John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We now a have a quorum and the committee is in public session. I remind members, visitors and those in the gallery to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting, as they interfere with the meeting as well as the recording of proceedings.

This meeting has been convened to consider the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 37 on social protection, which was referred by the Dáil to the select committee on 24 November. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and his officials to the meeting. I thank them for the briefing material provided, which has been circulated to the members of the committee. Based on this information, the secretariat has prepared a briefing document, which has been circulated to members and the Department. For convenience, the briefing document shows the details of the underspend and overspend in various subheads, net of the Christmas bonus payments, which accounts for approximately 80% of movement within the Vote. Members may find that a useful summary.

I propose that the following arrangements apply to the debate. The Minister will make a brief address to the committee, after which each of the spokespeople will have an opportunity to make a brief response if they wish. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I remind members that in accordance with Standing Orders, discussion should be confined to the items constituting the Supplementary Estimates. They are as follows: subhead A1 - administration pay; subhead A2 - administration non-pay; subhead A3 - State pension non-contributory; subhead A5 - one-parent family payment; subhead A6 - widow's, widower's and civil partner's pension; subhead A8 - basic supplementary welfare allowance; subhead A9 - pharmacist; subhead A11 - other working age supports; subhead A12 - community employment programme; subheads A14 to A17, inclusive - back to work allowance; subhead A18 - national internship scheme, JobBridge; subhead A19 - back to education allowance; subhead A20 - Gateway; subhead A21 - back to work family dividend; subhead A22 - JobPlus; subhead A23 - wage subsidy scheme; subhead A24 - other employment schemes; subhead A25 - disability allowance; subhead A26 - blind pension; subhead A27 - carer's allowance; subhead A28 - domiciliary care allowance; subhead A29 - carer's support grant; subhead A30 - child benefit; subhead A31 - family income supplement; subhead A32 - back to school clothing and footwear; subhead A34 - other child-related payments; subhead A35 - rent supplement; subhead A36 - mortgage interest supplement; subhead A37 - household benefits package; subhead A39 - fuel allowance; subhead A41 - Office of the Pensions Ombudsman; and subhead A42 - miscellaneous.

I ask members to indicate the subhead they are referring to when they make their contributions. I invite the Minister to make his opening statement.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for allowing me to present the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Social Protection. I am seeking a Supplementary Estimate of €109 million for 2016. The purpose of this additional Estimate is to fund the Christmas bonus, which is being paid to Vote 37 for social assistance recipients this week. Overall, the Christmas bonus is estimated to cost €220 million and, as Deputies will be aware, I am able to provide for an 85% bonus this year, which is up from 75% last year. It is being paid over the course of this week to approximately 1.25 million customers, thereby providing a significant boost for local economies throughout the country.

The cost is broken down into €106 million for Vote 37 recipients and €114 million for Social Insurance Fund recipients, mainly people in receipt of the State contributory pension. The Social Insurance Fund is funding the entire cost of the bonus being paid this week to people on contributory payments, such as the State pension contributory, invalidity pension and so forth. Accordingly, this element of the bonus does not impact in any way on the Supplementary Estimate, as the Social Insurance Fund is in surplus this year. Income from pay-related social insurance, PRSI, receipts during 2016 will result in Social Insurance Fund income of an estimated €9.15 billion. This will be €260 million or 3% ahead of profile for this year and will be €650 million or 7.7% ahead of the position in 2015. This is a very positive development and is clear evidence that the economy generally, and employment in particular, are on an upward trajectory.

Expenditure on the Social Insurance Fund schemes and administration is expected to cost €8.77 billion. This is €104 million or 1.2% ahead of profile, but that is entirely accounted for by the cost of the Christmas bonus of €114 million to Social Insurance Fund customers. Even with the payment of the Christmas bonus to social insurance schemes, the surplus is expected to be approximately €350 million this year. It will be the first surplus in the Social Insurance Fund since 2007, nine years ago. My intention is to keep running surpluses in the coming years because we must be prepared for the next downturn when it comes and for the jobseeker's payments which will follow. Obviously when there is a downturn, inevitably income into the fund goes down and expenditure goes up. We also must prepare long term for the ageing population and the rising cost of pensions.

