Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Jan 2018

Vol. 963 No. 6

Priority Questions

Child Poverty

Willie O'Dea

Question:

1. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her views on the latest survey of income and living conditions, SILC, data which show that approximately 11% of children are living in consistent poverty, that 19% are at risk of poverty and that 25% are experiencing deprivation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2134/18]

I raise this question to reflect my concern that the substantial rates of economic growth we have been experiencing in recent years have not translated into a substantial reduction in the level of child poverty.

I wish the Deputy and Deputy John Brady a very happy new year. I hope we will have a productive year. I also wish the Leas-Cheann Comhairle a happy new year.

I welcome the CSO survey of income and living conditions results for 2016 because they show improvements in living conditions and tackling poverty. In 2016 incomes rose by 3.1%, mainly due to rising employment, while the deprivation rate fell for the second year running. We have now lifted 7,000 more children out of what we call consistent poverty.

By 2016, each of the rates quoted in the question was down substantially from its peak in 2012-13. I am very grateful for this. The number of children living in consistent poverty was down from 12.8% to 11%; the number of children at risk of poverty was down from 20.3% to 19%, while the number of children experiencing deprivation was down from 37% to 25%. While I welcome these figures, they are still not good enough and will not be good enough until they are down significantly.

Excluding pensions, the social welfare system continued to perform strongly in 2016, with the at-risk-of-poverty rate being reduced from 33.6% before social transfers to 16.5% after social transfers. This equates to a poverty reduction effect of 51%, ensuring Ireland remains one of the best performing countries in the European Union in reducing the incidence of poverty through the social transfers system.

The entire impact of the recovery is not fully reflected in the most recent data which relate to incomes in the period from 2015 to 2016. Macroeconomic and labour market indicators have shown continued economic and employment growth since. The unemployment rate fell from 9.4% in mid-2015 to 6.1% towards the end of 2017. The number in receipt of working-age income and employment supports has also continued to fall. In addition, budget 2018 introduced increases in a range of supports, including an increase of €5 per week in the maximum weekly rate for people of working age and young jobseekers and pensioners, with proportionate increases for adult dependants and an increase of €2 per week in the qualified child dependant allowance, which had not been increased in the previous eight years. We all have to agree that these increases are aimed at assisting those individuals and families most in need.

The Government’s strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion is set out in the national action plan for social inclusion. The plan identifies a wide range of targeted actions and interventions to achieve the overall objective of reducing the level of consistent poverty. My Department is reviewing the plan in consultation with all relevant stakeholders.

Lest people think I was being churlish, I also wish everybody a happy new year.

I acknowledge what was done in the budget and the previous one. I also acknowledge that there has been a reduction in the rate for those experiencing deprivation. Nevertheless, the figure for the number of children living in consistent poverty in 2014 was 12.7%, which figure was reduced to 11.5% in 2015 and 11.1% in 2016. If one does the figures, they show that 97% of the children who were living in consistent poverty in 2015 were also living in consistent poverty in 2016. In the same three-year period the at-risk-of-poverty rate fell from 20.3% to 19.5% and then to 19.3%. They show that 99% of the children who were at risk of poverty in 2015 were still at risk of poverty in 2016. Does the Minister agree that the substantial economic growth which we acknowledge has happened in recent years and the substantial reductions in the rate of unemployment are not yet being properly reflected in the statistics for children? Is she aware that approximately 70,000 more children are living in poverty than in 2008? Does the Government have specific proposals to ensure improvements in the economy will be translated into a substantial reduction in the incidence of child poverty?

I agree with the Deputy that the numbers I have just given do not reflect the economic progress we are seeing because they are the figures to the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016. Thankfully, in 2018 there are 320,000 more people working than when the Deputy's party left government in 2011. Ensuring someone has a job is the single greatest thing any economy or government can do to try to take adults and children out of poverty. There are some specific measures in the action plan. The latest CSO survey of income and living conditions shows that the number of children living in consistent poverty fell to 11.1% in 2016. Given the continued economic recovery this and the last Government have seen, it is reasonable to expect future figures to show further improvements. I will continue to work with my Government colleagues to ensure the economic recovery is experienced by every person and in every county. A key driver in preventing children from experiencing poverty has been social transfers, as indicated in the reduced averages, as well as child dependant payments and child benefit. EUROSTAT data show that we reduce the at-risk-of-poverty rate before social transfers from just over 40% to just under 19% after social transfers. We know that social transfers work. We also know that the Government can only aid economic recovery, but when we have resources and the fruits of economic recovery, we can make sure they are targeted at the most vulnerable through the Social Welfare Bill. That is my job and what I intend to do.

