Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister for Social Protection and her officials. We are meeting to consider the 2012 Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Protection - Vote 37.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I express my appreciation to the select sub-committee for giving me the opportunity to present a Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Protection. I am seeking a supplementary sum of €685 million in 2012. This is necessary for two reasons: there is a need for a higher Exchequer subvention for the social insurance fund because PRSI contributions will be lower than expected this year and a higher live register figure than provided for in the Estimates. The figure of €685 million is made up as follows: €418 million for a higher Exchequer subvention to the social insurance fund owing to lower than expected PRSI receipts; €264 million to meet higher expenditure on Vote schemes and services and administration; and €3 million in respect of other balances.

I propose to provide further information on the composition of the first two items. The higher Exchequer subvention to the social insurance fund is made up as follows: lower social insurance fund income, with an estimated outturn of €6.63 billion in 2012, some €454 million or 6.4% less than the original estimate owing to a shortfall in PRSI receipts, offset by lower expenditure on social insurance fund schemes expenditure of €8.87 billion, or approximately €36 million or 0.4% lower than estimated. Arising from lower PRSI receipts and slightly lower expenditure, the Exchequer subvention will be €2.23 billion. This represents a shortfall of approximately €418 million or is 23% higher than estimated.

The excess on Vote 37 schemes, services and administration in 2012 is €264 million. There are two main elements: there has been an overspend of €271 million on jobseeker’s allowance arising from a higher live register figure, which is offset by an underspend of €7 million on all other schemes, services and administration funded from the Department’s Vote. There is expected to be an average live register figure of 437,300, compared to a figure of 425,000 provided for in the Department’s Estimate. The additional cost is expected to be €235 million, with the overspend of €271 million on jobseeker’s allowance being offset by an underspend of €36 million on jobseeker’s benefit. Apart from jobseeker’s allowance, expenditure on all other schemes, services and administration, when taken together, is expected to be just below target. While additional sums are necessary for a number of schemes, these are being compensated for by anticipated underspends on other schemes.

The relevant schemes are outlined in the Supplementary Estimate. Overall expenditure on schemes, services and administration provided by the Department in 2012 is expected to be just under €20.77 billion. It is expected to be €228 million or 1.1% more than the figure provided for in the Estimate.

I will now go through the programmes of expenditure of the Department in 2012. On the cost of administration, the estimated outturn is €585 million - €14.9 million, or 2.5%, less than the figure provided for in the Estimate. Administration is expected to make up 2.8% of overall Department expenditure this year.

On expenditure on pensions, the expected outturn is €6.28 billion - €28 million, or 0.5%, more than the figure provided for in the original Estimate. It is also just under €780 million, or 14%, greater than it was in 2008. The cost of funding pensions is expected to increase by a further €200 million in 2013, as the number of people of pension age continues to grow. This is the demographic bonus in that more older people are living longer. It ultimately reflects in social welfare and requires extra funding to fund pensions. The number receiving pensions has increased from 460,000 recipients in 2008 to 540,000 in 2012, an increase of 80,000 or 18%. A total of €5.3 billion of the €6.2 billion spent on pensions this year is funded from the social insurance fund, representing 60% of expenditure from the fund.

On expenditure on working age income supports, the expected outturn is just over €6 billion, which is €302 million, or 5.3%, higher and has costs associated with the higher live register figures mentioned. On expenditure on working age employment supports, the expected outturn is almost €960 million. This represents an underspend of €23 million, or 2.4%. Expenditure on illness, disability and carers payments is expected to be €3.4 billion. This represents an underspend of €84 million, or 2.4%. Expenditure on children, at €2.4 billion, is on target. Expenditure on supplementary payments, including household benefits, fuel allowance and free travel, is expected to be €1.18 billion, which is €20 million, or 1.7%, ahead of profile.