Overall expenditure on the Department's schemes, services and administration in 2016 is expected to be €19.838 billion. This will be €213 million or 1.1% more than was provided for in the 2016 Revised Estimates. The higher expenditure is due solely to the payment of the Christmas bonus. The live register is expected to average at approximately 304,300 in 2016. This is a reduction of 40,000 on the average for 2015, or 141,000 better than the average for 2011. The estimated cost of paying the Christmas bonus of €30.2 million is being offset by underspends elsewhere in jobseeker's allowance allocation, so no additional allocation is required for jobseekers in the Supplementary Estimate. The improving labour market and the decline in the live register has also seen a decline in demand for employment supports.

The 2016 Supplementary Estimate referred by the Dáil and the briefing provided to committee members list the schemes for which additional sums are being sought, as well as some underspends. We can go through the position of individual schemes as required during the meeting. Members might wish to note that almost all of the expenditure incurred by the Department is demand-led. This demand is driven by demographic trends and economic factors such as developments in the labour market. Estimates of expenditure for any scheme for the following year are published in December as part of the Revised Estimate Volume. The individual Estimates are constructed on a scheme-by-scheme basis, using data on trends in recipient numbers, average payment values and other relevant factors as are available for that portion of the year in which the Estimates are calculated. Trends can, and do, change over the course of the year, resulting in expenditure being higher or lower than was provided for in the original Estimates.

Actual expenditure on most of our schemes will never be precisely on target because of these factors. The extent of any overspend or underspend only becomes fully apparent at the end of the year when the outturn for the year has been confirmed. Thus, for example, we expect a significant overspend on schemes such as the carer's allowance this year. This is primarily due to the continuing rise in the number of applications. In the first half of this year the number of new applications for carer's allowance increased by 19% compared with the same period in the previous year. We are also processing more claims for the scheme. As of the end of October, we had processed almost 26,550 claims so far this year. That compares with 24,190 in all of 2015 and 21,250 in 2014. The rising number of claims every year is part of the reason for the delays in processing the applications and it is also a cost to us.

I hope my statement has given the committee a broad overview of the Department's expenditure in 2016 and the reason for the necessity to seek a Supplementary Estimate.

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

I thank the Minister for his presentation. This Estimate only deals with non-contributory payments as insurance contribution-related payments are dealt with from the Social Insurance Fund and this accounts for just over half of the annual expenditure on social protection. I note that the number in receipt of non-contributory pensions is only 130 over profile, so the big increase in pensioners is obviously in respect of State pensioners. I do not have an objection to the Supplementary Estimate but I have a few ancillary questions for the Minister.

The Minister will recall that representations were made to both him and his predecessor regarding the abolition of the retirement pension, where people are compelled by the terms of their employment to retire at 65 years of age but they must wait a year, and it will shortly be two years, for a pension. In such cases, many of them are obliged to seek jobseeker's allowance. I was informed that an interdepartmental group is examining this issue to see how it can be resolved, and I thank the Department for recognising that there is a problem in this regard. Can the Minister give an update on that? Will the Minister also say what the extra cost would be to the Exchequer in respect of pensions if the pensions had been paid from 1 January rather than from 7 March?

As regards the one-parent family payment, I notice the work-related family dividend is 900 over profile. In other words, 900 fewer people than anticipated availed of the family dividend. What are the implications of that?

I note that the increase for rent supplement is just over €9 million. That reflects the change in the levels introduced by the Government. Does the Minister have a figure for how much was spent on discretionary payments? He will note that his predecessor issued a notification to all local welfare officers that, in certain cases, discretion could be exercised where people did not strictly meet the requirements of the scheme.

The Minister referred to demographic trends and the difficulty of anticipating how many people will qualify, present and so forth. However, some of the figures are quite large, for example, disability allowance and carer's allowance were 5% and 19%, respectively, over what was anticipated. Carer's grant must be paid to 7,580 more people than anticipated and the domiciliary care allowance has to be paid to 12% more people than anticipated. The Minister is seeking an increase of €1.3 million for the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. According to the figures provided, that will benefit 4,140 customers. It shows that even small increases in the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance have a wide impact. It appears to be a very efficient way to target poverty.

The opposite is the case with the farm assist scheme.

