Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their questions. Almost all of them raised the same matters so instead of answering them individually, I will speak in general terms.

Of course, one would love to be able to give a bonus of 100% given where people have come from in recent years. To be fair, however, Deputies must accept that the reason I am here today is that I am looking for more money. If I were to provide a 100% bonus, I would be seeking a hell of a lot more money. Some Deputies suggested that because there are underspends under certain subheads we could use the money involved. While there are underspends under certain subheads, there are overspends under others. The reason I am here is that I am short €10 million to pay the 85% bonus. As the economy improves one would hope to be able to return to a situation where one can give people what they used to receive in previous years. I agree with Deputy Brady that they spend it. It does not go into a box somewhere or to the Bahamas. They spend it so it is of value and contributes to the local economy. Hopefully, as the country recovers, the Department might be in a position to consider that next year. Some Deputies referred to the fact that the Social Insurance Fund is in surplus and suggested that perhaps it should have been used to pay a 100% bonus. The way the system works is that the Christmas bonus from the Social Insurance Fund can only be paid to those in receipt of contributory benefits. The deficit does not relate to that fund, it relates to the people who are receiving allowances.

Another question was in respect of the Social Insurance Fund and bogus self-employment. The Deputy can bet his bottom dollar that if I had that extra €750 million or so, I would be well able to spend it. I am not sure the figure is anywhere close to that. However, I am sure there are some people - perhaps not in the large numbers that one might expect - who are in precarious situations whereby they are being made to declare themselves as being self-employed when they truly are not. A report is being considered by the Department, in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners, to pursue that element of the Social Insurance Fund contributions, which probably does not exist in reality today. While we are working closely with the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners, I only have the joy of spending the money in the Social Insurance Fund. I do not have responsibility for collecting that money. It is only by working with different Departments that we can influence how that position is reached. However, given that I am in charge of employment rights and employment affairs, we are anxious to extend those same rights to people who are not necessarily self-employed in a self-employed world, if the Deputy understands what I am trying to say. I hope to be in a position to issue the report on bogus self-employment and our views on it before Christmas. If not, it will be issued very early in the new year. I will revert to the Deputy and have a fuller conversation in that regard if possible.

The next question was about the 8.2% increase in the number of disability applications. The main reason for it is that there has been a change in our demographics. In fact, that is the only reason. However, I believe there probably are some people on the live register who should not be on it. We might conduct an analysis of that next year.

If there is a view that maybe there is a draw from one scheme to the other just because of this, it definitely is not just because of this. There is a change in our demographics.

I assure the members that there are strict medical conditions to qualify for receipt of a disability allowance payment. One cannot just arrive and say whatever one wants to say. There are strict medical conditions that have to be adhered to and supporting documentation. Those who apply and are successful and who are in receipt of disability payments genuinely have a disability that proves that they cannot work in the profession in which they would have been able to work and enjoy employment heretofore. We will obviously keep an eye on that. We do not look at rises in schemes and merely say it is well and good. We conduct deep analysis and investigations. However, we are quite satisfied that those in receipt of disability payments are adhering to the strict criteria that were set out beforehand.

At the start of this year 2,000 families were receiving mortgage interest relief. At the end of this year, there are 1,400. We will continue to pay those 1,400, but as the economy improves, I anticipate that number will continue to go down. As long as people satisfy the conditions to receive that payment, they will receive it. We are here to provide income supports for people when they need them. If they need them, they will continue to get them. As I said, I hope and envisage that as the economy recovers and people's personal finances recover, they might not need them.