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

We move to the Committee Stage of the Bill and will go through it in the normal manner as laid out in the sections.

Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 have been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 have been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 have been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendment No. 8 has been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendment No. 9 in the name of Deputy O'Dea is in order but the Deputy is not present.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 have been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 12 to 18, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendment No. 19 has been ruled out of order.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 20 to 29, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everything is moving very quickly and I wonder where the rest of the committee is. In respect of the payments that are coming in March-----

Chairman:

I propose that we suspend due to the votes in the Dáil.

Chairman:

I must clarify to committee members that we had to start the meeting because it would have fallen if it did not start within the prescribed time. We have looked through amendments Nos. 1 to 29, inclusive, and all, with the exception of amendment No. 9, were ruled out of order. I will afford Deputy O'Dea an opportunity to refer to amendment No. 9. I will then come back to Deputy Joan Collins.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the permission of the Chairman, as unfortunately there was no way to avoid being in the Chamber for the vote, I do not want to get into a debate with the Minister, and I appreciate section 12 has been dealt with, I want to raise an issue on section 12 such that it can be raised on Report Stage. If I could speak very briefly I would appreciate it.

Chairman:

The Deputy can raise it briefly, but I will not open up debate on the section because it has been dealt with. The Deputy can raise it on Report Stage.

Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment was ruled out of order but I will speak on the section. The proposal is that income from the rent a room scheme could be seen as an income disregard for the one-parent family payment. The Minister and I have been back and forth on this already. It fits with the rent a room scheme, for which there is a heavy tax incentive. It fits with the crisis in student accommodation throughout the country and low-income households using the one asset they have to get a bit of additional income. As things stand with any money that gets brought in from a household, almost exactly the same amount of money gets taken away from welfare payments, so there is no incentive whatsoever to do it. I wanted to raise this in order that I can discuss it on Report Stage and I thank the Chairman.

Chairman:

We are not opening debate on the section as it has been dealt with. To be fair to the Deputy, in case he is interested, the amendment was ruled out of order because there was a potential charge on Revenue. Deputy Collins wishes to speak. Is she going forwards or backwards?

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to speak on the paragraph.

Chairman:

The same one?

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, section 13, which we were on.

Chairman:

We will come to the debate on section 13 in one second. I will allow Deputy O'Dea speak on amendment No. 9.

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

I apologise to the committee for my absence. I was in the Dáil Chamber. I will not elaborate on the amendment in view of the fact the section has already been dealt with. I tabled the amendment because the working family payment was the Government's big idea. We were told a lot of work was being done on it. It was going to replace the family income supplement, which was heavily criticised in the Fine Gael election manifesto for some good reasons. We now find that what has happened is the family income supplement has been reintroduced but has just been renamed the working family payment. The Minister recognised in the course of her Second Stage contribution the family income supplement as it stands, or the working family payment if we want to call it that now, needs to be altered because there are obvious poverty traps. It could be altered in a number of ways which, I would argue, would benefit the Exchequer rather than the Exchequer losing. The Minister has indicated she will do some work on this anyway. The purpose of the amendment was for the Minister to come back here with her proposals within the next three months in order that we can discuss them to see how they achieve the objective she no doubt desires for them.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about something we cannot talk about because it is gone, but I do not have a problem coming back. Three months is not a reasonable amount of time to have let the changes we are making now elapse to see what impact they will have. Most of the amendments tabled today are about compiling reports on one thing or another, and all they would do is make work for us, whereas the work we are doing on the working family payment is something I want to work on continuously with the Oireachtas joint committee. If and when we do make changes, I would like to be able to bring them back, suggest them and talk about them, and if committee members have enhancements to make to those changes, then let us work on them together. The plan is to move what was the family income supplement into a new working family payment which gives more flexibility and picks away at the poverty traps identified by the Deputy to ensure they do not stay in situ. I am very willing to come back to the committee during various stages, whenever the committee invites me or whenever I have something new to talk about, and go through it with the members.

Chairman:

We are on section 13. We went through each of the amendments individually and they were all out of order. I call Deputy Collins to speak on section 13.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak on this to try to slow down the process a little bit. When does the Minister think she will revert back to payments on 1 January? Will it be 2019 or 2020? Will the pattern of the future be that payments will be made a quarter of the way through the year? From when it first started in 2015, people have fallen behind by three months. When will that be recouped?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a question of how long is a piece of string. I cannot give a definitive answer because it entirely depends on the recovery of the economy. As there is more money to spend and more money is given to me, we will have more money to do the things that we want to do. As I said yesterday, if all we were doing this year was giving a €5 increase and that was it, the likelihood is it could have started much earlier in the year, but because there were a variety of other issues that we needed to address this year, such as lone parent income disregards and the fuel allowance, I could not justify it. This is why we tried to give as much as possible as early as possible to everybody. As the economy recovers, I hope I will get more money, assuming I am still here, and if we get more money we will be able to pay people earlier. The Deputy is right that it should be 1 January. That is what it should be if things were perfect. The economy is only recovering and we will get there.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 30, 38, 42 and 44 are related and may be discussed together.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:"Report on the pension bands and rates

17.The Minister shall, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay before the Dáil a full report regarding the impact of "the 2012 Pension anomaly" on recipients and re-instating the pre 2012 bands and rates to all those affected by the "anomaly" in the next Budget.".

I have taken on board the fact the Minister has mentioned and committed to going to the Cabinet committee on the report she has to date.