I note the Minister said future figures will show the differences. We have heard that before. Before the latest figures were produced, we were assured that, because of the accompanying economic growth, they would show a substantial reduction, but that has not transpired to be the case.

The 2020 child poverty target that was agreed by the Government would require it to lift 102,000 children out of consistent poverty between 2015 and 2020. Will the Minister say if this target is still realistic?

I believe that if we do not set ambitious targets then we are never going to achieve them. It is an ambitious target. I have said a number of times on the record that the target under the action plan Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures is to take 90,000 children out of poverty in that period. I do not know which 30,000 children we will pick to leave behind. It is my ambition to make sure that everybody in the section of society that is currently either long-term or short-term unemployed, and who wants to work, will have a job. For those people who have difficulties in accessing the jobs market we need to make sure there are activation measures in place to assist when people find barriers or difficulties in their way. We will assist them to get into employment and make sure that the fruits of the economy that are given back to people through social transfers are given to those who are most vulnerable, in my opinion those children and their parents who are living in consistent poverty.

Pensions Legislation

John Brady

Question:

2. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the timeframe for the restoration of the State pension for those affected by the 2012 changes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2331/18]

Willie O'Dea

Question:

3. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans to correct the 2012 pension anomalies; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2190/18]

I start by expressing a happy new year to everyone in the House, to the Minister, to the staff and to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Will the Minister outline clearly a timeframe for the reversal of the 2012 pension changes and a timeframe for the restoration of pension payments to the more than 42,000 people who are directly affected by these changes?

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 3 together.

The current rate bands applying to the State contributory pension were introduced from September 2012, replacing previous rates introduced in 2000. The rate bands prior to 2000 were less generous and the improved rate bands introduced in 2000 were a feature of the economic environment, which we all acknowledge, at that time. Although the economic crash in 2008 led to a reduction in other welfare payments, the core rates of the pension, which many pensioners were solely dependent on, were maintained. In order to respond to the pressures on the State finances, however, it was necessary to achieve some savings in the pension arena. In order to do this in a manner that both minimised the impact on the most vulnerable pensioners and was consistent with long-term pension policy it was decided to align pension payments for new pensioners after 2012 more closely with the number of social insurance contributions made by a person. This was achieved by introducing new rate bands for the purpose of calculating average contributions, which is the current system.

The rate bands introduced in 2012 more closely reflect the social insurance contributions history of a person than those in place between the years 2000 and 2012. Although for some people these bands have reduced their pension compared to what they would have received under the old rules, the pension that is paid is still disproportionate to the level of contributions that have been made. For example, a person with only 20 years of contributions over nearly 50 years of his or her working life still receives an 85% pension payment. Although the basis of averaging pensions is still relatively generous I recognise - I have said this before - that some people, mainly but not exclusively women, who have broken contribution histories are receiving a pension that is significantly lower than they would otherwise have received; a pension that is less, in some cases, than is paid to people with a similar level of contributions paid over an unbroken period. I therefore have committed to examine options that will address this issue.

It is estimated that to revert to the previous bands from January 2018 would result in a cost increase of well over €70 million in 2018, and this annual cost would increase by an estimated €10 million to €12 million each following year. Officials in my Department have completed a report on this matter, which I intend to bring to a Cabinet committee tomorrow.

I have listened to the Minister's response and heard her trying to explain the rationale around why these changes were put in place but there is simply no rationale. The changes were wrong in 2012 and they are wrong now. They need to be changed. The Minister and her Government have an opportunity this week to rectify the changes that directly impacted more than 42,000 pensioners, predominantly women, who took time out from their working lives to look after family members or loved ones. The Minister has an opportunity to bring a proposal to the Cabinet sub-committee tomorrow or to the full Cabinet in order to right the wrong that was done to these pensioners. Perhaps, in this era of the so-called new politics, the Minister might give the Dáil a brief insight into what proposal will be brought to the Cabinet sub-committee tomorrow. It would be useful. The Minister has said previously that she would have no problem publishing the proposals. Perhaps she will now give us some insight into what she and the Department are thinking in the context of reversing the changes and restoring the payments to the 42,000 people who are directly impacted.