It was paid to 800 fewer people than was anticipated. Can the Minister comment on how the changes he is introducing will affect that and give us some idea of what he anticipates this will cost and how many will avail of it next year? I also note there is a €21.5 million underspend on community employment, CE, schemes. The Minister will note a lot of agitation on the ground about the rules surrounding these schemes and the difficulty in qualifying for them, particularly for people on the JobPath scheme who want to transfer to the CE scheme. In view of the underspend the Minister might consider relaxing some of those rules.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know that much of the Supplementary Estimate deals with the Christmas bonus and the 85% allocation this year, which was announced with great fanfare. Many people, however, are disappointed because when the Minister made the announcement the perception was that it was for everyone in receipt of social welfare but many people found out that they had to be in receipt of social welfare for 15 months or more. One lady contacted me who has been receiving illness benefit since 2005, which is certainly a long-standing payment but she was told absolutely not when she inquired about the Christmas bonus. While it was a good news story for the Minister, it would have been better if it had been a 100% restoration. Many people who rely on that payment are very concerned.

The Minister extended the benefits for the self-employed, which was a positive and welcome first step. When I questioned him he said he had not started to engage with the bodies who were expected to provide the services under the extended benefits, opticians and dentists, and that he would initiate that process. Where is that process? I was concerned that it was putting the cart before the horse. We know from previous experience the difficulties that arose when the Minister adopted that strategy in a previous ministerial position.

The underspend on JobBridge is not surprising. We know the reasons for it. There is no replacement scheme. The Minister said one is being worked on. We await that eagerly. There is an underspend of €12 million in the Gateway project. Many local authorities have availed of the scheme. I have criticised it because it is replacing what should be proper, full-time paid positions within local authorities. Does the underspend indicate that the scheme is being wound down? If so, what is the rationale for that? Is there a replacement scheme? Are the participants going to be employed by local authorities?

There is an underspend of €25 million in the CE schemes. We know how difficult it is for people to get on the scheme. Many communities rely heavily on the scheme and that underspend sets off many alarm bells. I am concerned, as are the community groups I work with, and I am sure many other Deputies have the same experience. Can the Minister explain that?

None of the figures for JobPath is contained in the Estimates. I have put a series of questions to the Minister. We have seen privatisation of that area, a substantial body of work has been handed over to a private entity. When I ask about it I am told the figures are commercially sensitive. It is madness that a substantial sum of money is being allocated to Seetec and Turas Nua but we do not know how much. Are the savings in the Estimates on administration and other areas due to the roll out of JobPath and the privatisation of that area? This is making a serious impact. I have spoken to many employees from local employment services across the State and the referrals coming to the local employment services, LES, from the Department are falling. The fear is that because of the privatisation of that essential service, the LES is being wound down. The Minister always bandies figures for official complaints about JobPath but many will not make an official complaint. A person was in contact with me, a qualified journalist, who had been working part time, was then out of work and was referred to JobPath. No disrespect to the young man who dealt with the client but he did not appear to have the necessary skills or qualifications for the job because the curriculum vitae he wrote up was pockmarked with all sorts of spelling and grammatical errors. There are serious widespread problems. It is madness to privatise that critical area when we as elected Members of the Oireachtas cannot see how much is spent.

Only this week I received the number of individuals penalised for not participating for whatever reason. We have not seen the grounds or rationale for that. In Wexford 42 individuals were penalised, 11 in Wicklow and a substantial number in Galway. There are serious problems in JobPath and the Minister has said repeatedly that it is too early to initiate a review of it but the evidence speaks volumes. There are serious problems, from its administration to its impact on the LES across the State and on those who are penalised.

It is having a huge impact on the individuals who are being penalised and we cannot get answers. We do not know how much it is costing. It is time for a comprehensive review of JobPath.

Through a series of parliamentary questions and through publicity, we are aware of the large number of carer's allowance appeals going to the social welfare appeals office. What proportion of applicants are successful, given the Minister's reference to a 19% increase in claims? There are significant problems with the administration of the allowance with the waiting time for appeals being up to 40 weeks.

Since the abolition of the State transition pension, more than 4,000 people aged 65 have been forced to sign on for jobseeker's allowance. This is higher than for any other age cohort. The figure raises concern and sets off many alarm bells. I have made contributions in the House regarding this pension and specific cases where people hit the retirement age of 65 and were then forced to sign on for jobseeker's allowance. The Minister may say serious pressure is not put on them to find a job when they hit that age but once they sign on for jobseeker's allowance, they have to ensure they are available for work and actively seek work. It is a significant concern and I would like him to touch on this.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Supplementary Estimate. The Minister referred to an increase of 19% in claims for carer's allowance compared to last year. Was an analysis conducted on the rationale behind such an increase? Is it down to the demographics and the ageing population? Has an effort been made to reduce approval waiting times for the allowance? Have additional staff been transferred from other sections within the Department to the carer's allowance section? If not, would it be considered, particularly as the demand for other schemes has lessened given the welcome reduction in the live register?

