Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 May 2017

Vol. 953 No. 1

Other Questions

Community Employment Schemes Places

Question No. 31 is in the name of Deputy Eoin Ó Broin. Permission has been given to Deputy John Brady to take this question.

Eoin Ó Broin

Question:

31. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Social Protection if his attention has been drawn to the ongoing difficulty of filling community employment scheme places due to his Department's prioritisation of JobPath; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25900/17]

Willie Penrose

Question:

79. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to amend the JobPath rules to allow for referral of eligible persons to community employment schemes; his further plans to reduce the barriers limiting the number of eligible persons applying for community employment schemes; and the criteria used to determine if a person is eligible at 21 years of age or if the case officer has complete discretion. [25842/17]

John Brady

Question:

95. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection the way in which community employment scheme places are to be filled if he continues prioritising JobPath over community employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25896/17]

The focus on JobPath as opposed to all other job activation schemes is something I have raised with the Minister consistently in the last year. If the focus on JobPath continues, how does he realistically expect to fill the many vacant community employment scheme places in the State?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31, 79 and 95 together.

As the Deputies will be aware, my Department provides a range of activation supports catering for long-term unemployed jobseekers and those most distant from the labour market. These supports include the JobPath service and the community employment programme.

The JobPath service aims to place people in full-time sustainable employment. The period of engagement with the service for any individual is typically 52 weeks. During that time he or she receives intensive individual support to help him or her to overcome barriers to employment.

While the community employment programme is a stepping stone back to employment, the positions are not full-time sustainable jobs. It is worth noting, however, that people who have completed their year-long engagement with JobPath may, if eligible, apply for a community employment scheme vacancy.

The Deputies will appreciate that the welcome increase in the number of people at work and the continued reduction in live register numbers is a factor in recruitment to all work programmes and the private sector generally. Nevertheless, it should be noted that I recently announced changes to the terms and conditions for participation in the community employment programme. My effort is to widen the pool of people who can apply and, therefore, help to fill the vacancies in that way. The changes being introduced will see the general qualifying age for the community employment programme for those on the live register reducing from 25 years to 21. This will open the programme to all young jobseekers who will be paid the full adult rate if they take up a community employment scheme position. These clients will meet a case officer in the same way as all age categories of applicants do. As part of the implementation of the new measures, my Department is consulting key stakeholders across the country. If any scheme is experiencing particular difficulties, it is asked to contact the Intreo office for further assistance.

At this stage, over 97,000 people have been transferred to JobPath and the private companies Turas Nua and Seetec. Community employment schemes across the State are in serious trouble not just because of the creation of JobPath but also because the lack of funding has thrown open a series of other challenges for community employment schemes. It is not just the low unemployment rates that are the driving factor in places not being filled, it is also the over-reliance on JobPath. The fact that more than 97,000 people have been referred to JobPath is having a serious impact. That is not just my view, it is also the view of the community employment reform group. People who are operating on the ground with the schemes are saying many places are not being filled as a direct result of JobPath. I heard the Minister's comments on broadening the criteria for participating in the schemes, but if people are referred to and locked into JobPath in the first place, they will not be available to fill places.

Nearly 100,000 people have been referred to JobPath, but the Deputy did not mention that 25,000 of them are now in full-time employment, which is to be celebrated. They are older people, or even younger people, who have acquired a new skill and are now as a result in full-time employment. They include lone parents who have overcome many barriers to employment. There are also people who have set up their own business with the assistance of my Department. Not only are they now in full-time employment but they are also creating jobs for others. These are the heroes of the economy. They are people who were in receipt of welfare payments for over a year and are now in full-time employment. They number 25,000 in the last year. That is something to be celebrated, not denigrated.

The major factor in filling vacancies not only in community employment schemes but also in shops, hotels and across the board throughout the country is the fact that the rate of unemployment has gone down so much. It has decreased from 15% in 2012 to 6.4% now. When one factors out short-term unemployment, where people are between jobs, the long-term unemployment rate is now 3.6%. It should not be a surprise, therefore, that not just community employment schemes but businesses all over the country are finding it hard to recruit and fill vacancies.

At a recent meeting of a Westmeath community employment sponsor network group massive concerns were raised by members about the Department of Social Protection's proposed changes to community employment schemes. They believe the Department might not fully understand the important role community employment schemes play in towns and villages across the country. They say the proposed changes to the eligibility criteria and the qualifying length of time will severely limit the pool of people accessing community employment schemes and greatly affect the essential services they are providing in local communities. There is not enough support available for the main sponsors of community employment schemes. Can the Department advise on how the position can be improved or whether funding can be made available to the main sponsor who wishes to be trained in the development and running of community employment schemes? There are many changes taking place in community employment schemes and the main sponsor must be up to date with all of the changes made by the Department.