To be clear, I do not believe that at any stage I have ever said the changes were wrong, and if I have then I would like to correct it if the Deputy's understanding of what I said is not true. There is nothing wrong with the band changes and the averaging system that was introduced by this House in 2012, in the Government's opinion. The change gave rise to an anomaly that currently affects some 42,000 people. This is what I shall address. At no stage, however, have I ever said that the introduction of the bands, or the averaging system that arose from those band changes to the calculations of pensions, was wrong. There is a difficulty with the fact that men and women who had longer working lives than other people are receiving lesser payments, even though they might have had similar contribution histories. That is wrong, it is an anomaly and is what we are going to fix. I am not at liberty to share the details of the proposals, as they must go to the Cabinet. I will bring the proposals to the Cabinet sub-committee tomorrow, and if I can get approval tomorrow it will go to the full Cabinet committee on Tuesday. As I have agreed with Deputies Brady and O'Dea before Christmas, I will publish that report on Tuesday regardless of the outcome and whether I get what I am looking for. I reiterate that there is a Cabinet sub-committee meeting concerning the economics portfolio tomorrow afternoon and I will propose a solution on the pensions changes to the committee tomorrow. If they give me the nod - for want of a better word - then I will bring the proposal to the full Cabinet meeting on Tuesday and we will have a conversation thereafter on that.

I thank the Minister for the clarification. The report is going to the Cabinet sub-committee tomorrow, which will discuss the proposed solution and it will then go to the Cabinet on Tuesday. The Minister has said she will publish the report regardless of the outcome. Is the Minister saying that even if the Cabinet turns down the proposals, she will still publish the proposals after that meeting? What happens if the Cabinet sub-committee says no and thinks the proposals are unrealistic? What is the situation in that case?

The Minister, Deputy Doherty, made reference to a figure of €70 million to rectify the anomaly this year. Am I correct in saying that it would cost €70 million or thereabouts if we were to rectify the anomaly straightaway and if it was backdated to 1 January? It depends on where the change comes in through the year.

I will answer the Deputy's question directly. Before Christmas I committed to him that when I bring the report to the cabinet I will publish it. That position has not changed. I very much hope that I get a positive response. I am fairly confident that I will. I believe that the options in the proposals are very reasonable and genuinely reflect an acknowledgement on my part, as I have already said, that some people have had a disservice done to them arising from the length of time they contributed to the State. That is simply not fair. I am very hopeful, obviously, that the proposal I am putting forward will be received positively. Whether it is or not, however, I made a commitment to the Deputies before Christmas that I will publish the report and I will do this on Tuesday afternoon.

I do not want to get into an argument with the Minister on this issue. The Minister seems to think it was an anomaly that arose from the 2012 changes. I argue against that; it was a clearly designed measure taken in the full knowledge of the impact it would have on our pensioners, especially on women. There is no question about that in my mind, in the view of the many organisations that are actively campaigning to change this, and in the minds of the many people who are directly impacted. The Minister may have alternative views on this aspect but I believe it was a conscious decision taken at the time.

The Minister may be aware of the huge pressure that is being applied. A press conference is taking place as we are here in the Chamber. A protest will take place outside the Dáil tomorrow morning and afternoon. The Minister has an opportunity to make this change. If and when these changes come in, we need clarity as to whether they will be retrospective and backdated to 1 January this year or to 2012. Those are big questions and challenges for the Minister but we need clarity on them. Hopefully, the Minister will get this proposal though the Cabinet sub-committee tomorrow and the full Cabinet next Tuesday. The 42,000 affected need this change. They needed that change yesterday. This issue cannot be allowed to be kicked down the road any further. The change introduced in 2012 represented a huge disservice given that it was introduced in the full knowledge of the impact it would have.

I will take a supplementary question from Deputy O'Dea and then call the Minister to respond.