I want to ensure there is a fall-back position whereby if it does not happen before December or January, the report should be brought before us within three months of the Bill being passed. This is to secure a proper debate on the issue. The original amendment I submitted sought an intent to reinstate at the latest in the next budget. Hopefully that would be earlier if possible. It is a huge issue.

Last night approximately 60 women, and men, turned up outside Leinster House to highlight the issue. It is really good to see people getting organised in this regard. I have pulled out material by Michael Clifford from 2014 when it was only individuals who were coming forward and approaching Deputies to make representations for them. We would then contact all the different groupings and the Minister on their behalf. Now that more people have been hit - the figure is approximately 42,000 - it has become more of an issue. People are demanding that this issue be addressed because they feel very discriminated against. That was the feeling outside Leinster House last night.

The Minister stated earlier that the only motions on the agenda were for three-monthly reports but this report is already going through the process. We are not asking for another report, it is just about ensuring that the report comes through within three months and is not delayed.

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

I have tabled a similar amendment No. 38, which looks for the report to be published and presented to us within a two-month timeframe in order that the changes can be made as soon as possible. We have given the issue extensive discussion and debate at this committee and in the Dáil Chamber. We know the impact this measure is having on 42,000 older people. In fairness to the Minister, she has listened and has said she is prepared to act on it. I do not question her sincerity in that regard. I have a fear, however. There are other reports out there and we have been promised changes on many other issues that unfortunately get held up and delayed elsewhere. This is why it is essential that an amendment be made with a timeframe to hold the Government to account to produce this report. Extensive work has gone in to publishing it and in going through all the data, including paper and computerised records. We need to see that report. The measure has had an impact across the board for 42,000 older citizens and their entitlements to their contributory pension. We know it has discriminated more against older women. It needs to be changed. This is where I disagree; we need the report and I do not believe we can wait until next years' budget. Having listened to what has been said I hope it can be implemented sooner than that.

My amendment has left out a timeframe, other than it needs to be implemented straight away, but we need the report within a two-month timeframe. The work has been done on it and we need to see the report but more importantly, we need the changes brought in. There have been conflicting messages from the Government about this. I touched on this at a previous committee meeting. The Taoiseach is saying one thing about moving towards addressing the issue through total contributions in 2021 but the Minister is saying something completely different. We need the report. I hope the difference in opinion - real or otherwise - at Government level will not hold back the publication of the report. It is essential because if there are conflicting thoughts on the issue at Government level, an amendment such as this built into the Social Welfare Bill will hold the Government to producing the report. Much hope has built up over the last number of months. The figure of 42,000 people has grown on a yearly basis. This time last year it was 35,000 or 36,000 older citizens ad now it is up to 42,000. We have not even touched on the issue of retrospective payment. The longer this anomaly is left to go on, the more older citizens will be punished because of what I describe as the grotesque changes that were made in 2012 to the changes to the rates and bands. I will push amendment No. 38 to hold the Government to account to produce this report and, more importantly, to account for what actions will be taken to reverse the 2012 changes.

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

I went out last night to meet the women to whom Deputy Joan Collins referred. It was a very cold night and many of the people outside were in their 60s and 70s. Obviously, many of them feel very strongly about this. I communicated to them - in so far as I was able to - what the Minister had actually said, and they were quite heartened by that. As Deputy Brady has said, they expect something to happen and they expect it to happen before next years' budget. This is an injustice and every day this injustice continues, it becomes an even greater injustice. The figure of 42,000 has been mentioned. More than likely, according to the figures, it will be 52,000 next year. It is not just about the 52,000 people who are directly affected. A lot of people who are coming up to pension age are fearful that they will not get the full pension because of the averaging rule. An awful lot of people will potentially be affected by this. Will the Minister please run through the timeline again for what she proposes and within what period?

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

The Minister came to the committee last week and outlined her plans clearly. It was really good that she did this because we needed to clear up issues that had been in the public domain through the media. I agree with Deputy O'Dea about needing more clarity and perhaps the Minister will outline the timeline as it relates to this issue. It is an injustice that needs to be addressed. We need to have a proper roadmap going forward to deal with the issue.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will clarify again what I said last night and what I said at the committee last week. First, it is not a Government report. It is a Department paper with resolutions to fix the anomaly. That will be going to the next Cabinet sub-committee for discussion with the other people on that economics committee. If it is agreed there, which I have no doubt it will be, it will then go to the Cabinet. The timeline is that it will go to the next Cabinet sub-committee and if that takes place before Christmas it will be then and if it does not happen before Christmas it will be straight afterwards. As soon as that Cabinet sub-committee meeting has been held, I will bring it to the very next Cabinet meeting. I cannot put a timeline on that because I do not control the Cabinet sub-committees, except to say they happen exceptionally regularly. The Cabinet happens every week and the Cabinet sub-committee meetings are held at least once per month. Without having to put down an amendment, I could probably commit to it definitely going to the next Cabinet sub-committee meeting and once it has been discussed there, it will go to Cabinet. I must put in a caveat that to reaffirm what I have said all along, in order to not give false hope that we are discussing a resolution to the issue in this Bill - we are not. To fix this issue is going to cost new money that does not exist in this Bill. The resolution will come from the Cabinet sub-committee and the Cabinet decision but it will have to be with regard to new money.

Chairman:

I thank the Minister. There are a number of brief supplementary questions from Deputies O'Dea and Collins.