I wish to put a number of points to the Minister. People over 55 years of age who are seeking work face ageism in the jobs market. Qualifications are not a guarantee that one will find work. We are an ageing society and there is no proper structure in place to support people over 55 years of age, aside from the community employment programme. Forcing this group to attend training, with the use of all sorts of paraphernalia, is unfair. Many of them have literacy or rehabilitation issues. There is no outreach service in rural areas. There are no departmental offices in my area of Ballynacargy. It is all theory. A big shift has taken place under the Minister. There has been a shift from a community focus to a shifting-people-on approach.

That is what is taking place. It is said there is a lack of value of contribution by the participants. The Minister is shifting them on to the next programme. The likes of JobPath and Seetec are an absolute disaster. A letter from them means an applicant is no longer eligible for community employment. Will this continue now that Intreo case workers are assessing a client's eligibility? They are interested only in shifting people on to Seetec and so on, regardless of whether they are suitable. When they get their claws in, it is like an alligator getting one between its teeth. They will not let go. I brought to the Minister's attention cases of abuse by them. I want them wiped out. I do not care a sugar; I said that before. I am sick of them. Will this continue? This has to stop.

What criteria are used in determining applications for the community employment scheme with regard to those aged 21? Is it completely at the discretion of the case officer? This is very important.

The proposal I am making in regard to community employment schemes is to relax the rules and widen the pool of people who can qualify. If there are supervisors who are opposed to that, it is news to me. I have come across supervisors who believe it does not go far enough but I have not come across anyone who is actively opposed to the measure I am putting in place, which is to widen the pool of people available for community employment.

JobPath is a service to which people are referred for a year. There are many who could qualify for community employment or Tús schemes before JobPath but, for whatever reason, they choose not to participate on them. There are many who spend a year on JobPath, who do not find a full-time job afterwards and who are then eligible for community employment but who, for whatever, reason, choose not to participate. What I am trying to do is have my Department connect a bit better with community employment schemes and refer to them the list of those whom we call JobPath returnees, the people who do not find full-time employment after a year with Seetec or Turas Nua. It is a matter of trying to get them connected with the community employment scheme. The supervisors fill those vacancies. If one thinks about it, one realises there are probably nearly 40,000 JobPath returnees who have not found full-time employment at this stage. This is much more than the number of vacancies. We need to connect a bit better.

I acknowledge the Minister understands the concept of community employment. I have listened to him previously on this. He said he appreciates and acknowledges the essential and critical work of the programme right across the State. My concerns are replicated outside the House. I outlined the case of one organisation. Another organisation, the Local Employment Service Network, a community-based organisation that focuses on finding work for people, sees its referrals down right across the State. The Minister acknowledges the position on work being carried out in community employment schemes. Community crèches are unable to fill their vacancies.

The Minister said he is broadening the criteria for applicants for community employment but the problem is that when Seetec and Turas Nua get their claws into the applicant, he or she is locked into a contract for a full year. I have come across numerous examples of where JobPath, Turas Nua and Seetec got their claws into people who were waiting for a short period for community employment application forms to go through and locked them into a contract. The Minister is saying now they are locked into that position, and they know themselves that they are not fit to work in the public-----

I thank the Deputy. We have to stick to the time.

They then have to wait a full year to go back onto a community employment scheme, on which they really should have been in the first case. This would have saved the State €1,000 up front. The people get locked into a scheme, run by a privatised service, for which they are not really suitable in the first place.

The time limits exist for a reason and I ask the Deputy to adhere to them in fairness to every other Member who wishes to contribute. In order that as many questions as possible may be answered, I ask Members to stick to the time limits. Does Deputy Penrose want to comment?

The materials budget allocated to community employment schemes is severely inadequate due to the rise of insurance costs. Can the material allowance be increased to accommodate the increase in insurance costs and could we revert to a payment of €20 per week to remedy the cash flow deficit existing on community employment schemes?

What about the Jobs Ireland website, which caused a lot of confusion, hinders the application procedure for all community employment schemes and is no longer connected with the old FÁS application procedures, making the submissions list obsolete? How does the Jobs Ireland website factor into the application procedure now? One is required to have a high standard of education to operate computers and associated software, thereby contradicting the whole ethos.

Participants coming off Tús schemes are immediately eligible to commence on community employment schemes involving child care but with environmental schemes the participant must go back on payments for two weeks before becoming eligible for a community employment scheme longer than one year. Can the approach to all community employment schemes be harmonised? There is not enough awareness of community employment among the unemployed on the live register. How can this be rectified? Can there be a public awareness programme introduced on a pilot basis by the Department of Social Protection? The period of participation on child care schemes is three years. Environmental scheme participants are initially allocated just one year. Why can it not be the same? Why can it not be three years for everything? Let us have a level playing park. If some schemes are for one year and others are for three, one will of course go on the three-year one.