I hope my opening statement has given the committee a good overview of the Department's expenditure in 2012 and the reasons underlying the necessity to seek a Supplementary Estimate. The schemes and services operated by the Department benefit almost everybody in society, either directly or indirectly, and are the key platform for the provision of social protection. I look forward to discussing the Supplementary Estimate of €685 million with the committee.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her presentation. The sum of €685 million is enormous. In the news yesterday and today there has been much emphasis, as there was yesterday in the Dáil, on the deficit in the health budget, which is approximately €380 million. This is almost double that amount. A frightening amount of extra money is required at the last moment. I do not blame the Minister personally, but it seems a little strange to shunt it into a committee to be discussed on a day on which we are all very busy and have other commitments. An enormous amount of taxpayers' money is involved. I understood things were to be done differently and did not expect to be at a committee meeting for a relatively short period of time discussing the expenditure of €685 million of taxpayers' money. Obviously, we do not oppose the Supplementary Estimate.

The reason for the overspend on jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit is obviously the live register is higher than anticipated. Will the Minister confirm that the average figure is approximately 12,500? The bigger sum of approximately €418 million is due to the fact that income in the social insurance fund is lower than anticipated. Fewer people have contributed to it because fewer than anticipated are at work. Does the Minister have the figure for the difference between the number at work and the number the Government had anticipated at the start of the year? I note the overspend on jobseeker's allowance is offset to some extent by an underspend on jobseeker's benefit. Will the Minister comment on whether this has anything to do with the change in the rules for the jobseeker's benefit scheme with regard to moving from a six day to a five day period?

Estimated expenditure on the supplementary welfare allowance was just under €160 million, whereas actual expenditure has exceeded €180 million. This applies to the basic supplementary welfare allowance paid to people while they are waiting for their benefits to come through. Does the fund cover exceptional needs items?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Therefore, the supplementary welfare allowance is the substitute payment people receive while they are waiting for their benefits to come through. It is stated in the document that a significant proportion relates to interim adjustments for customers awaiting payments. What does the rest comprise? Exceptional needs payments arise where a community welfare officer decides to help somebody out with an unexpectedly high-----

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not dealt with under this heading.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Where does the funding appear?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In a different part of the Estimate.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can include this information in her reply.

The Estimate figure for the community employment scheme shows an overspend of approximately 6.35% despite the budgetary adjustments made last year. What happened? Cutbacks which were hotly debated in the House and elsewhere were made last year. Nonetheless, expenditure has overshot. Will the Minister comment on this?

The target for the back to education allowance scheme was overshot by 8.5%, despite the downward adjustments made last year. A significant number over and above what had been anticipated applied for the allowance.

Family income supplement is a payment to assist people on low incomes. It is often very badly needed to enable people to get from one end of the week to the other. Those who apply for it must wait for approximately 38 weeks or nine months, which is far too long. Will the Minister clarify whether persons waiting for the supplement to come through are entitled to claim basic supplementary welfare allowance?

I have not encountered any such people yet. One is not covered by the allowance, as one is employed and one's income is too low. Something must be done to accelerate the application process for the family income supplement, FIS.

We are discussing the working poor, those who would sometimes be better off if they were on social welfare. They are trying to make a contribution and the State recognises that their incomes are insufficient to keep body and soul together, yet they must wait nine months for the FIS. What are they supposed to do in the meantime?

If someone is assessed as being entitled to a certain amount of FIS, it remains fixed for 12 months. Circumstances can change dramatically. I am dealing with a case of a married couple in which the man is in a low income job and the woman is in receipt of illness benefit. Their FIS was assessed as being X amount approximately one week ago, but the assessment took into account the illness benefit, which is due to expire in a couple of weeks time. They will be stuck with an artificially low rate of FIS for 12 months, yet the Department tells me that nothing can be done. It seems unjust.

As the Minister will be aware, there was a statutory regulation on the mortgage interest supplement last year. My understanding of the current position is that people do not qualify for the supplement until they have managed to make a repayment agreement with the bank and that agreement has been in place for 12 months. Is this correct?

Regarding the overall household benefits package, the electricity allowance from the Social Insurance Fund seems to have overshot by 20.2%. Is this due to increased energy costs? I presume so.