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending and for the detailed information we were afforded prior to the meeting, which was helpful. I welcome the continued support for carers, lone parents and people with disabilities. The increase in the disregard for the one-parent family payment from €90 to €110 is part of a package of measures along with the winter package from the Department of Health for home care, etc. I welcome that we are heading in the right direction. When we consider the live register figures for 2011 which were mentioned earlier, none of us would have thought we would be where we are today even though we still have a long way to go. The dramatic reduction in unemployment to just over 7% is a monumental improvement. I did not hear any fanfare around the budget but perhaps I was not listening properly. However, I heard about careful, prudent measures to support people who have been extremely vulnerable over the past number of years. A total of 800,000 people have been identified and helped in a small way while 1.2 million will benefit from the increase in the Christmas bonus to 85% this year. I very much welcome that and I am more positive than others.

The Minister could not enter negotiations on dental, optical or hearing benefits because he had to wait for the Social Welfare Bill to pass. I raised questions about a number of issues prior to the meeting and they were answered quickly. I appreciate the response form the Department. I welcome the Supplementary Estimate.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Carey regarding carers and I share his concern. There are 2,500 more carers than had been anticipated. Is that because of demographics? Has there been a change? That affects future planning and so forth. Will the Minister give us an overview of what is going on in that regard?

A number of members referred to community employment. There are 1,200 fewer people on the scheme than anticipated. Concerns about the operation of the scheme and the difficulties associated with the scheme have been expressed by administrators of projects working with those in drug rehabilitation programmes. A number of them are ring-fenced but they are expressing difficulties with the operation of the scheme and the level of checks and balances in light of the cohort they are working with. I do not know whether the Minister can respond on this but it is concerning that 1,200 fewer people a week are on the scheme than had been anticipated.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I identify with Deputy Bailey regarding the fanfare. I have not been involved in a fanfare; I have always been clear that the priority of this budget was to be prudent. It was not a giveaway budget either in terms of welfare increases or tax cuts. It was a prudent budget designed to reduce the deficit and make sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated. Any changes will be modest. On previous occasions, when the Christmas bonus was paid, there were press briefings, photo calls and so on. I have not done any of that. I do not wish to criticise my predecessor but she had a big photo call and all the rest of it. I deliberately decided not to do any of that for obvious reasons. I do not wish to make out that this is a giveaway; it is nothing of the sort.

The issue of people retiring aged 65 and not receiving the State pension until they are 66 is taxing my mind at the moment. Deputy O'Dea mentioned it and he will be interested to know that while I was walking around the milk market in Limerick the other day, I met somebody who was required to retire at 65 but did not want to. She still has lots to offer but she is on the jobseeker's allowance until she receives her pension. She does not particularly want her pension at 66. She is a young 65 and still wants to work. Why should she not? We need to do something about this. It should have been joined up at the time but it was not. That was a mistake made by the previous Government, of which I was a member. When the State pension age was increased, we should have introduced the other measures at the same time but that was not done. It is important though to remember that there is no compulsory retirement age in Ireland. Nobody is required to retire at 65 and, therefore, they are not forced to sign on. They can take a new job. Many people in their 70s are working. It is not that anyone is forced to sign on or is required by law to retire but many people, particularly public servants, are required to retire at 65 under the terms of their contracts. An interdepartmental group looked into this.

It reported before the summer but it did not come up with enough. It was one of these interdepartmental groups where the report indicated what we needed to consider, whereas I would usually think a group would come up with solutions. I have a particular interest in this, as does the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, who has responsibility for older people. I have written to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Donohoe, about this, particularly with regard to public servants. When it comes to our own staff, surely we should be in a position to say that if they do not want to retire at 65, they can wait until they are 66 or 67. In areas like the health service it would be useful as it is quite hard to replace consultants and others who retire at 65 and before they want to.