I am not really sure what Deputy Brady was referring to when he spoke about jobseekers not being suitable for employment. If I said something like that, I would be accused of all sorts of calumny. The usual left-wing commentators and the usual suspects on Twitter would probably be in a frenzy this minute if the words the Deputy used in the past five minutes came out of my mouth.

Of course the number of referrals to the local employment schemes is down. Unemployment is down by two thirds and, therefore, referrals are down. What we want from the local employment schemes is not having one case officer to 2,000 people; we want one case officer to about 150 people. Now that the unemployment rate is relatively low by comparison with the previous rate, the people who are now still unemployed need more one-to-one attention than those who would have been unemployed during the boom period.

I absolutely acknowledge the important role community employment plays, not only for the individual participants but also in terms of the work done in communities, be it meals on wheels, social care, child care or outdoor works, as on pitches. That is why I am determined to ensure that where a community employment scheme is providing a service in the community, we relax the rules to the extent that allows the positions to be filled.

Treatment Benefit Scheme Eligibility

Willie O'Dea

Question:

32. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to extend the treatment benefit scheme to employed and self-employed persons; if he has conducted an analysis of the cost of extending the treatments available under this scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25710/17]

As the Minister will be aware, treatment benefits were hit particularly hard in the cuts during the recession. My question is self-explanatory. What improvements does the Minister intend to introduce with regard to treatment benefits?

As outlined in the programme for Government and announced in budget 2017, I have extended eligibility to the treatment benefit scheme to include the self-employed, who were not previously covered.

From 27 March, self-employed contributors with sufficient PRSI contributions at class S, or class S combined with other previously reckonable classes of PRSI, are entitled to a range of treatment benefits. Currently, this covers a free annual dental exam, a free optical exam once every two years and a grant of up to €500, or 50%, towards the cost of a hearing aid. The treatments available under the optical and dental schemes will be extended further from October 2017 to include the previously available provision of glasses, as required every two years and a once-yearly dental scale and polish, or periodontal cleaning. It is estimated that some 450,000 self-employed contributors, including their dependent spouses, will be eligible for treatment benefit for the first time as a result of this change.

Almost 500,000 treatment benefit claims were received in 2016, and it is anticipated that there will be a significant increase in demand when the benefits available under the scheme are extended in October. The increased cost is estimated at €51.5 million in a full year. Financial provision for this anticipated increase in demand has been made in the Estimates budget for this and coming years. Any further extension to the benefits available under the treatment benefit scheme would have to considered in a budgetary context.

The scheme was extended to self-employed people from 27 March, which I accept, and the benefits for both the self-employed and employees will be extended under the scheme from October next. That has already been provided for. The Minister is engaged in his own election campaign at present and I notice that his manifesto refers to a further extension of the treatment benefit scheme. I presume that means a further extension on top of what has been provided already. Could the Minister clarify that? What exactly had he in mind?

What I have found really heartening about the current contest under way in my party is the number of people talking about ideas and the number of people talking about my ideas and who have read my paper.

I am very grateful that Deputy Willie O'Dea took the time out to do so. He asked a pertinent question. It is, of course, an ideas paper, which is what it says on the cover. It is not a manifesto. The kind of ideas I have in mind include the restoration of some of the other treatment benefits that were abolished in the past. For example, people had a grant-in-aid towards other dental treatments, such as fillings, which was very common in the past. Another idea is better parental leave, which I think we would all support provided the Social Insurance Fund can sustain it.

I have a particular issue with sick pay. People who are in the private sector at the moment have to be out sick for five days before they get any sick pay. If one is on a modest income and is a private sector worker, losing a week's pay when one is sick is a bad hit. It could be months before it is caught up on. One thing I would like to see considered, which is done in other countries, is people having some of their medical bills refunded through social insurance. In France, for example, if one goes to see the GP, one gets a certain amount back from its equivalent of the Social Insurance Fund. Those are the kinds of ideas I have in mind.

I understand that invalidity pensions for the self-employed will be starting in December next. Can the Minister outline what the cost will be for that for a full year? What is the position on self-employed people who lose their businesses and want to claim jobseeker's benefit? The Minister indicated that he might introduce that scheme on a voluntary basis, as we have suggested. Has he given any further thought to that? Perhaps I should not have referred to the term "manifesto". The paper is about his ideas. How much are those ideas going to translate into reality?

I do not have the invalidity pension figure off the top of my head, but if I remember correctly, in the budget negotiations, we were estimating that it could cost as much as €80 million in a full year. I do not believe that is going to be the case but I respect the fact that my officials tend to be cautious when it comes to these calculations. Often, they perhaps estimate that things cost more than they will. They may turn out to be right on this occasion but I have a small bet with one of my officials on that. I might not be able to claim it until Christmas next year.

The question of jobseeker's benefit is under examination. What I have in mind is something very similar to the Deputy's own proposals, which is something voluntary through volunteering to pay a higher rate of PRSI in return for some form of jobseeker's benefit. For lots of reasons, including administrative reasons, the earliest we could introduce that would be towards the end of next year. However, it is better late than never.