Concerning employment assistance schemes, etc., there was an underspend of 22% on community work placements under the Tús scheme. There are only 1,208 people on the jobs initiative. There has been an unanticipated undershoot of 7.9% in expenditure on the back to work allowance. Even on the JobBridge scheme expenditure has been 17% less than anticipated. At a time when there is significant emigration and the unemployment rate consistently touches 15%, I would have expected these schemes to be considerably oversubscribed. Is there a difficulty? Obviously, each scheme has its merits, but why can we not fill them? It seems somewhat perverse, given the circumstances in terms of unemployment. For the same reasons, the underspend of 9.1% on the working age employment supports is remarkable.

The reduction in the free fuel allowance was 3.8%. I presume that the Government budgeted for a greater reduction, given last year's decrease in the period from 32 weeks to 26 weeks. The saving in the part from the Social Insurance Fund was €5.5 million, but I expected a greater one as a result of last year's dramatic cutback.

We are not opposing this Supplementary Estimate. We are all desirous that the people who are forced to rely on social welfare should be properly looked after.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like Deputy O'Dea, we will not be opposing this Supplementary Estimate. It is obvious that no one will oppose an Estimate for money that will go to the most vulnerable in society. My only problem is that it has arrived on the day of the budget and we have not had more time to debate it and to tease out some of the major failures underlying the Estimate put before us on last year's budget day, an Estimate that was revised twice during the year. There was a failure in terms of predicting how bad the situation would get and how some of the heads in question would be left short or reach their targets.

The main change is the shortfall in the Social Insurance Fund. It could have been predicted, albeit not to the full degree. It is short €400 million, which is a substantial amount. Some of that could have been predicted, given the number of people who are unemployed and dependent on jobseeker's benefit and the fact that people are living and drawing their pensions for longer. The Social Insurance Fund is set up in such a way that, in times of recession, it will be short and dependent on fund transfers from the Exchequer. No one is arguing that this should not happen. In times of plenty, the fund is supposed to be bumped up to the point at which it becomes sufficient to address the cyclical nature of the economy.

This shows up the fact that our society and the Government in particular face a major challenge in ensuring that people are in work. This Government and the previous one did not live up to it. If people were working, the Social Insurance Fund would not be as short as it is. This is the key element for each of the heads under discussion.

Continuing to cut social welfare has an effect on the number of people employed. If there is less money in people's pockets, it has a knock-on effect on the local economy and those supplying it. Later today, we will see whether the Minister for Finance has any news in terms of protecting endangered jobs.

A number of heads are short. For example, the FIS requires an extra €32 million, some 16% of the Revised Estimate. Not only does this relate to my point on more people being out of work, but it also means that those currently in employment are on reduced hours. They are underemployed. A number of studies, including one by this committee, have been done on how to address this issue. Given people's low incomes, they can apply for FIS. It is a safety net for the working poor.

Deputy O'Dea touched on a further matter, namely, the Tús, or yellow pack, community employment, CE, scheme. It could not spend €18 million plus. The JobBridge scheme could not spend €11 million plus. We requested that the Minister for Social Protection protect the CE scheme and increase the number of places thereon, yet it is not succeeding to meet its targets. The key point is not that people are refusing to take up Tús or JobBridge placements. The figure for subhead A21, the back to education allowance, shows that the Minister is seeking additional money. Tús has €16 million extra.

This indicates that unemployed persons are willing to take up places on viable schemes which will improve their employability. That is the reason Tús or JobBridge has not been as fully subscribed as the back to education scheme. People want to avail of the opportunity to return to education. We should, therefore, concentrate more on the community employment and back to education schemes. Tús provides no additional benefit in terms of education and outcomes. The course is for only one year and the host organisations receive no additional money for training. It is hoped the logic of the figures outlined will be reflected in the following year in terms of the investment of more money in the community employment and back to education schemes to ensure improved outcomes and that changes will be made to make it easier for people who have just been laid off to get back into education where no jobs are available. The figures for available jobs are in the public domain. In this regard, the latest statistics from the European Union which I have quoted on a number of occasions indicate that for every vacancy there are 50 unemployed persons. As it is not possible to fit 50 into one, we need to create more jobs, which is the challenge for the Government. It must encourage the creation of jobs by Irish entrepreneurs and other businesses which are sustainable.

