households had to borrow money last year to pay household bills and almost one quarter of those had to resort to moneylenders. People have been subjected to increases in the cost of school transport, carbon taxes and a whole raft of other costs, including an increase in the third level registration fee, which was not supposed to happen, according to a solemn pledge signed in full view of the nation on television. There are now 750,000 people living below the internationally recognised poverty line and approximately 250,000 of those are children. Low and middle income earners have had their taxes increased by way of a reduction of 6% in tax bands and a reduction of 10% in tax credits. They are literally at the pin of their collars. Again, I ask the Minister to give people some reassurance today regarding child benefit, upon which so many families are dependent.
In her initial reply, the Minister said she would publish this report "in due course". What does that mean? Does it mean this year, next year or in five years' time?
I am just looking at Fianna Fáil's record, which shows that in 2010 its spend in government on child benefit was €2.2 billion. In 2011, the figure was €2 billion, and this year-----
I asked the Minister about tomorrow, not yesterday.
I ask Deputy O'Dea to allow me to give him the figures-----
The Minister's figures are as false as her statements in opposition.
-----because he is a bit free and easy with information which is potentially misleading.
She said there was no room for further cuts.
The spend by Fianna Fáil in 2011 was €2.076 billion and the estimated spend-----
The Minister was going to change all that.
The estimated spend-----
The Minister was going to change all that. What about her promises?
The Deputy should not be getting agitated. If we are going to have a debate-----
What about her unambiguous words? She was going to change all of it. Hers is the party the people voted for.
I ask Deputy O'Dea to allow the Minister to speak.
They voted for the Minister on the basis that she was going to change all of that.
Order, please.
I urge the Deputy to try to calm himself.
I am very calm.
His blood pressure must be sky high. He should try to calm down.
I am very, very calm. The Minister does not like having her own words quoted back at her.
This year under the Labour Party-----
Lie after lie after lie.
The Deputy should calm himself.
Could I be a calming influence?
The Deputy will scare the children of the country if they are looking in.
They will be scared when child benefit is cut again.
The Deputy should try to calm himself. This year under the Labour Party, expenditure on child benefit has increased.
Are they getting more?
The total is now €2.078 billion.
The Government cut child benefit.
They are the statistics. Fianna Fáil and the Deputy, in particular, have always been afraid of statistics.
Who does the Minister think she is fooling?
That is a significant level of expenditure. Supports for families and children amount to more than €3 billion. Expenditure on child benefit has actually increased slightly and the Deputy should be big enough to acknowledge this. On the work of the review group-----
We have not seen the report.
-----it is good policy to examine how money is spent on children and determine whether we can target it in a way that produces better outcomes for children and families, particularly those at risk of poverty, whether at work in low income jobs or entirely dependent on social protection.
When is the Minister going to publish the report? It is the people's report; they paid for it. Is that her concept of transparency?
101. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the findings of the Focus Ireland report, Out of Reach: The impact of changes in Rent Supplement, that persons are homeless as a consequence of the cuts to the rent supplement scheme; her response to the findings; and the steps she will take on foot of the report. [49977/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraApproximately 89,000 persons are in receipt of rent supplement, for which the Government has provided €436 million in 2012. The aim of rent supplement is to provide short-term income assistance, rather than to act as an alternative to the other social housing schemes operated by the Exchequer. Officials in the Department are reviewing the findings and recommendations made in the Focus Ireland report, Out of Reach: The impact of changes in Rent Supplement, published last week and I will discuss the report with them. It should be stated the research was based on a small-scale sample of ten households, of which nine experienced homelessness at some point. This group cannot be considered as representative of the majority of the approximate 89,000 recipients of rent supplement. The report indicates that 27 landlords or property agents were interviewed by telephone.
Revised rent limits are applicable to new rent supplement tenancies from January 2012 and existing tenancies on review. These limits were set after an analysis of the most up-to-date market data available. Special provisions are in place, whereby rent limits can be exceeded in order to assist persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Approximately 42,000 rent supplement claims have been awarded in 2012, which shows that accommodation can be secured within the new limits. Departmental officials are continuing to provide support and advice for customers in addressing their accommodation and other needs. They also continue to examine the impact of the rent limits on those who claim rent supplement. The next review of rent limits will take place before June 2013.