Deputy Burton, who initiated the changes, told us at the time that it was an equity measure, a measure to bring contributions more into line with payments, but in recent debates she has portrayed it as a cut to protect the Social Insurance Fund. Assuming the Minister gets this proposal through the Cabinet subcommittee tomorrow, and I wish her the best of luck with that, and assuming it goes to and is approved by Cabinet, can we envisage that the changes will come in more or less immediately? In other words, I am trying to ascertain the timeline and I presume there will not be a decision by the Cabinet that we are going to do this, that or the other and that we will have to wait until the next budget for the timeline for these changes. Can the Minister give an assurance that the timeline for the introduction of the changes she proposes, if accepted, will commence before the next budget?

First, I am very glad that Deputy Brady does not want to argue with me because this is only January but we are not disagreeing with each other. He might think that the changes in the whole should not have been brought in but the changes that happened in 2012 did not only affect 42,000 people, they affected hundreds of thousands of people. Except for the 42,000 people who were maligned by the averaging system because of the length of their service, all of the other thousands of people who have been affected by the changes do not have the same view that the Deputy would have. I acknowledge that a disservice was done to those people through the averaging system. That was wrong. It is not fair that somebody would have a length of contribution of service to the country and receive less of a pension than somebody who has a small contribution service history to the country. I acknowledge that today, I acknowledged it months ago and I also acknowledged months ago that I will fix it, and I will fix it. I am sorry the Deputy is dying for information on this, as I know everybody else is, but I am not in a position to give him something that I have not put to both the Cabinet sub-committee and the Cabinet committee next Tuesday until they have seen it. Otherwise, why do we have these committees unless we are going to use the protocols of getting what I need to get through them?

I believe Deputy O'Dea is well aware, as I have said previously, that regardless of whatever is accepted or not accepted, this will involve new money. It is not that there is a pot of money sitting in the Department somewhere that can resolve this. It did not form part of the negotiations of the social welfare budget for this year. The Deputy is well aware of that, as am I. Therefore, I will be seeking new money and that new money does not exist today. I am grateful for the Deputy's good wishes and if he could double and triple them over the next few days-----

-----such that something magically would happen for me, that would be great.

I would be delighted to do that.

The next question is in Deputy Bríd Smith's name.

I believe Deputy O'Dea knows my intention on this. I want to fix this as quickly as I can but let us all be honest with each other in this Chamber that it will involve new money.

State Pension (Contributory)

Bríd Smith

Question:

4. Deputy Bríd Smith asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection when she will take measures to reverse the discrimination facing women whoraised families before 1994 when their contributory pension entitlements are calculated; the steps she is taking to address the losses suffered by pensioners as a result of the changing of the bands for the contributory pension in 2013; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2330/18]

I am asking the Minister the same question as the previous one but in a different manner and I would like the Minister to take a slightly different emphasis from the one she took with respect to the question of discrimination against women in this regard. Although these band changes affect both men and women, there are particular measures of discrimination affecting women who raised their families prior to 1994. In addressing the question and making the statement that I have asked for, the Minister, given that she was part of the previous regime, might try to explain why that date was chosen, why was it not 1993, 1996 or 1990. Will she explain if it was arbitrarily chosen? Was it calculated on the basis of the amount of savings the State would make, because it knew that prior to 1994 there would not be that many people retiring for the next 20 or 25 years, in order to get us out of the austerity period? I am asking the Minister the same question as the previous ones with a different emphasis on the issue of discrimination against women who made their homes prior to that date.

I thank the Deputy for her question and I want to be able to answer it properly. She is specifically asking about the homemaker's credit and not about the anomaly. If she does not mind, I am going to shoot to a supplementary response because it more freely answers the question she has asked me. In practice, there are a number of factors that make it impossible to be precise. That is not the correct reply - I beg the Deputy's pardon.

When the contribution pension was introduced in 1961, a yearly average approach was used for calculating entitlements. As reckonable social insurance had just been introduced eight years prior to that, no one would have had the 30 to 40 years of contributions necessary to be paid under a total contributions approach. However, having a yearly average model would allow many people to qualify for a full pension and with the extension of PRSI over the year, notably to the self-employed and farmers in 1988, a total contributions approach can be used from around 2020 without disadvantaging people in those sectors. They will have a 30-year window to accumulate what their contributions are. The main difficulty with the yearly average approach is that it is possible for people to start to pay social insurance at a much later stage in life and still qualify for pensions to the maximum rate, which is not very fair. That is why the yearly averaging system is going to be changed, hopefully, to a total contributions model.