Spending on supplementary welfare allowance has increased by €20.7 million. In some ways, this is reflective of emergency payments owing to waiting times in the processing of applications. It is also a reflection of the long delays faced in terms of processing times. As such, the longer people have to wait the longer they will be in receipt of emergency payments. If processing times were faster, take up of schemes would increase. Also, while a reduction in waiting times for supplementary welfare allowance, jobseeker's benefit or carer's allowance could result in a decrease in these figures, it could result in increases in others. The key is to ensure those in need of payments are paid. In this regard, waiting times must be reduced as quickly as possible. While persons in receipt of supplementary welfare are entitled to participate in the back to education and community employment schemes, they cannot often do so until their entitlement to payment has been determined.

I am not sure if it is proposed that the sub-committee address and vote on the subheads individually. While much of the information provided is useful, it is a pity we only received it on the day before we are due to receive the Estimates for next year. This information will be redundant as of this afternoon because it relates to this year's rather than next year's expenditure.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The sub-committee does not have the power to approve or amend the Estimates. That power rests with the Dáil.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it proposed to deal with the subheads individually?

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has to leave by noon. I will come back to the Deputy following questions from other members.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for her clear and concise explanation of the need for the Supplementary Estimate. It is extremely logical. By and large, the Supplementary Estimate arises as a result of the changes in numbers.

I have one question for the Minister on the cost of administration which it appears will come in at around 2.5% less than that provided for in the Estimate. Is this linked with savings in the Department under the Croke Park agreement?

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. A trend is emerging as Departments produce facts and figures. My brother who is self-employed and owns a couple of shops which employ up to 48 people rang me this morning. Returns to the Exchequer from the self-employed are down. We have also heard this morning that returns of PRSI receipts are €418 billion, which is 23% higher than estimated. Self-employed persons no longer desire to be self-employed because they believe there is no safety net in place for them. I am aware that the Minister is working on the implementation of measures to assist self-employed persons, the people who will create jobs. The message, based on the returns, is that systems of social protection and so on must be put in place for the self-employed so as to restore confidence as they are the ones who will get us out of the mess we are in.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies for their contributions. I thank Deputies Willie O'Dea and Aengus Ó Snodaigh for supporting the Supplementary Estimate which is needed to enable us to continue to pay all recipients of social welfare that they so strongly defended in their contributions. We had to wait for the PRSI receipts for November which, as stated by Deputy Ray Butler, were the PRSI receipts for the self-employed. We had to do it this week because the authorisation of the Dáil, in terms of the money we have to spend, expires this week. Obviously, this would have had dramatic consequences for those in receipt of social welfare. That is the reason for the delay. Also, this year 30 November fell on a Friday and 1 December on a Saturday, which meant we did not receive the Exchequer returns until Tuesday. Where these dates fall earlier in the week, we receive the returns quicker, often on the following day. We brought the Supplementary Estimate before the sub-committee as soon as we could and I thank members for accepting this.

Deputy Willie O'Dea asked about jobseeker's allowance. The average live register figure underlying the 2012 Estimates is 425,000. It is expected that the outturn for the year will be approximately 437,000, resulting in a higher cost of €235 million for jobseekers' schemes. This is made up of an excess of €271.4 million on jobseeker's allowance which is offset by an underspend of €35.7 million on jobseeker's benefit. There is, thankfully, an underspend on jobseeker's benefit because fewer people are losing their jobs. The employment figures at the end of November indicated that there were 417,000 people unemployed, which I accept is too high. In terms of the live register, this is 12,000 fewer than in November 2011 and 7,000 fewer than in November 2010. In other words and as members will have heard from economic commentators, the level of unemployment is stabilising.

