Dáil debates

Wednesday, 18 June 2014

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2014: Report Stage (Resumed)

 

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:In page 6, to delete lines 5 to 37, and to delete page 7.- (Deputy Willie O'Dea).

2:50 pm

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

I have two minutes to recap some of what I have said and respond to the Minister. Some of the old sayings hold true in this modern society, and one is "if it is not broken, do not fix it." The system is not broken and An Post is working, although it may be able to do things better. Why should we interfere with the position of An Post, which is contained within primary legislation? I cannot see how, as the Minister has argued, the position of An Post can be strengthened by its removal from primary legislation. At the very least, we should reconsider the existing legislation.

I accept that An Post is uniquely placed to compete for the contract in future but that will not necessarily always be the case, and it may depend on its investments. It does not have a great track record of considering banking facilities. I have argued that An Post should be a "preferred bidder" and the Minister has concerns about the use of a preferred status for An Post in legislation because the EU may come down hot and heavy because of competition law. There is a social good that must be protected in the event of the EU demanding that services delivered by An Post on behalf of the Department of Social Protection be interfered with because of competition issues.

I welcome the provisions in the section that would give clarity to the powers of An Post in helping the Department deal with fraud and taking the public services card from people who do not own one or are using it fraudulently. Such provisions are in the Bill but there are already ways in which this can be done. It is just a matter of putting a phone call to An Garda Síochána, and it is fraud if somebody uses another person's identity for such purposes.

I have major concerns about lining up public services for privatisation. We even heard with Topical Issues about another area where public services are being outsourced. It was a Progressive Democrats mantra that the public service should have been outsourced or privatised and the Minister has started that ball rolling with JobPath. I hope the Minister will be proven right in her comments about An Post being protected forever but I do not believe that. Unless it is in legislation and the company retains its current standing, it will have no protection different to any other company which wants to compete for that business.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When people approved us joining the EU, they did so because they thought they would get many benefits from the EU from a social perspective with regard to trade union activities, job security and cheaper access to goods. Europe had a social reputation related to the services provided in health, education, transport and right across the board. It was reflected in the vote for the European elections that people are beginning to see it is not there to protect the interests of people but rather to protect the interests of big companies that have the ear of the European Council every day of the year. This smacks of such ideas.

We must start to put social costs on the European agenda, as every country has a nuanced culture with different services requiring protection. Removing An Post from the primary legislation will have an impact on how it must compete against big companies which function for competitive reasons rather than providing a service to the community. I do not accept the Minister's comments and I support putting this amendment to a vote.

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

There is a little of what Australians would term the "dog whistle politics" about this. In other words, Deputies are trying to raise a fear in the minds of the postmasters and particularly elderly customers who rely on An Post for the services with which we are all familiar. I have voiced the concern before that Deputies are frightening people a little too much. An Post has the contract until December 2019 if it wishes to keep to it. I do not run An Post but it won the contract for two years, with the option to renew for four years. Instead of congratulating An Post on winning the contract, Deputies are trying to sow a doubt. They are implying that winning the contract - a success for An Post - is somehow a failure. The Deputies cannot have it both ways.

The Deputies have argued they are madly in favour of An Post but Deputy Ó Snodaigh in particular on Committee Stage seemed to want to force people to take payments from An Post. It is not possible to force people with bank accounts to go to the local post office and form a queue.

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

I clarified that point earlier today.

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

He and a number of other Deputies were very explicit about this. People have choices and many have bank accounts. They may not be in a position to go to a local post office so consumer choice comes into the issue.

What I said in that context was that perhaps some of the Deputies here would put their minds to thinking about how An Post could successfully compete and get involved, for instance, in electronic fund transfers because the biggest disadvantage for An Post is that it does not have the equivalent of a bank account. It has a savings deposit account system, which has worked very well for it and is very popular but it does not have a banking system that allows for remote banking facilities. That is the challenge for An Post in the future.

3:00 pm

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

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

Deputies need to be mindful of that because up to one quarter of the population wishes to use An Post services for a variety of reasons that we have all discussed.