The reason the change was introduced at that time - I cannot tell the Deputy whether the date was arbitrarily chosen and, obviously, I was not around at that time - was to acknowledge genuinely that women stay at home and we take choices to come out of the workforce and to rear our family. That change was introduced at that time to acknowledge the huge service to the family, community and society.

I am speaking off the top of my head, only because I have had experience of introducing measures since I became Minister and I have had to pick a start date. I commit to the Deputy that I will find the answer to why that date was picked and whether we looked at different dates at the time. If the Deputy can give me some space, I will come back to her later today with a specific answer. I do not know whether that date was arbitrarily chosen or whether we picked it for a reason. I will come back to her on that later today and I am sorry I do not have a better answer for her on that.

I accept the Minister will not think of this in the same way that I do but in so far as we have our gender in common, on a daily basis we are faced with a barrage of elements of discrimination in this society, the latest being the revisiting of the debacle that Joanne Hayes faced in 1984 because of the Kerry babies issue. The question that jumps out is this: why it is recognised that women leave the workforce and rear children for those after 1994 but not for those before then. As we speak and was mentioned by other Deputies, there are people across the road in Buswells Hotel having a press conference. One of them is a woman from Kildare called Joan McLoughlin who left the workforce in the 1970s to rear her family. She has been very active in Pensioners for Equality, who had the last protest outside the Dáil. She was reported in a local newspaper in Kildare, from where she comes, as having said it is not about her, she runs a B&B and is not too badly off but she is down €55 a week on her old age pension. However, she said, others are worse off. She said one lady she was speaking to said when she goes back home she has to count out the pieces of coal. She said, imagine in 2018 having to count every piece of coal and that is the reality for some people: it is. There are pensioners living in poverty and many of them are women because they did the job that was expected of them, which was to be mothers and to rear their family. I know the Minister wants to fix it and that she will try to fix it and she has said she will have to find new money. She should remember that we are living in an obscene society-----

I call the Minister to respond as we are running out of time on this question.

-----where the rich list shows that the top ten earners in this country accumulated €2 billion last year. Look at the other end of the scale.

I call the Minister to reply. Members should bear in mind the minute allocated.

Can we do something about that anomaly?

I do not have the answer to the question the Deputy asked but I am able to tell her that if and when we introduce a total contributions approach on 1 January 2020, which is only a number of years away, whatever credit we decide for homemakers during the public consultation model, whether it is 15 years or 20 years, will be for any year. Therefore, the 1994 business will be defunct once we reach 1 January 2020. I know that does not help us today but that is where we are going with this, namely, that 20-year credit will be able to be assigned to any year one stayed at home. For the likes of the Deputy's mother or my mother with respect to the 1994 issue, once we reach 2020, they would benefit in the future. I will come back to the Deputy later today on her question regarding why the change was introduced with respect to that date.

There is an issue with the incidence of fuel poverty. During the passage of the Social Welfare Bill Deputy Willie O'Dea requested that I conduct an inquiry into the changes we might be able to make to social transfers. I could not agree to his request because it was not within the remit of my Department. However, I have found a back door to do what we were seeking to achieve and I will conduct the review in the next couple of weeks with a view to examining the rates of payment and the periods of time for which we make payments. It must also be acknowledged that the price of fuel has increased. I look forward to working with the social welfare committee on the issue.

I appreciate the Minister's positive responses, but they will not be welcomed if she is saying to pensioners that they will have to wait until 2020 and that the rates will be adjusted only from that year onwards. There are very angry people, particularly women, who are saying this issue must be sorted out now and payments backdated. They will not put up with the loss of €1,500 to €2,000 a year when they are living in Povertyville. Some 42,000 pensioners are affected now, but they will become hundreds of thousands, as people retire, unless this issue is sorted out. This needs to happen as soon as possible. I urge those not affected now but who will be to attend outside Leinster House tomorrow at 12.30 p.m. with their brothers and sisters from Age Action Ireland, the Irish Countrywomen's Association, Pensioners for Equality and the National Women's Council of Ireland. It is important that they do. We had a revolution a number of years ago when Fianna Fáil attacked the medical card system. Let us have another over the attack on pensioners and I know that the Government will respond to it. The more people who are outside Leinster House at 12.30 p.m. tomorrow, the better the outcome of the Cabinet meeting will be.