Unemployment is falling somewhat, particularly at the end of the year, so that is the reason for this. If that trend was to be sustained, and the art of forecasting in respect of employment numbers is difficult, it would have a hugely beneficial impact on the figures for next year. Every time somebody leaves the live register and goes back to work, we get some PRSI and ultimately some taxation and his or her general spend tends to be higher.

In respect of community employment and other employment support schemes, Deputies will remember that community employment was transferred along with the transfer of the FÁS employees and employment services to the Department of Social Protection on 1 January 2012. Savings on materials and training grants were not fully realised. The expected savings in allowances due to the removal of concurrent payments were not realised in community employment but were realised in respect of other payments. The double payment was not always under the community employment heading. It may, for example, have been in respect of another social welfare heading. People were concerned after last year's budget that they were going to be huge cuts. As Deputies will be aware, all the community employment places have been maintained and all of the supervisors have kept their jobs. We have done a job of work in reviewing the schemes that has been extremely positive and productive both for ourselves in terms of taxpayers' money and for the schemes themselves. We have identified savings in areas like insurance, audit and excessive administration which will yield savings not just this year but in years to come. I am delighted with Deputy Ó Snodaigh's comment that he is supporting community employment because all areas of employment supports are critically important in giving people who have been long-term unemployed an opportunity to become active again.

I will clarify matters relating to Tús and JobBridge. Both schemes were advertised in the summer of 2011. The very first entrants went on those schemes only at the end of summer 2011 and the schemes only began to gain momentum from September 2011 onwards. Since then, we have not only been spending up to the level of the scheme but have, as far as I know, over 5,000 people on Tús, which was the target, and about 5,500 on JobBridge. Some 6,000 people have completed JobBridge and the Indecon survey showed that of those people who had completed an internship, more than half of them found further employment. In terms of this kind of supported scheme for getting back into employment or getting into employment in the first place in the case of JobBridge so that people get their very first job, I am happy to say it has allowed some extraordinarily fine graduates and young people who came out of college with all sorts of honours and ran into a brick wall in respect of economic opportunities to show their talents, be in demand from employers and get employment. Our spend on Tús and JobBridge is up where it should be. It has taken time to build up the schemes.

There are higher numbers of recipients of the back to education allowance than are provided in the Estimate and higher than expected average value payments. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh stated, this is a well-supported scheme. We must ensure that the back to education scheme is as employment-related as possible so that people on the scheme have a pathway that will not just help them get back to education for its own sake which is important but also get them back into employment.

Deputy Butler spoke about self-employed people and employers. I have visited about seven towns and cities to meet employers, including Deputy O'Dea's constituency. Employers still complain from time to time that it is sometimes difficult to get somebody to fill a vacancy. We are setting up Intreo, which is a new scheme to enable and encourage people not just to collect a payment from the Department of Social Protection but to get back to education and employment or support their community through community employment or Tús. I invite the Chairman to visit Sligo where the first Intreo office was opened by the Taoiseach and me. He will find that in respect of jobseeker's allowance applications, the longer periods on supplementary welfare allowance are being reduced very dramatically under the Intreo structure. I am sure Deputy Ó Snodaigh will be pleased to hear this. With an integrated office and reception, the service people are looking for can be identified. They then get a dedicated time-based appointment and whatever forms they need. They come in a few days later and are interviewed. As the new system develops, hopefully, the number of people who will be getting supplementary allowance payments and the period for which they will be getting them will be significantly reduced. Intreo has been rolled out in ten offices around the country and we have a very ambitious programme for the next year. I hope this will significantly improve the experience of people who, unfortunately, find themselves unemployed and go to offices of the Department of Social Protection seeking a payment.