I believe my ideas are very real because I am proposing that we do not fully abolish the USC and that we merge it with PRSI into a new social insurance payment. In return for that, we will give people real benefits. People resent the USC because they associate it with the recession and austerity. The know that they do not get any defined benefits from it in return. Social insurance is something that is very different. It is where people pay into the system and in return for paying into the system, they receive benefits. That is something I strongly support.

Family Income Supplement

Mick Barry

Question:

33. Deputy Mick Barry asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 176 of 18 May 2017, the reason for the rise in the number of families in receipt of family income supplement over the past four years; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25952/17]

I would like to ask the Minister the reason for and his explanation for the very sharp rise in the number of families that have had to avail of the family income supplement over the last four years.

The family income supplement, FIS, is an in-work support that provides an income top-up for employees on low earnings with children. FIS is designed to prevent in-work poverty for low-paid workers with child dependants and to offer a financial incentive to take up employment. There are currently almost 57,000 families with more than 126,000 children in receipt of FIS. The estimated spend on FIS this year is approximately €422 million.

There has been a steady growth both in the number of families supported by FIS over recent years and associated expenditure, with numbers in receipt of FIS rising from around 32,000 families with more than 73,000 children in 2012 to almost 57,000 families and over 125,000 children by the end of 2016.

Expenditure on FIS has more than doubled from €224 million in 2012 to an estimate of €422 million for this year.

A number of factors have led to the increase, including a substantial increase in the numbers of people in employment, as well as increases in the FIS thresholds in 2016, which made more people eligible for FIS.

For example, the number of people in employment has increased over the past four years from 1.86 million people in 2013 to more than 2 million now. With more jobs, there are more people eligible for FIS.

The Department’s information strategy has also promoted FIS and increased the overall awareness of the scheme. This includes the use of the Department’s better off in work ready reckoner as an effective means of promoting in-work supports such as FIS. Many people who were entitled to FIS may not have known that they were in the past.

Another reason is the transition of people from the one-parent family payment to FIS. Over this period, more than 10,700 lone parents transitioned onto FIS and of these approximately one third were new FIS recipients.

As I mentioned before, budget 2016 increased the income limit thresholds by €5 for families with one child and by €10 for families with two or more children. As the thresholds were increased, the number of families eligible therefore increased.

The number of people in employment has indeed gone up. While the numbers in employment have gone up, the numbers in receipt of the family income supplement have gone up at a far greater rate. There is a sharp scissors effect there. I believe it is undeniable that it reflects a growth in low-paid employment. I suspect that the Minister has had his own eye on a particular job for a long time now. Presumably, he has been getting up early in the morning in order to get it. Here, we are talking about 57,000 workers who have been getting up early in the morning too. For them, it is for low-paid work. It is so low paid that it has to be topped up by the State in order to take families out of poverty. What practical steps aimed at reversing this trend towards low-paid employment is the Minister prepared to advocate? Will he, for example, join with me in encouraging low-paid workers to take a practical step in challenging low pay? Will he join with me in encouraging low-paid workers to join a trade union?

As I outlined in the answer, the reason is not solely the increase in employment. That is only part of the reason. There are a number of other factors that have given rise to the increase in the number of people in receipt of the family income supplement. The decision made in 2016 to change the thresholds meant that more people were eligible for it, as one would expect. The information campaign and the lone parent reforms mean fewer people are on one-parent family payment and more people are on FIS. Therefore, there are four reasons. One of them is the increase in employment. It is arguable as to whether an increase in low-paid jobs is a cause. I know that the Deputy believes that, but if one looks at the numbers and statistics, it is questionable. For example, we know from the 2015 CSO survey on income and living conditions that incomes rose by about 5% that year. That is a result of a combination of factors, including pay rises as well as additional employment. There have been three increases in the minimum wage in that period.

I find it incredible that the Minister is attempting to deny that there has been a sharp increase in low-paid employment. What were the numbers he gave us for FIS? There were 32,000 recipient families in 2012 and 57,000 in 2016. Yet, the numbers in employment have increased from 1.86 million to a little more than 2 million. One is an extremely sharp increase and the other is a not insignificant increase. There is a huge gap between the two. It is undeniable to anyone with eyes and ears that there is a sharp increase in low-paid employment in this country. That the Minister has come to the House today and attempted to deny that is quite incredible. I put it to the Minister to admit to the House that while employment has been going up, there has been a very sharp increase indeed in low-paid employment in this State, something which many facts and figures will back up.

The difficulty in having pre-formed ideas and pre-prepared supplementary questions is that the Deputy then runs into a problem when he does not actually hear or like the answer to the question. We both agree that the fall in unemployment and the rise in employment is not the sole reason why the number of people on FIS has increased. There are other factors. We have changed the qualification limits so that people who were on low pay and did not qualify for FIS in the past now do. That has obviously increased the number of people who are eligible for FIS.