I had a very interesting meeting with representatives of the Unite trade union during the week who told me about the law in Northern Ireland. It might not be true but I am checking it; this is where I will say something good about Northern Ireland for a change. Apparently the law in Northern Ireland means that if somebody is required to retire by a contract before the state retirement age, that person must be informed six months in advance and the onus is on the employer to prove why that person must retire at 65 rather than the state retirement age of 66 or 67. That approach might provide a solution for us. I need to check that and it might be something we could do in the spring Bill. As far as I am concerned we need to increase the State pension age. In the 1970s, when many of us here were born, the State pension age was 70 and people lived until they were 72 or 73. The State pension age is now 66 and people live until their 80s. One does not need a masters degree in maths to understand why we have a problem funding pensions. We need to raise the State retirement age but we also need to facilitate people in working longer, particularly if they want to. I hope we can sort that out in the first half of next year.

If we brought payment of the pension increase forward to 1 January, the additional cost would have been €23 million and for all payments it would have been closer to €70 million. The rent supplement increase is €9 million and we will come back with the figures for the discretionary payments element. We know that since rent supplement limits were increased, the number of discretionary payments required fell off dramatically, although they are starting to tick up again. The reason the increase is not as big as one might think is because of the transfer to the housing assistance payment, HAP. When we move from rent supplement to HAP, the budget moves from our Department to the Department of Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government. There are also fewer people on rent supplement because more people are back working.

Deputy Carey raised disability and carers' payments, particularly the delays in processing carers' payments. That has improved substantially, coming down from approximately 19 weeks to approximately 13 or 14 weeks now. We need to keep bringing that down. I have been to Longford, where staff are based, and met them. Additional staff are being provided but it is quite a specialised area so those staff will need to be trained for a while. The longer they are working there, the more quickly they will make decisions. It is something we are working on. There was a big increase in the spending for the carer support grant because we publicised the fact that one does not need to be in receipt of carer's allowance to get the carer support grant. Many people did not know that and thought if they did not qualify for the carer's allowance, they could not get the carer support grant. They can and we publicised that fact a bit this year, getting a flood of additional applications to Longford, which was good.

We are wondering about the increase in the number of people on disability and carer payments and we are trying to examine it in more detail. Demographics is a major factor and there are more people and particularly older people in the country. If there are more people and older people, there will be more people with disabilities and who need care. It is partly about demographics but it is not all about them. We are a bit concerned that there may be a drift in people from the jobseeker's allowance to carer's or disability allowance. I would come across that in my constituency work. There are people on jobseeker's allowance who probably should be on disability allowance because they are unable to work, which is fine, but there are people who certainly come into my office who are under pressure to take up employment. I am surprised when they say to my face "I am thinking of going on the sick, what do you reckon?" We believe there is a drift of people who are benefit shopping and moving from a payment with conditionality and activation attached to one that does not. We have that concern but we do not yet have figures to back it up. We must be very much aware of that.

The outturn in the farm assist programme this year was €79 million and the estimated expenditure next year is €82.8 million. These are guesses, or intelligent estimates, as Deputies know the way in which farm incomes work. They are very dependent on the price of milk or beef. Given that we are fully reversing the cuts made in the past couple of years, the number of families benefitting might increase from approximately 8,000 to 10,000. We should bear in mind that any family, even those currently in receipt of it, will get more. This will be affected by the rural social scheme, RSS, as there are 500 more spaces on that. Those who move from farm assist to RSS come off one budget and on to another despite being the same people.

There is an underspend on community employment, CE, this year. Many people have speculated on this, as we have seen today, but the main reason is obvious. There are half as many unemployed as there were four years ago. Unemployment has gone down from 15% to 7.5% and in that time, the number of schemes has increased by over 50%. There used to be a certain number of people applying for a certain number of schemes but now we have fewer people applying to more schemes. The overriding reason there are fewer people on the schemes is that there are half as many people unemployed as there have been. The number of schemes increased significantly during the recession but we have not pared them back all that much. I know many CE supervisors around the country are blaming it on JobPath but that bothers me because it fundamentally misunderstands what JobPath does. It is not another scheme, like CE, Tús, or Gateway. JobPath is the process of somebody being worked with intensively for a year, essentially being recruited into employment. If somebody goes on CE or Tús, he or she is still a cost to the Exchequer. Somebody who gets a job through JobPath moves from being somebody dependent on a State payment to somebody who is not receiving a State payment and is working and paying tax. One can think of the benefit for the individual and society. If after a year that person does not get a job, once again he or she becomes eligible for CE and Tús. I get really bothered when I get letters from CE supervisors and others suggesting that in some way, JobPath is competing with them or taking their people. That is akin to saying a person has a job in a factory or a restaurant and cannot be kept on welfare. It is a totally wrong approach and I get worried about CE supervisors who think that way and who see real and gainful employment paid for by someone else, with taxes being paid into the system, as something that is in competition with them.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many of the jobs that people are getting with that are not sustainable or long-term. They are low-paid jobs in many cases that JobPath offers. They are not being offered sometimes. People are being told to go to X number of interviews for very low-paid employment. Some are barely on the minimum wage.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the Deputy's opinion.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not my opinion.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the opinion of many individuals coming through my office door and those of many of my colleagues across the State. There are many examples. These are low-paid employment positions.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can never engage, unfortunately, with Deputy Brady interrupting me. It is something I have-----