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

If the Cabinet sub-committee agrees the report, can it be published at that stage?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not sure. As new money is involved, I believe the memorandum will then have to go to the Cabinet. I do not think I could publish it before then. It would only be a number of days. There cannot be any more than seven days between those meetings.

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

Can the report be published after the Cabinet meeting?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Immediately. I hope I will be on the plinth at 1 p.m. that day telling the Deputy that I got the money and that we are fixing the issue.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has said that there is no doubt that the Cabinet sub-committee will accept the report. As we do not know what is in the report, we do not know what the sub-committee is accepting. What if the Cabinet sub-committee does not accept the report? This is a danger. It is not 100% definite. The Minister is not stating she knows the paper or the resolution will be accepted.

I do not mind which amendment we agree to propose. I am prepared to consider with other members whether the period should be two months or three months. It is very important we do not let this slip. People are still very cautious and suspicious of the process of Government. It is a blatant injustice. If we do not get it sorted out in the next period of time, it will not be good for people. Why is the Minister in no doubt that the Cabinet sub-committee will accept the report, that it will go to Cabinet and that the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, will say the Government will pay out?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a report that will be brought to Cabinet; it is a paper.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a resolution.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not a report. We need to trawl through the more than 42,000 people to find out exactly where they were on the scale, how much money it will cost and what their circumstances were. The paper will set out exactly what the problem is and the preferred way or ways to fix it and how much it will cost. The reason I am confident it will be accepted is because everybody has said they want to fix this. Everybody also recognises that it depends on how much it will cost. The worst-case scenario is that it will be fixed in next year's budget. If it does not cost as much as we think it will cost, it might happen sooner. Nobody will say that is not the way to do it. The discussion will be on where we will find the money. The worst-case scenario is it will be the first thing on the list next October, November or December when people sit down to talk about budgets for next year, whoever happens to be in the hot seat. That is the worst-case scenario. There has been no indication that people will reject my proposals on how to fix this. Who will pay for it is the issue that needs to be discussed.

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

I hear what the Minister is saying. The simplest way to address it is to reverse the 2012 changes. In a recent reply to a parliamentary question, the Minister said to reverse the changes would cost about €70 million. We know that much.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not the simplest way because it would cause me many other problems. I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy. If we had done that, it would cause many other problems. It would have fixed one anomaly but created a whole load of other anomalies. I am blue in the face saying this. Our fundamental aim, apart from fixing this, was to make sure we did not cause other problems for other people.

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

I hear that. The Minister and her predecessor, the Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, said there are always winners and losers. I do not want the result to be that some people benefit by the reversal of the 2012 changes and others are losers. It is a situation I do not want to arise and I do not want to be back here next year, on foot of new changes that have been made, discussing the losers, to use such terminology. The Minister said that hopefully it will happen but it is not rock solid. While the issue is a priority for everyone sitting around this table and for many Members of the Dáil, I am not sure if it is a priority for Government. It is important to have a timeframe built in so that it is not allowed to slip and does not fall down the pecking order of priorities if another emergency crops up in Government. The 42,000 figure is growing month by month. Putting a timeframe on it will show the level of importance the committee gives to the impact it is having on the 42,000 people who are directly impacted and their families. It is essential that there is a timeframe. It would be absolutely brilliant if the report and the Minister's recommendations could be delivered before that but hopefully we will not have to deal with a situation in which there are winners and losers again.

Chairman:

Does the Minister want to conclude on the amendment?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hear what members of the committee are saying. The timeline has already been laid down. I have given a commitment that the paper with its resolutions and suggestions will go to the next Cabinet sub-committee meeting whenever that is in the next number of weeks. It will immediately go to Cabinet after that. If the Deputy wants to table and amendment proposing that I publish the paper once it goes to Cabinet, I am quite happy to accept it because it is what I will do anyway. I am in the hands of the Chairman.

Chairman:

Such an amendment has not been tabled but an amendment proposing that the Minister do that immediately after it has gone to Cabinet could be tabled on Report Stage because it is a follow-on to the items the Minister has been discussing. It is up to the members. If the Minister is making the commitment to do it within that timeframe, which is sooner than the three months proposed in these amendments, perhaps we should consider drafting such an amendment for Report Stage. It is up to the members. The timeframe should be decided by the meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee and Cabinet to discuss it rather than members deciding on a particular number of months.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is next Tuesday or Wednesday.

Chairman:

They are my thoughts, having listened to the Minister. The Minister is saying her timeframe is the next meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee followed by the Cabinet meeting after that.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why do I not come back to the committee on Report Stage?

Chairman:

Addressing it on Report Stage would be better than kicking it down the road for three months.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why do I not come back to the committee before Report Stage to tell it exactly the date of the next Cabinet sub-committee meeting? That might give assurances to people.

Chairman:

It would be a shorter timeframe than the proposed amendments, which is more positive. Are members happy with that?

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

That is the most prudent approach we could take.

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

I am hearing what the Minister is saying. If we could get that commitment, it would be fantastic. The amendments talk about the larger report and the broader impact these changes have had. That has to have a bearing on this. The Minister has said that whatever recommendations she brings forward might not result in the total reversal of the 2012 changes.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it helps, I can tell the Deputy they will not.

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

We need to see the full report. The Minister is not committing to that.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I absolutely am. From what the Deputy has said, I think he thinks it will be quite thick but it will not be. It will only be a number of pages. The resolutions and solutions will also probably only be a number of pages. It will be very small but there is a large amount of data that needs to be gone through to ensure there is accurate information in it. What will be brought to Cabinet is what will be published. There will not be 60 pages, for example, hidden from members. They will get everything. Whatever goes to the Cabinet sub-committee will go to Cabinet and it will then be published. The Deputy is absolutely entitled to have it; that is no problem. That is true even if the sub-committee and Cabinet say "No" to me. I will still publish it.