The Minister was dismissive of the report by Focus Ireland. It is a snapshot in time because Focus Ireland does not have the budget to carry out a more extensive study. However, it is not the only organisation which has come to this conclusion. I do not know if the Minister is aware of Threshold's work with a significant number of tenants in the private rented sector who are in receipt of social welfare. Threshold has stated in its pre-budget submission that despite assertions to the contrary, it knows that rent supplement cuts have led to people being made homeless. In her reply to a parliamentary question I tabled on 23 October the Minister stated there would be no increase in homelessness because of these changes.
Focus Ireland works directly with the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. The Minister has a copy of the organisation's report in front of her.
It confirms the assertions made by Threshold, what I have found in my constituency and what many others to whom I have talked say, that there is evidence the changes have contributed to a number of individuals becoming homeless and made it more difficult for people moving out of homelessness to secure appropriate accommodation. Somebody is telling porkies. Is it Threshold, Focus Ireland or the Minister? Somebody is ending up homeless owing to the changes made by the Minister last year.
The report compiled by Focus Point, an organisation of which I have long been a supporter, is important. What I said was that the sample number of cases, ten, out of a total of 89,000, was part of the organisation's caseload for the current period and very small. They were particular cases in which Focus Point had dealt with individuals with problems. None of the individuals included in the study was unable to access accommodation ultimately. However, having looked at the cases included in the sample, I was surprised that two of the individuals were aged only 20 or under 20 years. As the report did not go into their family histories, I am unaware of the particular problems. However, I am concerned that young people of that age have left home. I would like to see the emphasis in public policy on young people of that age being encouraged to remain at home with their families. In addition, two of the cases concerned families, the members of which had described themselves as Travellers whom they felt suffered discrimination. This, therefore, was not an issue of homelessness but another issue.
All I am saying is that the sample chosen only amounted to ten cases. The Department has settled 42,000 housing rent cases under the new arrangements this year. The new rent levels are designed to ensure rents reflect what is considered to be an appropriate level to meet the circumstances of the family or individual involved. It is important I ensure the Department which holds a share of approximately 30% of the private rental market does not drive up rents. Some people in work, students and older people are renting and paying their own rent. If the Department, as a large participant in the rental market, drives up rents, it will have consequences for people who are working, families paying for students going to college and older people paying their own rent. Given the fallen values in the property market, the reductions sought in rent supplement which are extremely modest constitute an appropriate action. The collapse in values in the property market ought to be reflected in lower rents.
The Minister is in denial of the reality in the property market and the rental market, in particular, in this city, Cork and Galway, as seen in the Daft.ie rental report for the second quarter of this year. Has the Minister been made aware of the fact that rents are rising in these areas? Is she living in denial of the reality for young people?
In many cases, young people end up out of their homes for various reasons. It is a bad sign that a Labour Party Minister, in particular, is suggesting such persons should return to abusive homes or homes they have left for other reasons and that they cannot rely on State aid or intervention.
During the years I have known people who, unfortunately, have become homeless. I know it is important to have policies that support young people as much as possible to stay in their own homes or with relatives if they are unable to stay with their parents for some reason. A structure that essentially allows young people who have left their homes to drift and move around - they may be on social welfare and living in bed and breakfast accommodation - is not the best outcome. I support a fail-safe mechanism which looks after young people who have left their homes for some reason, perhaps in the circumstances described by the Deputy. That mechanism is also supported by the State. As a matter of public policy, we should try to ensure as few people as possible experience the particular circumstances of leaving home. During the years Focus Point has been very aware of the need for long-term solutions to housing problems in order that people can have a place of their own. I reiterate that 42,000 rent supplement amounts have been negotiated in the cities described by the Deputy. While I accept that some difficulties are being experienced, I emphasise that the vast majority of rental cases are being settled and that people paying tax and PRSI are getting better value when their taxes are being spent. That is better than spending the moneys to increase the rents received by landlords, which is what Sinn Féin seems to be suggesting.
The Minister knows very well that we want to do the exact opposite.
It wants to drive up rents.
We have had this argument before. We have said the State should negotiate directly.
102. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to reform the social welfare appeals system in view of the recent FLAC report; her further plans to address delays in the issuing of decisions and the reductions in oral hearings; her views on the importance of consistency, transparency and proper access to legal advice and representation for applicants; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50056/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe social welfare appeals office is a separate executive office with its own premises and staff. It operates independently of the Department and the Minister. The appeals process has a statutory basis in secondary legislation. As appeals officers are quasi-judicial, they are required to be free and unrestricted in discharging their functions. The high level of appeals allowed - 42% in 2011 - is evidence of the independence of the process. Significant resources are being assigned to improve initial decision-making and thereby reduce the number of appeals. A formal two week deciding officer training course was designed and launched in November 2011 for staff working in the areas of jobseekers' claims and decisions. The course includes scheme conditions, legislation, best practice procedures and areas such as natural justice, good decision-making and proper customer service standards. Initial work has started to develop further training for deciding officers in other scheme areas relating to decision-making, reviewing decisions and appeals submissions.
As Deputies are aware, the rapid and sustained increase in the number of appeals since 2009 has placed extraordinary pressure on the social welfare appeals office. Significant resources and efforts have been put into reducing backlogs and improving processing times for appellants. For example, 15 additional appeals officers have been assigned, retired experienced officers were retained for 18 months ending in December 2011, business processes have been improved and a new operating model has been implemented. As a result of these measures, there has been a significant increase in the number of finalised appeals, from an average of 13,500 some years ago to 34,027 in 2011. Processing times were reduced by 10.2 weeks overall in the nine months to September 2012. The oral hearing time is down by 12.5 weeks, while the summary decision time is up by 2.3 weeks.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I am advised by the chief appeals officer that eight very experienced retired appeals officers were retained from July 2010 until December 2011. Their employment resulted in the front-loading of summary decisions during this period. As a result, during 2010, a total of 11,985 cases, or 69%, were decided on a summary basis as against 5,514, or 31%, which were given following an oral hearing. The corresponding figures for 2011 were 16,569, or 65%, and 8,821, or 35%. To the end of October 2012, some 10,602 cases or 57% had been decided on a summary basis, as against 7,992, or 43%, following an oral hearing. Consistency and transparency in decision-making are crucial for people in accessing their rights. This is addressed by the Department through training and information provided for deciding officers. It is the statutory responsibility of the chief appeals officer to convene meetings of appeals officers for the purposes of ensuring consistency. The Department provides some €10.735 million in funding for a number of agencies involved in providing advocacy and information services for people on their social welfare rights and how to process its systems.
I am not quite sure what the Minister is saying but she seems to be suggesting that, while there is a difficulty, it has been dealt with or is clearly on the way to being dealt with. I certainly do not see that on the ground; nor do the applicants. Currently, there are long waiting times of anything up to ten months for applicants for the various schemes. The review system that was put in place was dealing with cases in three to four weeks at one stage but is now taking 12 to 16 weeks. Appeals are taking around 12 months in many cases. There appears to be a situation in which the vast majority of appeals are being dealt with on a desktop basis and requests for oral hearings are not being granted.
The effect of this is huge stress on applicants and their families. In some cases, which I am sure other Members have come across, applicants and appellants have actually passed away during the course of the process.
I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. To go through the statistics again, the number of cases finalised in 2009 was 13,500, but that increased to 34,000 in 2011.
How long are they taking?
Just so the Deputy understands, there has been an enormous expansion in the number of appeals. The Deputy is probably aware that in 2009 the former Fianna Fáil Government reduced the illness benefit period, which had previously been unlimited, to two years. The consequence is that many people who were in that system are now reaching the limit of their illness benefit. This is one factor that has increased the number of appeals.
The actual reduction in times this year is because of new practices and the extra staff I appointed as soon as I became Minister. However, those extra staff have to be trained. We launched training for deciding officers shortly after I became Minister, so up to now there has been a reduction in processing times of ten weeks, and summary decisions are also now at a fairly high level.
There is one unique feature of the Irish system, which is that people can make multiple applications in regard to the same set of circumstances. We do not tell people that they must provide all the information immediately because we allow them to submit extra evidence. Very often, for example, we get a letter from a GP stating "I support this applicant's request," but that does not really constitute evidence for the deciding officer. The person might then go to someone like the Deputy and be advised that he or she needs a stronger statement that relates to medical evidence to back up the application, and perhaps to get other advice as well, and we allow that information to be resubmitted. This is one of the reasons appeals have been taking so long: many people who lodge an appeal do not initially provide all the information pertinent to their cases.