Deputy O'Dea referenced FIS. Perhaps I could invite the committee to visit the Longford offices in the summer where claims for FIS and carer's payments are processed. We have invested in significantly enhanced procedures such as screening or scanning the applications that are made. Most people applying for social welfare make handwritten applications and all of the Deputies here have probably helped people with the applications for the various schemes. We were not in a position to scan those but that has started this year. In changing over, one must run both systems in parallel. The processing of FIS applications has now gone to Letterkenny and most new FIS applications are dealt with in two to four weeks, which is a significant improvement on what it was. We have a dedicated team of between 20 and 30 people working non-stop on the backlog. The FIS delays are being reduced which is why the expenditure on the payments has gone up. We are pursuing parallel operations for other applications such as those for carers' payments. Hopefully, the outcome will be a much better service for people who make these applications.

I know that during the year some Deputies suggested that spending was somehow consciously being delayed in the Department of Social Protection. When people look at the Estimate, they will realise that because of the demographic bonus in respect of children and older people, the demand for services has expanded enormously.

With regard to the deficit in the Social Insurance Fund, I have met the committee and discussed this on a number of occasions, including sessions held regarding the actuarial report on the fund. The suggestion in that was a figure of €1.8 billion and the suggestion this time last year was looking to that figure. As a result of a fall in PRSI and expansion of demand in the numbers of people applying for schemes, the figure has expanded to €2.2 billion. It shows we must fund the Social Insurance Fund properly, particularly with regard to pensions.

There was a point about self-employed people and advisory groups are currently examining the issue. Self-employed people currently pay 4%, which is specifically for contributory pensions and a survivor's or widower's pension. If we extend the process, self-employed people would have to pay the full amount and even slightly more. The cost of the Social Insurance Fund schemes far outweighs contributions made, and that is one of the rebalancing processes we must complete.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Other members have indicated that they have questions.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brendan Ryan asked about Croke Park savings and administration. Most of the savings come from the Croke Park process but most of the salary savings come from retiring staff who are not replaced in many cases. That is a big administration challenge for the Department, with so many schemes and people applying for different schemes.

Brendan Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Another question may have to be directed at the officials. I have been sitting here trying to rationalise the calculation on value for payment. For example, we can take community employment schemes. Numbers have gone down so we might expect, with fixed and variable costs, that value for payment would increase, which it has. The throughput has increased in the back to education allowance. Intuitively, with fixed and variable costs one might expect the value for payment to go down but it has gone up as well.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a function of the family circumstances of the individual. If somebody is going back to education, there may be different numbers of children or a dependent spouse if the person in question is the principal for social welfare purposes. As a consequence, there is a variation depending on family circumstances.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a heading detailing the purpose of the 2012 Department of Social Protection Supplementary Estimate. The section states there are two reasons, including a higher than expected Exchequer subvention to the Social Insurance Fund because the fund's income from PRSI contributions will be less than expected. That means fewer people are at work than anticipated. Does the Minister have that figure?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would come from the live register figures. The live register includes everybody who receives a social insurance payment. Of the 417,000 people, 70,000 to 80,000 people are part-time workers who receive a partial social welfare payment. Others receive the full payment either as an individual or for themselves and their families. I can get the Deputy the detailed breakdown of the end of November figures for the live register. They detail duration on the live register and classify people from different occupations and by gender.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thought the Deputy asked about the number of people employed.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As well as problems with unemployment, there may be a problem with lower wages coming from less overtime and lower bonuses in some jobs. That may well be a factor.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief, although there is much information. We will not get to some of the issues, including appropriations in aid, where some of the payments are substantially different. We are talking about millions of euro and we should have been better able to estimate them. It is not the fault of the Minister but every year the Estimates are given but the figure for this Supplementary Estimate is €655 million. Has there been any work to ensure that next year we will not return here to discuss a Supplementary Estimate of such a substantial amount? I accept there will always be movement in an Estimate.