Chairman:

That sounds reasonable. I need to move on.

Chairman:

Amendments No. 31 and 32 in the name of Deputy O'Dea have been ruled out of order.

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

I move amendment No. 33:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:

“Review of Bereavement Grant

17. The Minister for Employment and Social Protection shall, after the passing of this Act, prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas reviewing the abolition of the Bereavement Grant and setting out the options for restoring those grants.”.

The bereavement grant was based on contributions. If one had the requisite contributions, one was guaranteed a sum of €800. I have dealt with many cases in which people who qualified for the bereavement grant had to access the community welfare officer to get a top-up because the cost of funerals has been escalating quite steadily. Now the only place one can get assistance is through the burial grant mechanism which used to be the old community welfare thing. Many people are encountering a lot of hardship. The Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection seems to be assessing it on the same basis as before for people who already received the €800 grant. It is becoming more and more difficult and more and more people have to get into debt to meet funeral expenses. I am not too concerned about a formal report. I want the Department to have a look at this problem. It is a real problem and I want the Department to look at it.

I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in this regard.

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

I support the amendment. I would like to see a timeframe associated with it because it is left open-ended. The Minister's predecessors promised reports and we are still waiting for them. It is unfortunate that was not built into the amendment. Cutting the bereavement grant was one of the cruellest cuts made by Fine Gael and the Labour Party in government. I am sure the Minister has heard stories of people trying to bury a loved one and, without access to this grant, are left at the mercy of the community welfare officer. People tell me there is considerable discrepancy between different community welfare officers. They do not adhere to the same criteria in their decision-making. There are many issues there.

I support the amendment. I am not sure if anything can be done at this stage to define a timeframe for delivery of the report. It is having huge impact on people who need it. It places an additional burden on other organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul where many people end up having to go. In other cases people have to resort to loan sharks to help bury their loved ones, which is a disgrace.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the amendment. When a loved one dies, the bereaved are all over the place emotionally. They should not be forced to go to a community welfare officer and beg for support or else go to a loan shark. It should be automatic for them to access that money as the bereavement grant did in the past. The grieving process is hard enough without having the problem of getting money to bury a loved one. The issue should be reviewed with the intention of coming back with something positive.

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

I apologise. I had meant to stipulate a timeframe, but that did not happen for some reason. I can withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage with a timeframe. However, I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. Further to what Deputy Collins said, death is a sad time for a family and I have come across some very tragic cases. As people are grieving and all over the place, the last thing they want to do is approach the local loan shark or go to the local credit union, getting into more debt. It really is a very bad time. While I do not know what it is like in the Minister's area, down in my side of the country it is a real problem and getting bigger.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not agree with the Deputy. The old bereavement grant was an insurance-based scheme. Those who did not have their social contributions paid into the pot did not get anything out of it. The people the Deputy is talking about, who are exceptionally vulnerable and going to the social welfare offices or loan sharks, are not the people who would have received the €850 grant in many cases.

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

Some of them are.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have not abandoned in any way the people the Deputy is talking about because in last year's budget, more than €5 million went specifically to helping people with burial allowances and funeral costs. The average payment was €3,800 per family who approached us. There is no cap on that. The Department did not have a budget of €5 million and it was not a case of refusing people if we got to €5 million. If more people have a need for funeral expenses or any of the costs associated with bereavement, that is what we are there for. The unexpected and unforeseen fits that category perfectly. If we need some sort of campaign to let people the Deputy is dealing with know it is available to them, I am very happy to do that.

However, I am not happy to spend €25 million or €30 million to reintroduce it in the way it was, paying it to people who do not need it, thereby reducing the amount of money I have to spend on the people the Deputy is talking about. I do not mean to be disrespectful to them. I know they work hard, as does everybody, but the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is supposed to be helping the people who have absolutely no other means but social welfare to help them get through difficult times. People who do not need it do not need the State to give them €850. That is my first gut feeling.

On the amendment, I am not even sure how I could compile the report the Deputy is requesting. He seems to be asking me to go back to all the people who would have got the €850 and ascertain how not getting it impacted them. I am genuinely not sure how I would do that, irrespective of whether it is bound by a timeline. I am not sure what I would be asking. I ask the Deputy to consider withdrawing the amendment. I would be happy for him to put in a suggestion that we should advertise in some way the supports that are genuinely available and to assure people there is no cap.

I believe Deputy Brady suggested that different criteria were being used in different areas. That is the case because Deputy Brady's needs will not be the same as Deputy Collins's needs. It is based on the individual's particular circumstances. There is not a cap of €100. I do not want to sound shallow, but it is about the individual person or family and we address it on the basis of their requirements. The average payment is €3,800.

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

It is utterly wrong and bordering on the bizarre to say that anybody who is paid social insurance will never have a difficulty in meeting funeral expenses. That is completely incorrect. Many people who are on low wages and already paying social insurance are supported by FIS. A family's circumstances can change. That is absurd.

I am afraid a campaign will not do the business. There is no point in having a campaign. The people I am talking about are already aware of the burial grant. They come to me and other public representatives to look for the burial grant. In my area when we apply for the burial grant, we find that relatively early in the year the Department is saying that most of the money it intended to spend on this has already been spent. I know it is demand-led and it is supposed to be open-ended. The Minister mentioned €5 million for last year. Will she get me the figures going back?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have them here.