I know why the Deputy is saying what she is saying and hope there will be thousands of people outside Leinster House tomorrow. I will go and meet them. However, I do not feel pressure.

The Minister's colleagues do.

Perhaps they should experience the pressure exerted on me.

The Minister is only one woman and better off without it.

I am backing her all the way.

I have made a commitment and recognised the anomaly and how it affects some 42,000 people. The Deputy is right that as each year passes and the anomaly is not fixed, there will be a further 8,000 to 10,000 added to the list. I recognise that it is wrong and have committed to fixing it. I will fix it. I invite people to attend tomorrow to express how they feel and I will certainly listen. However, it will not make me sell it any better tomorrow afternoon. I already know exactly what I want and hope to achieve.

It will help to make up the minds of others though.

Social Welfare Payments Waiting Times

Catherine Connolly

Question:

5. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the average waiting time for decisions on carer's allowance and domiciliary care allowance payments; the number of persons awaiting decisions on such payments, including the length of time involved; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2133/18]

It has come to my attention that those waiting for decisions on carer's allowance and domiciliary care allowance payments can wait for anything between nine and 18 months for them. My question is about the number of persons waiting for such decisions and the length of time involved. Will the Minister make a statement on the matter?

I thank the Deputy for asking this important question.

The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is committed to providing a quality service for all of its customers and their families. This includes ensuring applications are processed and that decisions on entitlement are made as quickly as possible. Before a decision can be made on entitlement to carer’s allowance, evidence must be provided of the care recipient’s care requirements, the level of care the carer provides and the carer’s means. In general, applications under social welfare schemes with a number of complex qualifying conditions can take longer to process. This is compounded if the documentary evidence provided at the initial application stage is incomplete or insufficient. This is often the case in the case of carer’s allowance applications.

At the end of 2017 the average waiting time in processing new carer’s allowance applications was 17 weeks, with 5,284 applications awaiting decision. The number of carer's allowance applications in hand is also a consequence of the continued increased intake of claims, with the number of applications in 2017 being 26% higher than in 2015. Therefore, the second reason is the huge increase in the number of applications received.

Staff have been reassigned within the carer’s allowance area to work on claims processing and it is expected that this will improve processing times under the scheme in the coming weeks. A redesigned application form will be published shortly. The new form will allow carers to provide more information on the type and level of care they provide, with the aim of providing deciding officers with the information they need to expedite decisions on entitlement. We are, therefore, also hoping the new redesigned application form will speed up the process.

The Department experienced delays in the processing of domiciliary care allowance claims during 2017 owing to a number of factors. First, there was a significant increase in the number of applications being received. The year-on-year increase in recent years has consistently been in the 15% to 20% range. Second, following a High Court ruling in 2016, there is a need for the Department’s medical officer and deciding officer to provide more detailed reasons for their decision when communicating it to the customer. Corrective actions were taken by the Department, including the allocation of additional resources. The time required to finalise domiciliary care allowance claims has returned to the departmental standard, with claims being processed within 12 weeks on average during December 2017. At the end of December, there were 1,240 domiciliary care allowance claims awaiting processing, representing a claims intake of just over two months.

I recognise that there is some positivity in the Minister of State's answer. However, I am informed that it takes between nine and 18 months to make a decision. Are applicants for domiciliary care allowance and carer's allowance waiting for periods between nine and 18 months? Neither figure was mentioned by the Minister of State, who gave average waiting times. Persons in need of care cannot wait for decisions. There is something wrong with a system that, by the Minister of State's own admission, has an built-in delay of 17 weeks. We know on the ground that the delay is much longer. In addition, there is an appeals system which results in further delays. What is the Minister of State saying to those at home in need and those who are exhausted in providing care, which they do with love, because they have been beaten down by the system?