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important to put the facts on the table.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is. We can have a conversation or debate without always having to interrupt people. It is just basic manners. Opinion is not fact. If somebody works a 40-hour week on the minimum wage in Ireland, it is almost €400 per week and the CE programme pays less than €200. Somebody on the minimum wage in Ireland working 30 hours per week is better off than somebody on CE so why would we want to lock somebody on a scheme rather than allow him or her get a minimum wage job? That job is better paid than any scheme we have to offer.

The Deputy also mentioned privatisation.

Seetec is a for-profit company. Turas Nua is generally not-for-profit but many community employment, CE, sponsors and Tús sponsors are also private entities, and some of them are companies too. It is not unprecedented, therefore, to have services outsourced to private providers.

Something I do intend to do, and I would hope people accept that this is the way forward because I acknowledge that some CE schemes and many CE supervisors are having trouble filling their positions, is to relax the rules in January to widen the pool of people eligible for CE. Widening the pool will mean that the people schemes have to choose from will be a harder to reach group of people who need some more support and work. Some CE schemes and CE supervisors will be happy with that because they are going back to their original effort, namely, social inclusion as well as employment activation, which is helping people who really need help and have difficulty holding down a job. Others would prefer to be able to pick from a wider bunch of easier to work with people, but that is not where we should be, and now that we are back in a situation where we are approaching low unemployment, CE schemes should be more for people who cannot get minimum wage jobs or any job. That is why I intend to relax those rules in the new year to widen the pool of people who can access CE and Tús but not to prevent them from getting gainful employment, even if it is a minimum wage job.

On the back to work family dividend, it is a new scheme. It is difficult to estimate what the cost of it will be but we can give the Deputy more information on that if he wishes.

On the Christmas bonus, Christmas bonuses were only ever paid to long-term payment recipients. It was always the case that they have to be on long-term payment to avail of the Christmas bonus. It was never paid to people on illness benefit. Somebody should not be on illness benefit since 2005. I do not want to comment on an individual case but if the Deputy gives us the details, we will look into it. It is supposed to be a short-term payment so somebody who is on it for that length of time should be on disability or invalidity pension, in which case they would receive the bonus.

On the opticians and the dentists, I had a very good meeting with the dentists last week and we are now in the position where we are trying to determine how it will work, but I am more confident than I might have been a week or two ago that we will be able to meet the March and October deadlines. That meeting went well. They have their requests, but that engagement will happen now at official level. I will be speaking at one of their conferences in the new year and I would hope we will have that done within the timeframe for which we budgeted.

On Gateway, there is a significant underspend on Gateway. That is down to less interest from local authorities. The scheme is still in place. Many local authorities are not as interested in it as they were in the past. Sometimes that is because they are taking on people. My local authority, Fingal, hired some people who were in Gateway, which was welcome. In some cases, however, unions have withdrawn co-operation with Gateway, and for that reason local authorities are less interested. The programme remains in place but we are considering winding it down. Like JobBridge, it was a scheme for its time and there is less need for it now than would have been the case in the past. We are considering the possibility of having a local authority arm and bringing it in under Tús rather than having a separate scheme, but a definite decision on that has not yet been made.

On the penalties, I reiterate that the only body that can impose penalty rates on anyone is the Department of Social Protection. JobPath, Seetec, Turas Nua, local employment services and any of the rest of them cannot impose penalty rates. That can only be done by the Department deciding officer. Someone is less likely to have a penalty rate imposed on them if they are on JobPath than on Intreo, which is interesting. People working with our case officers in Intreo are more likely to have a penalty rate imposed on them than those who are referred to JobPath, which is a point worth making.