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

What was the figure in the year before the bereavement grant was abolished?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have the figures for 2016 and 2017. However, if the Deputy wants, I can get the previous years' figures for him before Report Stage. In 2016, we paid €116,849 towards burial expenses and €4,864,390 towards funeral expenses.

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

When was that?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last year.

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

I am not talking about last year. I am talking about the year before the bereavement grant was abolished in 2011. I would appreciate the Minister getting me that figure.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

The Minister might have misunderstood Deputy Brady's point about lack of uniformity, which is staggering. I could guess how certain people in my constituency would be treated by different social welfare officers, depending on whom they go to. There is a very wide interpretation of the rules on hardship etc.

I can be more specific about the report I want and can put a timeline on it. We have until tomorrow evening to submit Report Stage amendments.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure.

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

I will withdraw the amendment on that basis and will return with an amendment on Report Stage.

Chairman:

Amendments Nos. 34 to 37, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

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

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:“Report on the pension bands and rates

17.The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the effects of the 2012 pension bands and rates changes and set out the options for restoring the State Pension payments for all recipients impacted by the 2012 changes up to today and that the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within two months of enactment of this Bill.”.

Chairman:

Amendment No. 39 has been ruled out of order.

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

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:“Report on Fuel Poverty in Ireland

17. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the impact of fuel poverty in Ireland, providing a clear insight into the numbers affected, and costed options, with reference to the fuel allowance, as to how the issue can be tackled and that the report shall be presented to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection within six months of enactment of this Bill.”.

This amendment also seeks a report, as the Minister will be delighted to hear. Unfortunately, we cannot propose changes which would have a financial impact on the Exchequer, but we know the issue of fuel poverty is very real and faces many people in our society. A conservative estimate shows that approximately 28% of the population are currently facing fuel poverty. Ireland has the highest level of excess winter fatalities in Europe. Last year it was in the region of 2,800, which is a huge figure. More than 170,000 of our older citizens rely on the fuel allowance. Obviously fuel poverty does not only impact on our older citizens and also impacts on people right across the board, but older citizens are certainly more susceptible to the cold. We all hear horror stories of our older citizens having to sit in public buildings such as libraries and council offices during the winter months to keep warm. We all know of the changes which were made to the fuel allowance which cut the period for which the allowance was payable from 32 weeks down to 25. It is back up to 27 weeks now, which is a small but welcome step in the right direction, but the period is still five weeks shorter than it was in 2012 when the cuts were first made. It is a real issue and a very serious one which faces our citizens right across the board.

It is important that a full report is carried out on the impact, good, bad or indifferent, of cuts implemented to the fuel allowance and on how they affect our older citizens. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge and welcome the changes the Minister introduced in respect of the payment of the fuel allowance at this stage. I put forward a proposal for a bulk payment during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill 2016, a proposal which was being pushed by organisations such as Age Action Ireland among others. That has now been implemented and there are two payments a year. That is a welcome step. I hear good reports from people on that measure. We are still a long way away from the provisions before the 2012 cuts which, as I have said, are having a real detrimental impact. Some 28% of our population are facing fuel poverty.

That percentage is growing so we need a report on that issue. I will be pressing the amendment.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support this amendment. The cut, from six weeks initially to five weeks now, has put huge pressure on people. Fuel poverty exists and it should be acknowledged and recorded for posterity, particularly when the big companies are talking about fuel increases in February or March next year, which will put further pressure on people. We might consider the potential of having it index-linked to increases, but some progressive measure should be considered that would make a difference to people because that increase will impact on them. I am aware that many people are very happy with the bulk payment option in terms of oil or whatever fuel they have to buy. It has made a difference, but I support the amendment.

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

There is no doubt that fuel poverty is rampant in this country. The figure of 28% is frightening because it is more than one in four. It has been exacerbated by the cuts to the fuel allowance but the partial restoration, however small, is very welcome. I do not know if doing a report on the matter will bring any immediate improvements but I do not see any reason a report would not be done. The Minister should give serious consideration to this amendment. All it asks is that a report be done. I know the Civil Service and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection are very busy but it is an issue that will have to be tackled across Departments. It is not just a Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection issue so if the Government is to look at this as a Government, it would be very useful to have something like that as a reference point.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is probably very little of what the Deputies said that I do not agree with. We have to acknowledge that there are many people who are still experiencing difficulties in heating their homes, which is why we increased the fuel allowance period by one week this year. I would have loved to have been able to increase it by two or three weeks but we did not have the money. The commitment I will give the Deputies is that if I am here next year, it will go up further. I will probably have the legs cut off me, so to speak, for saying that because next year is next year but I say that because I cannot commit to doing a report as it does not fall within my remit.

However, a report entitled A Strategy to Combat Energy Poverty was released only last year. Apparently, it covers ambitions and recommendations to follow through from 2016 to 2020. It is a very comprehensive report and I can get the Deputies a copy of it if it would be helpful, not to be smart. However, if the Deputy presses the amendment and I lose on it today and I have to compile a report, it will not be me or my Department that will compile it. It will be the Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment. I then fall into a difficulty of the Deputy saying I have to have something done within three months when it will not be me who will be doing it but somebody else who will be doing it. I ask that between now and Report Stage the Deputy might read the other report to see if he is happy with the suggestions and recommendations in it. If there is anything in that report that he believes we can further progress, maybe by index-linking or something else, I would ask him to look at it that way.