The lone parent reforms have increased the number of people on FIS. People who would previously have been on the one-parent family payment are now in receipt of FIS. Information campaigns are run by my Department. I acknowledge that it is not just down to the increase in employment. I am saying there are four factors, not just the one, and that might explain to a great extent the increase in the numbers of people who are eligible.

Social Welfare Benefits Eligibility

Willie O'Dea

Question:

34. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is considering developing a different system of assessment for eligibility for disability and carer's allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25707/17]

My question is pretty much self-explanatory. I think there has been some internal discussion in the Department on this matter. Could the Minister bring us up to date on developments?

There are no plans to change the system of assessment for eligibility for either disability or carer’s allowance. Helping and supporting people with disabilities to access employment and so enhance their independence is one of the most important and challenging policy issues we face. The recently published Make Work Pay report produced by an interdepartmental group included a number of recommendations relating to the disability allowance payment. The Government has decided to implement some of these while others will require further reflection and a consultation process with disability groups, which my Department has commenced.

I announced a number of immediate changes at the launch of the report in April including a measure to ensure that people with a long-term disability payment who move off the payment to get a job will retain their free travel pass for a period of five years. This is an improvement on the three-year period recommended in the report. This change has now been implemented. I also accepted the report's recommendation to dispense with the requirement that work be of a "rehabilitative nature" for the disability allowance, DA, earnings disregard. Legislation to give effect to this change is included in the forthcoming Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2017.

The income disregard and means test for carers is one of the least onerous within the social protection system. The amount of weekly income that is currently not taken into account is €332.50. In the case of the income of a married couple, civil partners or cohabitants, the first €665 of their combined weekly income is disregarded. A couple under 66 with two children earning a joint annual income of up to €35,400 can qualify for the maximum payment of carer's allowance while such a couple earning €59,300 will still qualify for the minimum rate.

I can assure the Deputy that I will continue to keep the range of supports available to carers and people with disabilities under review. Any improvements or additions to these supports would have to be considered in the context of future budgets. I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.

I agree the means test for carer's allowance is quite generous but my question is not directed towards the actual monetary calculation for entitlement to those benefits. Rather, it concerns the physical examination. It has been contended that in applications for carer's allowance, insufficient consideration is given to the totality of the situation and that there is too much focus on the extent of the physical, as opposed to mental, illness of the person cared for. It has also been represented to me that in respect of applications for disability allowance, a person who is claiming mental disability rather than physical disability seems to be at a distinct disadvantage unless they happen to be very bad. I have seen concrete examples of this and I think the statistics would show that. The Minister will be aware that there was an examination of domiciliary care allowance. As a result of that, things like the application form were changed and a new assessment system was put in place. Is anything similar in mind for carer's allowance and disability allowance?

As the Deputy will know and appreciate, those assessments are not done by me or even my officials. They are done by the medical assessors who work on behalf of the Department to assess the extent to which somebody has a disability or is in need of full-time care. I acknowledge where the Deputy is coming from and his point is very valid. The tradition in Ireland has been to assess a physical disability and not to acknowledge fully that somebody who may have mental health issues may be severely disabled as a result. For many reasons, including stigma and discrimination in the past, this has not been properly recognised or fully understood. There are people who are just as disabled as somebody with a physical disability but because it is a mental health condition or an intellectual disability, this might not always be fully or properly recognised. We are in the process of recruiting a new chief medical officer so I might add this to their list of things to consider once appointed.

I strongly urge the Minister to look again at this area because the examination and the new approach that was undertaken regarding assessment for domiciliary care allowance have worked extremely well. Is Making Work Pay the report he mentioned in his reply? He may or may not know that we had a visit today from a delegation from Multiple Sclerosis Ireland which asked me to ask him whether he would indicate to the House when the majority of the recommendations of that report will be implemented.

It is a cross-departmental report so it involves my Department, the Minister of State for disability issues and the Minister for Health. There are four big ones in my Department. We have already done the one on the free travel pass. That has already been implemented and provides for five years. The one on the requirement that the work be rehabilitative has effectively been done on an administrative basis but is in the legislation we will discuss shortly. The third one is the guarantee that if a person tries out work and it does not work out, they will have their disability allowance reinstated. In theory, this has already been done but people do not seem to believe it so there is a bit of work to be done there. The fourth one, which relates to the medical card and is the most important issue, is not under my Department's remit. The biggest fear people with disabilities have is that they will lose their medical card if they take up work. I know the Minister for Health has committed to increasing the income limits significantly so that people's fears in that regard will be allayed. Once we have that done, and we hope to do it this year, we will run an information campaign advising people with disabilities as to what has changed and how work might now pay for them.