So far in 2016, we reckon approximately 10,000 people will have had a penalty rate imposed on them at some point so we are talking about only 2% or 3% of people. To be frank, in the real world there are 2% or 3% of people who do not engage and what do we do about that? Should we tell them it is fine not to engage, that they do not have to turn up for interviews or training or do anything, that we do not care and that they should just keep taking the money? There are 1% or 2% of people who will have penalty rates imposed on them for not participating and engaging, and we will continue to do that.

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

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this, and I welcome the Minister's announcement that he intends to relax the rules relating to community employment, but my experience of JobPath has been that if people have been unemployed and in receipt of jobseeker's allowance for a certain period of time, that is sufficient to qualify for the JobPath scheme. However, they have come to me and said they are not offered employment. In some cases they are offered jobs that are so far away from where they live, they would be at a net loss if they took them. Generally, however, many of them have not been offered employment and when a CE scheme comes up in an area for which they would be very suitable, they find that the cannot qualify for it because they are on JobPath. Obviously, they would be better off on the CE scheme than on jobseeker's allowance and they would be doing something useful. They would be working. That is the problem quite a few people are presenting to me.

I take the Minister's point that the JobPath companies do not impose penalties but the people I am dealing with, and perhaps I am unique in this, are terrorised by JobPath. They have had some very bad experiences with JobPath. I do not know if other people have had this experience but when people complain to me, they tell me not to use their name because the JobPath people will give a very bad report on them to the Department of Social Protection and they will be penalised.

The Minister stated during the last Question Time in the Dáil that a customer satisfaction survey was being done among customers of JobPath. How is that progressing?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister touched on discussions with dentists on extending the benefits but did not mention opticians. Have those discussions been initiated?

On the Gateway scheme, the Minister said it was a scheme for its time, that it may be time to replace it and that he was considering the possibility of introducing a sort of Tús scheme for local authorities. There is work to be done by local authorities but the proper way to do it is by increasing the number of staff within local authorities because much of the work that was being carried out by participants on Gateway was previously carried out by full-time paid employees of local authorities. Rather than putting in place another scheme like Tús to replace Gateway, the Minister should start to employ more staff within local authorities. The work needs to be done. People need proper paid employment. Surely that is the way to go about this rather than putting in place another low-cost cheap labour initiative. That is not the route to take.

The Minister referred to CE schemes. I do not want to repeat everything that was said earlier but there are major concerns about those, particularly in terms of people on JobPath not being able to take up CE schemes. The Minister spoke about relaxing the rules to increase the pool of people. I would like a briefing note from the Minister in the coming week laying out exactly what he means and the rules that will be relaxed. That is critical, particularly for people who are locked into JobPath. I do not want to put individual cases to the Minister here but one man who came to me did not know how to turn on a computer yet he has to go into the JobPath office every week and is put sitting in front of a computer that he does not even know how to turn on.

I do not see what benefits are in place for such an individual. Many people must travel long distances at a huge cost on a weekly basis to carry out pointless tasks that do not improve their chances of employment. There are no travel allowances for such individuals. There are huge problems with JobPath and community employment schemes. I would like the Minister to brief us on the matter.

I wish to make a final point about the huge problems with pensions and the State transition pension. The Minister may be aware that I have tabled a Private Members' motion for next week on the gender inequality relating to pensions and the difficulties that 65 year olds face. We need a broader discussion on pensions and I hope my Private Members' motion will act as the starting point in that regard. I look forward to debating this complex issue. I view the matter in simple terms: forcing 65 year olds on to the jobseeker's scheme is unsustainable.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister's comments and his intention to relax the rules relating to CE and broaden the pool of people who are eligible to participate. Is he interested in receiving proposals on how to relax the criteria attaching to the scheme? I suggest that this committee and political parties should make proposals. Would he welcome such proposals?

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to clarify a matter. I understand that there have been 62,000 referrals to JobPath and that less than 1%, 119, of these gave rise to complaints. The majority of those cases have now been resolved. If somebody wants to complain, he or she will pursue the matter. Deputy O'Dea has said that people have complaints but that they are afraid to bring them further. If I complain, it is because I want to bring a matter further. JobPath provides confidence-building and motivation coaching and identifies a person's talents. This is good because an individual may not have explored the right job opportunities. JobPath is in every county and provides a service to people whose confidence has been shaken in the past couple of years.

Deputy Brady mentioned gender equality in respect of pensions. I am all in favour of gender equality. What if it is the father who stays at home and cares for a child? Where is the gender equality for such couples in terms of pension averages?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gender equality works both ways.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not being critical. We must explore both sides of the argument.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot be one-sided but that is a whole other debate in which we will engage.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of the issues have strayed a little from the Vote and into the area of policy and whatever.