Chairman:

Is Deputy Brady happy?

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

No. The Minister will be disappointed to hear that I am not happy. I am well aware that there are many reports published. Age Action Ireland and all the other agencies have carried out extensive, thorough work on this issue. They have been to the fore in pushing it forward and putting pressure on Government. I am sure that was factored into the partial restoration of the weeks that had been cut. There are many reports available but having one carried out by whatever Department - it probably needs to be done across a number of Departments - is putting it on a statutory footing. The recommendations it would make would put pressure on Government. I am sure this committee and others will put pressure on Government to do it because the other reports are from agencies. They are not actionable by Government. It puts some pressure on but while we have had one week's restoration in the fuel allowance, it is staying at €22.50 a week. That has been static for many years. We are still way behind where we should be because we see the cost of electricity, gas and solid fuel increasing. I have come across cases where elderly people in particular have to ration their fuel. They buy one or two bags of coal a month and divide it up so they know exactly how much coal they have to burn from one day to the next. That is not right.

While the partial restoration and the bulk payment is welcome, in reality we are way behind where we were in 2012, both in terms of the weeks that have been cut and the fact that the payment of €22.50 is static. We need a comprehensive and thorough report on the issue, irrespective of what Department does it.

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

The report the Minister refers to was prepared under the aegis of another Department. Is that right? I believe it was the Department of energy.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was across Departments.

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

However, as I understand it, there is no report that specifically homes in on social welfare and the fuel allowance. What the proposer of the amendment has in mind, if I interpret him correctly, is that we have something to show the impact of the cuts on the actual levels of fuel poverty and how much of an impact it would have on fuel poverty on an incremental basis if those cuts were gradually restored. I believe that would be useful. I suggest that the Minister would give this amendment further consideration between now and Report Stage. On balance, I think it would be useful.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On that point, I agree, but to come back to what Deputy Brady said about other agencies, the report that currently exists is a Government report and a strategy to combat energy poverty. Apparently, it is the first ever Government strategy on affordable energy and it will give Departments specific tasks. Unfortunately, none of those relates to my Department and therefore even if Deputy Brady wins on this amendment, I cannot tell another Department to do something that does not have anything to do with me. Much and all as I stick my nose into many places that are not my business, I know what I would be told in this case. However, in terms of what Deputy O'Dea said, an element that might be worth pursuing is to look at the impact of the cuts. That might help me so I can-----

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

That is the point I was trying to make. I may not have been clear on that. It is about the cuts, the increase in fuel prices and the impact that has had on recipients of the fuel allowance. There needs to be a specific focus on all of that because I believe it is very much a targeted payment going into the pockets of the people who need it the most. With the increase in fuel costs we need to determine how much extra we need to put in people's pockets to see them being lifted out of that fuel poverty trap. A report and, more importantly, recommendations on all of those aspects would be very useful.

Chairman:

In a bid to be helpful, can the Minister accept the amendment as put or is she proposing that an appropriate amendment along the lines of what Deputy O'Dea said should be brought on Report Stage?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. I cannot accept the amendment as tabled because I do not have the authority to do what the Deputy is asking me to do. I would look like an eejit.

Chairman:

Is Deputy Brady prepared to withdraw the amendment and resubmit it on Report Stage?

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

I will resubmit it, yes.

Chairman:

Amendment No. 41 in the name of Deputy Brady is out of order.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 42:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:

“Report on State Contributory Pension

17. The Minister for Employment and Social Protection shall, within three months of the passing of this Act, prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on including claimants for the State contributory pension who raised families prior to 1994 in the Homemakers Scheme.”.

Chairman:

The amendment was already discussed with amendment No. 30. Is the amendment being pressed?

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 43:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:

“Report on Jobseekers Allowance

17. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister will lay a report before the House on the impacts on young people under 26 and 24 of the reduced levels of jobseekers allowance applicable to them and report further on reversing these reduced allowances.”.

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

I welcome and support this amendment. The changes that were made to social welfare rates amount to age discrimination against young unemployed people. I have pushed previous Ministers on this and the impact it is having. In the context of housing and homelessness, the reduced payment is having a serious impact and I know that several agencies have made direct reference to that. In the view of those working in the area, there is a direct link between the reduction in this payment and the prolonging of homelessness for some young people. It is discrimination and we must call it for what it is. I know the Minister will say that anyone who agrees to go onto any scheme will get an increase in his or her payment and that is fine. However, the Minister's predecessor came out with some ludicrous comments at a committee meeting some time ago. He said that he could not understand how young foreigners can get off a plane in Ireland and get a job at the drop of a hat and that this raises questions as to what our young unemployed people are doing. I did not say that. It was the previous Minister, now Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, who said it, or words to that effect.

The reality is that the youth unemployment rate is double the unemployment rate. Some areas, including Arklow in County Wicklow in my own constituency, are youth unemployment black spots, with levels well above the national average. Not only are we forcing people to continue living at home with their parents, we are also forcing them to live on buttons. How someone has not taken a legal challenge to this is beyond me. I believe it should be challenged and that such a challenge would be successful.

I will certainly be supporting this amendment.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot accept this amendment, mainly because of the timescale involved. I would ask Deputies to withdraw the amendment because we are currently conducting a review. Under the pathways to work action plan, we have committed to conducting a review of the impact of the changes made to social welfare payments to young people under the ages of 26 and 24. That review is not going to be finalised until later this year. The delay in finalising it is due to the fact that there is a piece of work being undertaken by NUI Maynooth at the moment. It has nothing to do with the Department and was not commissioned by us. It is being conducted to determine the impact of the reduction in the rates on participation in education. That will feed into telling me whether what we did worked in terms of the original intentions. I am as keen to find out about this as other Deputies.