I raised two specific matters. The Minister is referring to the review procedure. When that was introduced it took three to four weeks to come to a decision, but it is now taking 12 to 16 weeks, so something is seriously wrong. The overall waiting period is absolutely unacceptable.
The Minister responded to a question I asked some time ago on the matter of emergency applications. People have passed away during the course of this process. It should be possible to allow for emergency applications to be made, but that does not appear to be the case currently.
I brought to the Minister’s attention some time ago the case of an application for carer’s allowance in which the carer had changed. A sister or brother was no longer able to care for the person concerned and a new application was made, which again took 32 weeks to be decided on. I suggested that, while a means test for the carer is necessary, the entire process could have been shortened by acceptance of the original medical evidence.
I recall the Deputy’s interest in that particular case. Unfortunately, the purpose of the carer’s allowance is to provide income support for a named individual who is a full-time carer. Although I understand the point made by the Deputy, it is not technically possible to swap the allowance when a different individual takes over the role of carer. I accept that the circumstances in the same family could be similar, but a different individual is in question. We will examine the matter.
With regard to emergency situations, because of all the work that has been done to improve the processing procedures, the situation should have improved significantly. With regard to the question of presenting the appropriate information at the start of the process, my Department spends approximately €47 million on the annual budget of Citizens' Information and MABS, which, as Deputies are aware, provide much advice to people making applications and appeals. We fund the Irish Congress of Trade Unions information centres around the country at a cost of several million. We also fund the Northside Community Law Centre and, in addition, we fund many community employment schemes which have a social welfare information element. We probably need to examine the situation to see whether we can improve it to ensure that what the Deputy describes as urgent cases, which perhaps stand out because of the gravity of the illnesses involved, can be fast-tracked.
On the broader question of applications that are simply incomplete, some systems do not allow incomplete applications. Where people make repeated applications, this is one of the reasons that, with the explosion in numbers, urgent cases can end up stuck alongside people who resubmit evidence numerous times.
103. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection if the free travel pass scheme will be fully maintained in budget 2013; her future plans for the scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49975/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe free travel scheme is available to all people living in the State aged 66 years of age or over. It is available to carers and to people who are in receipt of certain disability-type payments. Currently, more than 745,000 customers are eligible for free travel in those categories - retired people, carers and people who are in receipt of disability-type payments. In addition, there are more than 300,000 companion passes, which brings the total number in receipt of free travel eligibility to more than 1.1 million customers. The scheme provides free travel on Dublin Bus, Bus Éireann, Irish Rail and Luas as well as services provided by more than 90 private operators.
The previous Government, of which Deputy Willie O'Dea was a member, froze expenditure on the scheme in 2010 and it has remained at almost €76 million since.
There are considerable challenges ahead in protecting, as far as possible, the key income supports provided by my Department which impact in some way on the lives of almost every person in the State. As part of the deliberative process for the budget, we are reviewing all of the headings under which the Department spends money. As I stated in response to the Deputy's earlier question, no decisions have been made at this time on the upcoming budget. An interdepartmental review of the free travel scheme is being carried out with a view to ensuring the scheme operates in a sustainable and cost effective manner. The scheme plays an enormous role in the lives of very many citizens and in preventing the social isolation of elderly people. However, it is also important to look at issues certain operators have raised. They believe some individuals who are not entitled to free travel are utilising the scheme, thereby undermining it for those properly entitled to free travel.
Unlike the Minister, I am not irredeemably wedded to the notion of universality, whereby people obtain benefits regardless of their circumstances. Nevertheless, the Minister will agree with me that the free travel scheme has been an outstanding success and played a huge role in combating social isolation. Recently, my attention was drawn to a heavyweight report produced by the Imperial College, London, which set out in some detail the health benefits of the free travel scheme operated in the United Kingdom. I will not go into the report in detail but merely refer to it in passing.
An article in The Sunday Business Post of 4 November stated: "The free travel scheme is likely to be means-tested for new pensioners in the budget in order to meet the demands of the troika, and the cost of universal payments is likely to be curtailed". The article further stated two elements were under consideration, first, that entitlement to free travel be means-tested along the lines of the means test applied to the medical card for those aged over 70 years; and, second, that there be a certain administrative charge, either in addition to or instead of means testing. I am not sure which is intended. Is either or both proposals under consideration?