JobPath Implementation

Niamh Smyth

Question:

35. Deputy Niamh Smyth asked the Minister for Social Protection the criteria required for a person to transfer from JobPath to community employment and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25974/17]

Thomas Pringle

Question:

40. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason persons on JobPath are currently unable to be referred to community employment schemes, his plans to change this policy and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25967/17]

I wish to ask the Minister about the criteria required for a person to transfer from JobPath to community employment.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 35 and 40 together.

The aim of the JobPath service, which is provided for jobseekers only, is to assist them in finding sustainable full-time paid employment. Community employment schemes are different. They provide part-time work experience and training opportunities in local communities as a stepping stone back to employment for people on a range of social welfare payments, including those on long-term unemployment payments

Jobseekers who are already participating with the JobPath service will not be referred to community employment schemes as they can only participate with one activation scheme or service at a time. This allows the scheme and service providers sufficient time to work with the participants in order to develop their skills and competencies to pursue suitable job opportunities which may result in sustainable employment and also to ensure the best use is made of the available places on all activation supports.

However, customers who on the date of their referral to JobPath have a written offer with a start date within four weeks for community employment or Tús will be allowed to take up the placement. Additionally, in a small number of exceptional cases, which are assessed on a case-by-case basis, my Department may facilitate a customer to move from one activation support to another but it is not something we encourage.

Recently, the Government approved the implementation of a number of changes to the terms and conditions of participation on community employment. The main purpose of these changes is to broaden the availability of community employment to a greater number of people on the live register and to standardise other conditions around the length of time a person can participate on the programme.

Those jobseekers who have completed their 52-week engagement with JobPath without finding suitable and sustainable employment are being referred back to their Intreo centres for an assessment by one of my Department's case officers. They may then apply for other activation supports such as community employment thus ensuring ongoing availability to all schemes. My Department keeps all aspects of its activation programmes under review to ensure the best outcomes for participants.

I thank the Minister for taking the time to come in here to answer questions and wish him good luck over the coming days in his endeavours to become Taoiseach. I appreciate what he is saying. He talked about how when somebody starts on JobPath, there is that opportunity for them to move to community employment.

I will give an example of the type of problem that I face, or, more importantly, that my constituents face. As we know, there is a huge need for staff and skilled personnel in the child care sector. A young woman who has a skill set in child care had been on JobPath, a position had come up in the community employment scheme and she would be eligible for that since she had the skill set and qualifications, but she could not take up that place because of the restrictions around JobPath. I appreciate that the Minister is saying here today that new criteria are coming into place that might allow for that flexibility. I ask him to consider, in any criteria that he might bring forward, that there may be somebody on a JobPath scheme but, half-way through it, there may be something more appropriate for that person on the community employment scheme. As we know, these schemes are hugely important for all the different sectors, but particularly the child care sector, which depends on staff on those schemes. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on that.

I thank the Deputy for her very kind words. It has been a pleasure to visit her constituency on a number of occasions in the past few weeks.

I believe the Minister was there on Wednesday night too.

I was in Bailieborough recently and I was in Cootehill last night recently to meet some-----

A bit of lobbying there?

Was Deputy Smyth invited?

I was not invited.

Allow the Minister to speak.

Blanchardstown is not at all far from Cavan.

The Minister has plenty of support in Cavan.

Indeed, which will not be forgotten. If I have the opportunity to lead in the future-----

(Interruptions).

-----I will not forget the level of support that I appear to be receiving in the Border counties.

To acknowledge the Deputy's question, we want to avoid a situation where people change from one scheme to another. The Deputy can understand all sorts of reasons why that is impractical, whether it is from Tús to community employment, CE, or CE to JobPath, or whatever else. It is not necessarily good at getting outcomes for the person involved, or good for trying to administer those programmes. We are now allowing people to do exactly what the Deputy suggested on a case-by-case basis in a small number of exceptional cases. Taking up a place on one of the child care CE schemes is very valuable, because the services provided by those child care schemes are very important, and those particular CE schemes have a really good record of moving people on into employment. If there is a particular case, the Deputy is welcome to bring it to the attention of my office.

I thank the Minister for his clear response. He said individuals are taken on a case-by-case basis. He might outline and refer to exactly where people go for that specific consideration for a job. I appreciate that he is saying he does not want people chopping and changing. In this specific case, a girl had a skill set and there was a position available. It was probably more suited to her than where she was, and it would be nice to think that flexibility is there.

In the first instance, people should contact their local Intreo centre. If it has not worked out for some reason or if there was a dispute, the Deputy may raise it directly with my private secretary and my office will certainly look into it.