That is why in this year's budget we gave everybody in those age categories the full €5 increase rather than a percentage thereof as they would have received last year and the year before. I acknowledge it is a small amount. If the Deputy could give me a little more time, I could agree to the amendment but I cannot agree to it in the short term because I will not have received the research from NUI Maynooth.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What timeframe does the Minister have in mind?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It will probably take nine months. That sounds like a very long time, but given that one is only now receiving reports that were asked for at this time last year, it probably is not that long a time.

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

Can I take it from what the Minister said that, despite not yet having seen the report from NUI Maynooth, her rationale for giving an extra €5 to young unemployed people was to acknowledge the discrimination that exists and the impact it has? Although it is not my amendment, I am concerned by the proposed nine-month timeframe. I welcome that the issue is being considered and I would think it essential that whatever report is published be produced in time to feed into next year's budgetary process. A six-month timeframe could be given because the budgetary process will approximately start in July. It is essential that whatever report is produced and whatever recommendations it contains be available in time to feed in to the budgetary process.

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

I was about to ask the same question. If Deputy Gino Kenny were to amend his amendment for Report Stage to specify a six month timeframe rather than three, would the Minister be disposed to accept it?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Department will continue with the work it has undertaken in any case but I want the report from NUI Maynooth to feed in to it. Because I did not commission the report, I do not know when it will be finished. It could be finished in two months or five. Deputy Kenny may amend the amendment to specify six months but if we come back in six months' time and the report is not available, he must not be aggrieved. I want to be able to give the committee a full report. The report is being produced in order to feed in to budgetary decisions next year.

Giving young people the full €5 increase was not a sign that we think we are being discriminatory. The purpose of the measures is to incentivise young people to take other options rather than stay on the live register. Although Deputies may laugh at me when I say that, I believe we should have greater ambition for our young people than for them to stay on the live register.

I am in the Deputy's hands. The report will be completed in any case. Its purpose is to ensure that at this time next year we will have information in order to allow us to make changes in next year's budget.

Chairman:

Deputy Kenny has a choice to make. He may either press his amendment or accept that the Minister------

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I ask the Minister a question?

Chairman:

Of course.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the report states that young people are discriminated against in this country and recommends that social welfare levels should not be age-linked, will she implement such recommendation?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The report will say what it will say.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that I cannot pre-judge what it will say but, hypothetically speaking, if it were to contain such a recommendation-----

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it contains such a recommendation and I do not make the appropriate responses, the Deputy will rightly be able to say-----

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many reports recommend that Ministers should do this or that but are not acted upon. That is the world in which we live.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot tell the Deputy how I will make up my mind about something at this time next year because I do not know what the circumstances will be. Deputy O'Dea might be the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He will not be.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Given the short amount of time I have been in office, I hope it is clear that when I say I will do something, I do it. If I have made a mistake and will not be able to do it for a particular reason, I will not have a problem admitting that and will tell Deputies why I cannot do it. My intention in considering the report is to see if what we have done has worked. If it has not, it must be changed. I am very conscious of that, which is why I am currently in discussions with the Commissioner about an extension and a slight change to the youth guarantee fund because a large number of those under 25 are not ready for employment and there are a variety of reasons for that. It is not because they do not go out on a Tuesday and get a job. There are a couple of significant barriers to employment and I need extra money to try to help those young people become employment ready. I will do that this year if I can get extra money from the Commissioner. I want to examine whether the changes we have made have worked. If they have, that is to be welcomed, but if they did not work, I will have no problem changing them. No matter who the Minister is, we are here to help people get out of situations whereby they cannot afford a proper standard of living and to try to help them better themselves through training or upskilling or to ensure that those in other situations have a decent fixed income to have a satisfactory life.

Chairman:

Has the Maynooth report been commenced?

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It has.

Chairman:

The report is under way.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

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

What is being considered in the report? Will it specifically examine the reduced payment rates for young job seekers? Members should be clear on what kind of report to expect.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The review being conducted by the Department will specifically examine the reduced payment rates and the impacts thereof. The report being produced by NUI Maynooth will examine the effectiveness of the reduced payments in terms of an upturn or uptake in encouraging young job seekers to avail of training, education and improving their skills. I will thus be aware of the impact of the reduction through the Department's review and of the impact in terms of the effectiveness of improving people's educational status through the NUI report. When we marry the two, we will be able to see if things need to be tweaked or if changes are needed. It will inform me better and enable me to make proper decisions if I am still Minister next year.

Chairman:

Does Deputy Kenny wish to press the amendment or does he accept what the Minister has said?

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the Minister's bona fides in this regard but the main obstacle is whether she will implement any changes the report may recommend. That is a hypothetical scenario but many young people feel very discriminated against in this regard. On that basis, I will be calling for a vote on the amendment.

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

If Deputy Kenny were to amend the amendment in order to specify a six month rather than three month period, what process would ensue?

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

Perhaps Deputy Kenny might resubmit a new amendment at Report Stage specifying a six month timeframe.

Chairman:

Would Deputy Kenny be happy to resubmit the amendment at Report Stage and have it specify a six month period rather than three months?

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or nine months.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is three months between friends?