There are issues, for which I totally accept responsibility, but I can equally tell the Deputy that corrective actions are being taken by the Government. To my knowledge, at the end of December a claims intake of just over two months was awaiting processing. That is what I am being told by departmental officials. The Government acknowledges the crucial role carers play in society. It is important, therefore, that the Deputy know that we are fully committed to supporting carers in their role. Reform and investment are under way. The carer's allowance is paid to persons providing full-time care and attention for elderly people or people with disabilities whose income falls within certain limits. It is also important to state there are 74,887 persons in receipt of the carer's allowance, with 44,000 qualified dependent children. Expenditure in 2017 was €694 million. The figure for domiciliary care allowance payments, which are made to 34,000 families, is €200 million. A strong message is being sent that we are providing support for carers in society. We respect and value their work. There are many more issues related to the national disability inclusion strategy to be dealt with in the next two to three years. We have started to rebuild and invest in carers. We will also make our best efforts to reduce waiting times.

The difficulty is that the Minister of State is quoting overall figures. We acknowledge that the country could not function without the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. That is a given. We also know from witnesses appearing before the Committee of Public Accounts that sometimes there is a deliberate policy not to give documentation. We took issue with this and argued that it was an appalling thing to say. Some 99% of people move forward with documentation. The Minister of State is telling the House the numbers of people who are benefiting.

We know that. They benefit as of right. They are saving the State an absolute fortune. The Minister of State knows that better than anyone.

What specific actions are being taken, and on what timeline? What is a reasonable period to process an application? I would have thought a matter of weeks - at the maximum, three weeks. What needs to be done to ensure that? What staff have been put in place? I really would like a specific answer so that I and my colleagues will not be standing up here again asking these questions. It should be a matter of course.

I have already covered it. I do not know where the Deputy is going here on this question. We have put in extra staff to resolve the problem. The direct answer to the Deputy's question is that the claims, in accordance with departmental standards, are processed within 12 weeks on average during December 2017.

Of course we recognise that there are problems. There are people who, in filling in the forms, make mistakes. That is life. That is the way it is. We are changing the application form as well, to modernise it and make it consumer-friendly.

We are also investing a lot of funding in services for the carers. We are sending out a strong message here today, unlike the Deputy, that we support the carers in this country and we are doing our best to support the carers. That is something that is important to the State.

That is an appalling comment.

We have an important national disability inclusion strategy and that will be implemented over the next four years.

That is an appalling comment, to say we are sending out a message that we do not care. That is an appalling comment.

I said some Opposition Members, like the Deputy.

It is an appalling comment from a Minister.

I ask the Minister of State to withdraw it. He made it in the heat of the moment.

Absolutely not. I have listened to Deputy Connolly for the past 12 months on many of these issues.

That is a personal attack from a Minister. That is unacceptable.

Deputy Connolly never acknowledges.

That is an appalling comment.

Perhaps Deputy Connolly can find another way to proceed.

This is an appalling comment.

I realise there was-----

This is unacceptable. It is out of order from a Minister.

I realise there was an accusation.

Deputy Connolly has been out of order.

The Minister of State has added to his cause.

Hold on. I will decide whether it is out of order or not, Minister. I realise that there was an accusation that the Minister of State is pursuing this and it is unnecessary. Perhaps the Minister of State wants to respond to that. If not-----

Accusation of what?

What was the accusation?

The Minister's interpretation.

The Minister of State accused me of coming here and not recognising the work that has been done and saying no work has been done, and worse. He has added to that. I ask the Minister of State simply to withdraw that.

If the Minister of State wants to clarify-----

I have asked the Minister of State a question in relation to it.

Sorry, Deputy Connolly, no. Let us not be acrimonious.

What I stated clearly-----

The Minister of State, if he wants, may clarify.

-----was that many Opposition Deputies, including Deputy Connolly-----

The Minister of State did not say that.

-----make this criticism and do not acknowledge enough the work that has been done.

The Minister of State stated he listened to me for a year being negative. It is an appalling comment from him.

We have to move on. Deputy Connolly will have to find another way to address the matter. We move on to Question No. 6.

That is my point.

It is an appalling comment from the Minister of State.

It is not appalling. Deputy Connolly can give it but she cannot take it. That is the Deputy's problem.

The Minister of State is disgraceful.

The Deputy can give it but she cannot take it.

The Minister of State is disgraceful and he is adding to it.

I am sure that the Deputy will find another way. We move to Question No. 6 in the name of Deputy McConalogue.

Top
Share