I have noted how valuable free travel is in Ireland, particularly for retired people and those with serious mobility impairments. It is a considerable cause for celebration in Ireland that retired people can avail of free travel. There were requests from a number of operators that we look at elements of the scheme because it was believed there was some abuse by persons not entitled to use it. These persons may have been using fraudulent passes or passes to which they were not entitled. The review is ongoing and no decision has been made. I appreciate how much people value the free travel scheme. The Sunday Business Post may have views on how the scheme might be changed, but in framing the budget the Government will act in the best interests of all the people in Ireland, including retired individuals who have enjoyed the benefits of the scheme.
The Minister referred to the previous Government as having frozen the amount payable to the Department of Social Protection, which is true. However, under freedom of information regulations, the writer of the article in The Sunday Business Post had obtained a letter from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, which stated: "While the money paid by your Department to CIE does not cover the cost of providing free travel - €77 million - CIE is nonetheless willing to continue to provide free travel to seniors at the same price to the Department of Social Protection."
There has been some creative arithmetic in this instance. I presume that the €77 million to which the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar, refers is based on an assumption that those who avail of free travel would pay full fares if the scheme relating to such travel was brought to an end. Obviously, that would not be the case. What the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is saying is that while CIE has indicated that €77 million does not cover the full cost of the service, the company remains willing to offer it for that amount. If a means test along the lines suggested was applied, a minority of those availing of free travel would no longer be eligible. CIE has indicated that it is not in receipt of the full amount, but I presume it will still be given the €77 million to which I refer. In that context, where will the savings be made?
CIE is very happy to be part of the scheme which it sees as a valuable source of income. The company's income from other passengers has fallen owing to the economic collapse brought about by the bank guarantee and the difficulties in the construction sector. I am well aware that the company is anxious to continue to be part of the scheme, from which to date one company has withdrawn. That company operated a dedicated service from Galway to Dublin Airport. The proprietors met representatives from my Department early last December and advised that they had pulled out of the scheme because they considered it no longer commercially viable to continue. Pensioners wishing to travel from Galway to Dublin Airport and vice versa would, of course, be in a position to avail of other services. Other than that one instance, I am not aware of any operator - least of all CIE, which values this source of revenue - wishing to withdraw from the scheme.
As stated, some operators have suggested a degree of abuse has taken place perpetrated by people not entitled to free travel passes being in possession of them or of forged versions. Some 14 joint operations have been carried out with Veolia, the company which operates Luas. One of these, the multi-agency Operation Clean Tram, was designed to target fraud. The agencies involved carried out a number of exercises to identify persons engaged in the improper use of passes. During October and November a total of 46 passes were seized. Operations of this nature are ongoing in order to ensure only those properly entitled to free travel actually avail of it.
104. Deputy Luke 'Ming' Flanagan asked the Minister for Social Protection the origins of the term "headline rates of social welfare" and the meaning of the term; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [50112/12]
Amharc ar fhreagraI do not recall using the term "headline rates of social welfare," but when I used the term "core social welfare payments" recently, I was referring to the primary weekly payments intended to enable those in receipt of them to meet their basic day-to-day income needs. The Department also makes a range of other payments on a weekly, monthly or less frequent basis. As a result of the fact that these are paid in addition to weekly income support payments, they are considered non-primary in nature. Members will be aware that, as a result of the Exchequer deficit and the fact that it is involved in a structural adjustment programme in order to secure funding for the country, the Government committed to raising additional revenues and reducing overall expenditure in 2013 and beyond. This is important not only in order that we can recover our economic sovereignty but also to ensure the social protection system will be sustainable into the future.
No decisions have been made at this stage as to how these very challenging budgetary targets will be met. However, as social protection accounts for 39% of gross current Government spending, restoring balance to the Government's finances will require a critical analysis of social welfare policy and expenditure. The programme for Government contains a commitment to maintain social welfare rates. The Government will finalise its consideration of the budget in the coming weeks, having regard to all of its commitments. The outcome of this process will be announced on budget day.