Chairman:

Rather than specifying six or nine months, perhaps Deputy Kenny might specify June or July because that is the time at which people want the report to be available in order for it to form part of the budgetary process. It is Deputy Kenny's choice as to whether to withdraw the amendment but it must be resubmitted for Report Stage with that detail in it.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will go with that.

Chairman:

The Deputy is withdrawing the amendment in order to resubmit it at Report Stage.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am withdrawing it to resubmit it at Report Stage.

Chairman:

Amendment No. 44 in the names of Deputies Bríd Smith, Gino Kenny and Boyd Barrett was discussed with amendment No. 30.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 44:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:“Report on changes to State Contributory Pension

17. Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister will lay a report before the House on reversing the changes to the bands for the State contributory pension that have resulted in over 40,000 pensioners having their contributory pension reduced compared to what they would have received under the old bands.”.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 45:

In page 13, after line 38, to insert the following new section:“Report on Employers PRSI Contributions

17.Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Minister will lay a report before the House on increasing Employers PRSI contributions with special regard to the models and levels of employer’s contributions in other European states.”.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to support the amendment. It addresses an area the Government has consistently not looked at in respect of raising money. In other European countries, utilising employers' PRSI to provide services for their citizens is a key and significant factor. Although I cannot currently lay my hands on the figures, an increase of 2% in employers' PRSI would garner over €1 billion. That should be considered as a progressive tax to be allocated to public services. From reports I have seen regarding the situation in France and similar countries, people there do not pay more tax than Irish citizens in terms of PAYE or similar.

It is actually the employers' pay related social insurance, PRSI, that gives them the leeway to provide more services through the health service and so on, so I certainly support the amendment.

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

I also support it. I tabled an amendment on bogus self-employment. I did not get to speak on it, but obviously there is a serious issue there. I have spoken to the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, extensively, as have others. We are missing out on PRSI contributions from employers through the establishment of bogus self-employment arrangements. However, there is a broader issue there. Look at the EU average. Across the board, we are way behind on the level at which employers pay PRSI contributions. If we came up to the EU average, it would be worth an extra €8 billion a year. There are huge issues facing us, including, obviously, the ticking time bomb in our pension system. There are serious issues that we have to face up to here, so I will be supporting this amendment. An extensive and very thorough piece of work needs to be done on all of this. Hopefully, this will be the start, and I support it.

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

Just a point of clarification, is the Deputy making a comparison of our rates of employer PRSI as opposed to those in other countries across the EU? To make that comparison, would we not need a similar comparison of workers' rates of PRSI? The employer and the employee pay PRSI. What is important is the combined amount. That comparison would be useful but we would need a comparison of both and not just the employer. Employers' PRSI is low here by international standards, about which there is no doubt.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is meant is the relative contributions of workers and employers.

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

I would be the first to support it if it was both.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am quite sure that members are going to make sure I have no Christmas given everything they want within three months.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not be able to go for a pint.

We are currently conducting a review of the Social Insurance Fund. We have got the actuarial review to tell us what the state of it is, and we will probably launch a public consultation on pensions and the automatic enrolment provision that we are hoping to go forward with, if not next Tuesday, then the following Tuesday. The only reason I mention that is that employer contributions will match the employee contributions, and contributions will be taken automatically from both employers and employees once that comes on board. That is a cost associated with the employers.

There is also a wider scoping exercise being done at the moment of social insurance contributions made by all classes, not just those of employees but of employers. It is in the context of what the European norms are. I totally agree that, based on European norms, we are much lower, both on employee contributions and employer contributions. However, we also have to recognise that those in countries who pay more get much more out of it, because this would be a social insurance contribution. It is not something that could be spent on health or education. It would have to be spent on the employees. The review is currently being done. I indicated at the time of the actuarial review's publication that we would spend the next couple of months conducting that review. Again, I will do some of what members have asked me to do, but I definitely cannot do it within three months because it just is not physically possible.

However, what I cannot agree to, apart from the three-month period specified in the amendment, is the provision requiring me to lay a report before the House on the proposals to increase employers' PRSI, because I do not yet know if we will or not. I will not know that until we have the full picture of what we can get, what changes we need, and what future funding we need. That will determine whether one's insurance contribution or one's employer's insurance contribution will be increased. That piece of work is going to be done. It has been started off the back of the actuarial review that we received at the end of October. It will be done in the next couple of months, and once I have that report, I can certainly lay it before the joint Oireachtas committee. However, it is only when I have that information that I will be able to determine how much everybody pays. What will determine that is the amount that we will need to have a sustainable pension fund going forward.

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

Amendment No. 46, in the names of Deputies Bríd Smith, Gino Kenny and Richard Boyd Barrett, has been ruled out of order.

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

I thank the Minister and her officials for attending today's proceedings.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I ask a question? The witnesses might take it on board. Perhaps I am wrong.

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

This is most unusual at this stage but the Deputy may ask her question.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I tabled a parliamentary question on employer's PRSI. I asked for a breakdown of companies with fewer than 100 employers and those with more. I was told that figure could not be established. It is important to find that figure out, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, so that we can know how it would impact on them.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I be really cheeky? I asked for something similar a while ago and I was told that the Department does not collect the money, it only spends it. If the Deputy wants that information I suggest she asks the Minister for Finance for it in a parliamentary question.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will do that.

Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I only get the pleasure of spending the money, not that of collecting it.

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

I thank the Deputy. Once again I thank the Minister and the officials from her Department for their attendance today. That concludes this meeting.