I welcome the integrated offices, which is progress, and there will be more savings in administration when forms are standardised, etc. This year's saving is small but the more the process is rolled out, the more additional savings will accrue. There are savings in fuel allowance and rent supplement and we have argued about those elements. If the Minister had been aware of the amount of money saved on the fuel allowance, perhaps it could have been extended by a week in the case of those surviving on social welfare instead of being cut by six weeks. The savings amount to €8.5 million for fuel allowance and €12 million for rent allowance. The Estimate was based on reducing rent supplement and the amount of fuel allowance that people would get.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Considering the spending on gas and electricity, which goes to what is broadly the same category of people, expenditure is up significantly because of the reasons outlined by Deputy O'Dea, including an increase in fuel cost that everybody has experienced. It is painful to reduce any social welfare Estimate or payment but there is a major ongoing economic crisis. We have maintained very high and strong levels of social welfare support for significant numbers of people in Ireland, and that is a reason the country has been able to come through, although with much difficulty for individuals, families and communities. It is a great economic stimulus for the Irish economy that we are spending over €20 billion this year - and broadly the same next year - on social protection. I am very conscious that this money is spent in every corner of Ireland and every town and village. There are areas which depend on public employment of various kinds and social welfare; that would often constitute the bulk of spending in a local economy.

It is important that at this time of economic difficulty we have a strong system of social protection to which taxpayers and PRSI payers contribute. We must find the maximum efficiencies and seek to make the spending as targeted as possible to the people who need it most. I am happy that we have in these very difficult times maintained social protection for so many millions of our people.

I hope we will be able to do the same next year. However, we must find savings; we have no choice about this. Owing to the bank guarantee and so forth, we are indebted. I hope we will get some relief in respect of that indebtedness, but it means we are relying on others to supply us with borrowings, to which there is conditionality attached. Obviously, we must also get more people back to work. The Deputy is a critic of JobBridge and Tús. I understand these concerns, but as well as spending, I must use as much of my budget as possible to get people back to work, serving their community or gaining experience such as through the internship programme. There has been very valuable collaboration between Springboard and the internship programme. Individuals who might have lost their jobs following the collapse of the construction sector, for example, are returning to education on various Springboard courses such as those on information technology. Having done this, there is a period of internship and I am pleased that many of them are being sought after for jobs in some of the IT companies. That is a very positive pathway back to work with the support of both the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Social Protection.

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some officials from the Department of Social Protection appeared before the committee during the year when we also invited a group of self-employed persons in the Self Employed Alliance, SEA, to appear before us. They were from the Meath and Dundalk area. KPMG produced a report on social protection. The class S stamp rate is 4% to 5%, but KPMG worked out that 17% would be the stamp rate for self-employed persons. The average person pays at a rate of 14.5%. We should look at what systems are used in other countries for self-employed persons. I thank the Minister and community welfare officers for looking after self-employed persons in certain cases. It is a credit to them.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sometimes it is said self-employed persons do not receive any social welfare support. As the Deputy knows, that is not quite true. There is a much longer time period, but where both individuals in a family, for example, are without income support or where somebody has been working in a singular occupation and becomes unemployed, over a period of time many such individuals come into the social welfare system. Obviously, it is a means-tested payment rather than a benefit that they can automatically claim.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one question. Is the figure €685 million offset in any way in the overall budget for the year by savings or receipts in other Departments?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. Ireland has a social insurance system and its basis is that one pays into it when one is of working age. We are moving to a system under which everybody will pay PRSI on all of their income. We are expanding the PRSI base. However, because there are so many unemployed there are very large claims on the Social Insurance Fund. Second, the country has a demographic bonus which, in many ways, would be the envy of countries such as Germany. We have many families with children and many older people are living longer. From a social insurance or social welfare point of view, we must boost the Social Insurance Fund in order that we can meet the claims arising from that demographic bonus. Many countries in Europe have populations that are shrinking rather than expanding. Despite our economic difficulties, our population is expanding. Pension and retirement payments for older people being such a large proportion of social protection expenditure is one of the reasons it is essential to ensure the contributions to social protection funds, PRSI, are sufficient to fund people's expectations in respect of contributory and non-contributory pensions. In the future, as we will have more retired persons compared to the number of persons of working age, we will have to ensure not only people are covered for the contributory pension but also that they contribute enough for this to happen in order that we can fill the gap.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That completes our consideration of the Supplementary Estimate. I thank the Minister and her officials for attending.