Pension Provisions

Martin Heydon

Question:

36. Deputy Martin Heydon asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to expand the provision of the homemaker's credit scheme and the volunteer development worker scheme which commenced in 1994 and 1983 respectively to allow more persons to avail of credits for periods working at home or volunteering abroad before these years when calculating their average annual contributions for pension purposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25935/17]

This is an issue that I raised with the Minister on a number of previous occasions, about the difficulties that people - particularly women - face when applying for the State pension since changes were introduced in 2012 by the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Joan Burton. Difficulties arise for those who started work early in life. A gap in contributions occurs, often due to family and child-minding duties. The homemaker's credit scheme introduced in 1994 does not address this issue for women who worked in the home before 1994. I wonder if the Minister's Department has costings on extending it to take care of that group of people who are affected by this from before 1994.

Entitlement levels to the contributory State pension are calculated by means of a yearly average calculation, where the total contributions paid or credited are divided by the number of years of the working life. Payment rates are banded to reflect a person’s contribution history. Volunteer development workers who work abroad in developing countries are exempt from paying social insurance contributions while abroad. They may, however, be awarded credited contributions - or credits - for the duration of their absence, up to an aggregate of five years.

The homemaker’s scheme makes qualification for the contributory State pension easier for those who take time out of the workforce for caring duties. The scheme, which was introduced in 1994, allows gaps of up to 20 years spent caring for children under 12 years of age or incapacitated people to be disregarded when a person’s social insurance record is being averaged for pension purposes. The scheme does not involve the award of credits. Pensioners who qualify for one of these schemes still need to fulfil the eligibility requirements of the contributory State pension, notably they must have paid at least 520 weekly contributions. That is roughly ten years working out of a potential 50.

Any proposals to extend the scope of the homemaker's scheme or the volunteer development worker scheme would have very significant cost implications, and would have to be considered in the context of future budgets. When someone does not qualify for a full-rate contributory pension, that person may qualify for an alternative payment, such as an increase for a qualified adult, where his or her spouse has a contributory pension or a means-tested non-contributory State pension. My Department is currently working on the development of a total contributions approach to replace the current yearly averaging system for the calculation of the contributory State pension. An important element in the final design of the scheme will be the position of people who have gaps in their contribution records for various reasons, and this is being considered very carefully in developing this reform. To answer the Deputy's question, the estimate that we have if we were to leave the scheme as it is and backdate or allow time before 1994 to be reckoned is that the cost would be €290 million every year.

I thank the Minister for his response and am mindful that any changes made to pension entitlement have a knock-on impact and an ever-increasing budget would be needed to address that without having to make cuts in other areas. The homemaker's credit scheme in 1994 was to make qualification easier for those who took time out for caring. It allows for up to 20 years spent caring for children under 12 or those incapacitated, and for that time to be disregarded for pension purposes. In effect, it has reduced the number of years a person's contribution is divided by. It does not actually confer any extra credits. The 20 years spent caring have to be after 1994, so somebody who is 66 in this year, 2017, and is retiring would have been 43 back in 1994, and much of that person's caring would have been done already. That cohort of people is affected, many of which are my constituents. Many are female. If one looks at the State pension, two thirds of recipients of the contributory payment are male, at 64%, compared to one third being female, at 36%. Yet those in receipt of full payment are 79% male and 21% female, showing that the impact is very much on women who took that time out.

The scheme was introduced in 1994 by the then Minister, former Deputy Michael Woods, and was a very progressive measure at the time. I imagine when it was introduced that the decision not to make it retrospective was due to the enormous cost that would arise from doing so. Using €290 million from the social protection budget in any given year would be very difficult. A consequent decision would have to be made, for example, not to increase pensions at all for a year in order to allow for reform of that scale. I am not sure how well that would be received, if at all. The distributional effect would tend to benefit better-off retired couples rather than the least well-off retired couples, if it were to be done. How we calculate the contributory State pension, which has a number of anomalies as it stands, is something that we will have to consider as part of the overall reform.

I thank the Minister. I accept his answer now that I see the scale of what we are talking about here. If one talks about the impact of people, it is two-fold. It is an impact on women, generally, who started work early and who then took time out to care for a family. If somebody did not work before that person took care of his or her family and then went to work afterwards, in his or her 40s, and did 20 years, it seems unfair that that person is entitled to a bigger pension than somebody who started working at 17 or 18, maybe had a family in his or her 20s, and then went back to work afterwards. That is an anomaly. Similarly, with the volunteer development worker scheme that was introduced on 6 April 1983, I have an example of a constituent who took time out before 1983 to volunteer abroad for a couple of years. That person feels penalised now and is on a lesser pension than if that person had stayed at home. It is a smaller cohort of people, but another anomaly that kicked in once a time and date was put on these issues.

I take the Deputy's point and understand the arguments he is making. I have a degree of sympathy for them. The difficulty with any programme the Government brings in is that, if it is made retrospective, the cost of implementing it can make it prohibitive, and decisions made in 1994 and 1983 were not to make them retrospective, precisely for that reason.

The cost would have been so high that it would not be possible to do it at all. Unfortunately, it is a public policy dilemma we face constantly, that one can change something for the better going forward but to apply new rules retrospectively can be prohibitive in terms of cost.