I thank the Minister. Whether she calls them "primary" or "headline" rates, her commitment not to cut them is not, in reality, of much benefit to people on social welfare if she cuts the non-headline and non-primary rates. A cut in the fuel allowance has the same impact on recipients as a cut in the primary rate of social welfare. It might look better in the newspapers and members of the Government might be able to spin it to imply they have kept their promise, but the individuals in question end up with less money. With regard to the cuts in rent allowance, it was supposed that the landlords would all jog along and cut their rents, but they have not done so. Claiming that headline or primary rates of social welfare have not been cut means nothing because the Minister is actually cutting the amount of money per week that people have to live on. I thank her for the lecture on how the economy is working and the amount being expended on social welfare, but the reality is that those people on social welfare can barely survive. If the Minister cuts their rates, whatever sort of spin she wants to put on it, this will leave them in an even more dire situation.
Deputy O'Dea pointed out the facts from the Irish League of Credit Unions survey. It has been quoted so much at this stage that it is putting Shakespeare into second place for quotable documents in this place. Unfortunately, no matter how often we quote it, the Minister does not seem to listen. Either that or she does not believe the survey. Her cuts, whatever she calls them, are having the same impact.
I am sure the Deputy knows that the reason people have suffered such a fall in their living standards-----
Yes - Fianna Fáil.
-----is not social welfare. The country became over-reliant on the construction industry and the construction bubble collapsed. Currently almost 100,000 people are unemployed as a consequence of that collapse. The crash was not caused by the social welfare system; it was caused by the collapse of the construction industry and the bank guarantee which turned into such a disaster for the country. As a consequence, we have ended up in a structural adjustment programme with the troika in which we have to trim expenditure in order to return the country to growth and sustainability.
Deputy Flanagan may differ from me in his take on core social welfare rates, but for those reliant for their income on social welfare, the core rates are important because that is the core part of their weekly income. If it is their sole income they rely on it for their living expenses, to buy the messages and to live their lives. I disagree with the Deputy that the core social welfare rates - the weekly payment on which so many people, particularly pensioners, rely - are not significant. They are very significant, in my view. The Government has been correct in seeking to protect that payment. The previous Government on two occasions cut the core weekly social welfare rates by €8. People still mention that cut to me all the time.
I do not wish to be dishonest. The country is in a difficult place and we need to find savings. This commitment was agreed to by Fianna Fáil with the troika. However, we have to find those savings in a manner which protects vulnerable people and which supports their core weekly payments. That is my approach, but no decisions will be made about any element of social welfare until the Government, as a whole, decides on the budget. The announcements will be made on budget day.
The new word is not "headline" or "primary" but "core". As I stated, when one cuts social welfare payments such as rent allowance or fuel allowance, it affects everyone in the same way. It is not as if different moneys are being withdrawn. A cut to one's rent allowance means the "core payment", as the Minister calls it, does not go as far. Given that the Minister mentioned being honest, I ask her to be honest and tell the public that if the Government continues to do what it is doing, it will actually cut people's social welfare payments.
I noted the way in which the Minister referred to "pensioners in particular". She is obviously worried about the audience who might believe she is standing up too much for people on the dole, but the reality is that the vast majority of those on social welfare were working a few years ago. They are hard-working people who would like to be working now and the Minister should not be ashamed to stand up for them. She should not say she is just talking about pensioners in the belief it might read better in the newspapers.
The collapse in the construction industry, largely the cause of long-term unemployment, was not the fault of the social welfare system, at the time in question or now; rather it was the consequence of greed in the economy and the inappropriate tax breaks that had created the bubble. As the Deputy rightly stated, many people who worked hard and earned good money during the boom suddenly found themselves without a job. That is why, in my job as Minister for Social Protection, I have emphasised creating a social welfare system that will help the people in question to get back to work. The objective is that, if they cannot return to building, they will be able to find employment in another area. They can return to education or training. They can join the community employment scheme or the Tús scheme in their local area, for instance. Thus, as many as possible will have opportunities. My Department supports approximately 10,000 people at any one time in starting their own businesses. Therefore, there is no one solution that fits everybody. Instead, we are creating more than a dozen pathways, including education, training, work experience, community employment, the Tús scheme, starting one's own business and enterprise allowances, to give as many as possible an opportunity to get back on their feet and back to work.
Put them all under the umbrella of "cul-de-sac".
It is when people are activated and back at work that the economy will improve for everybody. When this occurs, the social insurance fund will be restored to balance. People going back to work will pay PRSI which will improve the social insurance fund which is seriously in deficit because of the crash. It will help us to improve what we do to support those on social welfare.