Denise Mitchell (Dublin Bay North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to comment on the 19% increase in the number of applications for carer's allowance. How many of those applications have been successful?

I have a question on the companies that won the contract to provide the JobPath programme. Does the Minister envisage that we will learn how much the contract has cost the State?

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Some of these issues have strayed from the subject matter of the Vote. The Minister has said that the community employment scheme will be extended and its rules relaxed. I ask him to circulate the committee with the details if he does not have them with him. As he will be aware, the committee will deal with the general issue of pensions over a period.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Mitchell asked how many applications for carer's allowance have been successful. My staff will check that and I shall supply the answer to her at the end of this session. The rising cost indicates that the number of successful applicants has increased.

To date, 145 complaints have been made to the Department about JobPath. That is out of 60,000 referrals. It is important to point out that Seetec and Turas Nua Limited, the JobPath providers, are paid by results. They only get paid if a person gets a job and stays in the job. It would be foolish of them to put people in unsustainable employment. If people do not stay in jobs, then the companies will not be paid.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is deemed long-term employment in the context of JobPath?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a different amount and depends on how long a person stays in a job. The first payment is 13 weeks and after that it is 26 weeks. The companies do not get paid if people only hold down jobs for a few weeks. The companies are paid more depending on how long people remain in jobs. They would be pretty foolish to put people into jobs in which they will not last three months because that would mean that they - the companies - would not be paid.

In terms of the Estimate, subhead A2 refers to agency services and there is a €14 million underspend. As much as €12 million of the €14 million accounts for money that we did not pay for JobPath because we must verify the results before we get them. A customer survey is now under way but I have no updates other than what I said last week. I ask members to bear in mind that if the customer survey results are unfavourable, then the JobPath scheme will be docked. If the companies providing JobPath do not resolve the issues, they could potentially lose their contracts. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the customer survey.

Talks have been initiated with the opticians. They have particular asks. The talks are going well and I am confident that we can get everything over the line.

In terms of the Gateway programme and whether local authorities should increase staff, I am of the view that they should. Most local authorities are now in a better position financially. They are also in a position to vary the property tax and do plenty of other things should they wish to do so. I agree with Deputy Brady that local authorities should take on more staff. I encourage Sinn Féin councillors to-----

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need additional money to facilitate that.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----adopt budgets that allow managers to hire more outdoor staff so that people can have the good, pensionable, well-paid and unionised jobs to which the Deputy referred. I particularly encourage Sinn Féin to do this in Dublin city.

On Gateway and supplies to any scheme, the initiative often gives somebody something to do every day and a bit of work experience. One will have individuals who might apply for an outdoor job as a general operative with a local authority but he or she will not succeed because he or she has no experience. The Gateway scheme will give a person the experience necessary to subsequently get the job. There is always a role for these programmes.

I have not decided exactly which rules to relax and I am totally open to receiving submissions and suggestions from individuals or committee members. I ask everyone to bear in mind a valid point made by Deputy Brady to the effect that people can get locked into JobPath for 12 months. I advise that people can get locked into a CE scheme for three, six or ten years. I want to relax the rules in a way that will give people who do not currently have the opportunity to participate in CE or on other schemes the opportunity to do so. I do not want to relax the rules in such a way that allows people to get locked in, not just for 12 months but for six and ten years. In the past people got stuck on these schemes and ended up on a never ending cycle of welfare schemes. There is an exception. Part of any reform should recognise the fact that there is a group of people in society who would struggle to hold down a job for lots of different reasons. We should be honest about that and treat them differently. I do not want people locked into schemes. One meets people all the time who genuinely believe that they can never move on from schemes and that they are the only option for them. That is not true. It is important that we do not allow people to be institutionalised on a programme or a scheme because that would not be in their best interests. They sometimes suit the organisation because they become very experienced and good at what they do but it is not the right thing for them.

With regard to the Deputy's question about the carers' claims, we do not have that information to hand but we will give the Deputy that figure when we have it.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am about to conclude. Deputy Brady, very briefly.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding the customer survey on JobPath, will the Minister circulate the method by which that survey is being carried out? The detail of it might be useful.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can do that.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes consideration of the Supplementary Estimate for Vote 37 - Social Protection for the year ending 31 December 2016. I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today's meeting. The joint committee will meet in two weeks' time.