It is not something I am ruling out. I am merely pointing out the cost of it and the kind of alternative choices that would have to be made if it was done.

There are two and a half minutes left. Deputy Connolly has 30 seconds to introduce her question.

Social Welfare Schemes

Catherine Connolly

Question:

37. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 710 of 14 February 2017 the input his Department had into the Defence Forces employment support scheme; the reports or documentation provided; if data on social welfare recipients were passed to the Department of Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25971/17]

Will the Minister clarify what input his Department had into what has been described as the Defence Forces employment support scheme, what documents or reports have been handed over on which this scheme is based, and what other information has been handed over to the Defence Forces on those in receipt of social welfare?

The 2015 Defence White Paper committed the Government to introducing a new employment support scheme with the direct involvement of the Defence Forces. The Department of Defence has responsibility for the scheme.

Initial discussions with officials from my Department focused on clarifying the objectives of the scheme. The scheme is targeted at young jobseekers experiencing barriers to gaining employment and aims to help them to develop a pathway to economic independence.

More detailed discussions took place with the Dublin and Dún Laoghaire Education and Training Board to agree the programme content. The focus is to equip participants with life and employability skills, with five weeks of training delivered by the Defence Forces and five by the ETB.

The main role of my Department is to raise awareness of the programme and identify potentially suitable candidates. Information on selected participants is exchanged with the Defence Forces and the ETB only where necessary and in compliance with all data protection requirements. Candidates supply information directly to the Department of Defence, for example, in relation to Garda vetting and security clearance.

A successful pilot with 25 participants was held in Gormanston Camp last year. A full evaluation of the pilot was conducted and a comprehensive report is available on the Department of Defence website. Following this, it was agreed to deliver two programmes per year, in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

The first started in Limerick in May, with 16 participants. Two hundred and sixty young people attended information sessions delivered jointly by officials from my Department and the Defence Forces. It is important to note that participation on this programme is entirely voluntary.

I thank the Minister for his clarification that the report of the review is available on the website. That is good. I also thank him for the clarification that the programme is voluntary. How are the participants selected? What process is used? Is it a random selection? The Minister confirmed that there is no compulsion. Is there profiling going on of a certain segment of society in this regard? What is the breakdown in terms of gender, men and women? What is this based on? Is there research from a different country? Has this programme been carried out in England, in America or in Europe? Where is this coming from? Whose idea was this, and why the Defence Forces?

I owe the Deputy an apology in answering this question because it is not a programme that I am personally familiar with. It arose out of the 2015 Defence White Paper, which would have been a White Paper produced by my colleague, the Minister, Deputy Coveney, and obviously, the pilot would have occurred and been developed under my predecessor in this Department, the former Minister, Deputy Burton. It is not something that I have been personally involved in or am familiar with.

I am advised that eligible candidates are invited by the Department of Social Protection to attend an information session delivered by my Department's staff and personnel from the Defence Forces. Attendees who express an interest are asked to stay on for a brief ten to 15 minute informal joint interview with an official from the two bodies. The Defence Forces are notified by the Garda vetting bureau after the person has been vetted by the Garda. The Defence Forces then notify the Department of Social Protection that they intend to offer a candidate a place on the programme. The Department of Social Protection then informs the candidate that he or she has been offered a place. The Department of Social Protection informs the education and training board that the candidate has been offered a place and provides it with the contact details of the candidate and his or her PPS number to facilitate registration. The scheme is targeted at those aged 18 to 24 who are on the live register.

If the Minister does not know, he does not know. I would have concerns in relation to this. This is my third time putting this question. I put it to the Department of Social Protection and I was told it was the wrong Department. I got an answer back from the Defence Forces eventually in relation to it.

I have serious concerns in relation to this scheme, that we are introducing young people who have been targeted at a young age for, and making them aware of, the Defence Forces and a life in the Army.

I have asked the Minister how were they selected and if they were selected randomly. Can they ignore this with no penalty? Can they simply ignore the letter of invitation? What is it based on? From where did this come, other than being mentioned in the White Paper? From where did this idea come that the best way to train young people and give them life skills is with the Army? There are serious questions around this.

This has happened already in relation to other schemes the Department has introduced in respect of which there are problems in England. I would like to know what it is based on, where it came from and how they are selected.

As I mentioned, it arises from the White Paper on Defence in 2015. I understand it is based on a programme from New Zealand. It is entirely voluntary. There are no penalties imposed for non-participation in the scheme. It is a ten-week training programme. Essentially, it involves five weeks of training delivered by the Defence Forces and then five weeks of education and training, which is delivered by the local education and training board.

The feedback from participants has been positive. I do not see why the Deputy would suggest that potentially joining the Defence Forces is a bad career option. In my view, it is a good one for those who may be interested in it.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Top
Share