The Department of Social Protection and I as Minister have specified that we want people collecting jobseeker's payments to go to An Post in person to guard against fraud. That is an extremely important part of the service that An Post provides for the Department.

Some of what the Deputies suggest would endanger An Post's success in winning the contract because it comes very close to saying not only could An Post become the preferred bidder in an open competition, which is in effect what happened once the tendering and competition process got under way, but also that European competition law and a previous ruling of the court should be pretty much set aside to provide for An Post being the only company. That is not allowed under EU competition law.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is over time.

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

The Deputies may want to ignore that reality. I also think they should congratulate An Post on winning the business until 2019.

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

We were told that those who proposed amendments were confined to two minutes’ speaking time. Does the Minister have limitless time to reply?

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

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

She has taken double the two minutes.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everyone in the House has two minutes to make a second contribution, except for the proposer.

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

I will not go over all the ground covered again. Of course we congratulate An Post on winning the contract. What sort of a red herring is that? It is a smoke screen to say we did not congratulate An Post.

Why does the Minister regard it as necessary to change the legislation? I have already pointed out that the contract cannot be challenged on any new basis because one does not change the legislation. If the contract was to be challenged it would be on the basis that An Post was specifically mentioned in the 2005 legislation. The contract was granted before this new amending legislation came in. What is the necessity for changing the legislation? What is the hidden agenda here?

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 41.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

Níl

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

3:05 pm

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The defeat of amendment No. 1 means that the words proposed to be deleted by that amendment cannot be altered or deleted by other amendments. Therefore, the other physically alternative amendments - Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive - cannot be moved.

Amendments Nos. 2 to 10, inclusive, not moved.

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

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 9, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:“7. Any employer who has had a finding made against them of unfair dismissal under the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007, must reimburse to the State the cost of the unfairly dismissed former employee’s social welfare payments from the date of the dismissal up to the decision of the Employment Appeals Tribunal.”.
It is a pity we were unable to discuss some of the previous amendments, but that is the nature of the game. I have made this proposal on a number of occasions. I have submitted an amendment of this type in the context of a number of social welfare Bills. I am making this positive proposal at a time when the State is trying to recover everything that is due to it. When a worker who has been unfairly dismissed wins a case at the Employment Appeals Tribunal and gets an award, a deduction is made by the State from the person's social welfare payment but the money in question is not recovered from the employer who should have been paying this person.

In other words, the person has enjoyed the benefit of the social welfare payment, but the State is never reimbursed by the employer.

It is difficult to calculate how much might be recouped to the State under this provision, but the volume of cases going to the Employment Appeals Tribunal has been increasing substantially in recent years. In 2008, for example, 5,457 cases were submitted to the tribunal, but this had increased to 6,000 by 2010. These figures suggest that the Exchequer could be losing out to the tune of several million euro. I estimate the loss at between €2 million and possibly as high as €10 million given the delays in hearing cases at the tribunal, but I will err on the side of caution by opting for the lower figure. In the current climate, a person who has been unfairly dismissed may well struggle to find alternative work and will instead be dependent on social welfare. Where an unfair dismissal claim is upheld, the individual will receive compensation for loss of earnings. Why should the State not also be compensated for the cost of supporting that person through the period of unemployment?

Unfortunately, it seems the State is eager to recover moneys from social welfare recipients, as we discussed on Committee Stage, but not to pursue employers for the costs of supporting employees who are unfairly dismissed. There might even be a case for applying the provision in the amendment retrospectively. Even if that is not possible, I urge the Minister to accept it and ensure the State is compensated in future in such cases. If she is not inclined to accept the amendment, I ask that she consider it for inclusion in the next Social Welfare and Pensions Bill.

3:10 pm

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

This is a good amendment. Under the new section 38B of the principal Act, which the Minister is inserting by way of section 7 of the Bill, we will have a new system of recouping moneys owed to the State by employers. Deputy Ó Snodaigh is seeking to do something similar. In a situation where an individual is waiting for an unfair dismissal case to be heard, he or she will probably be entitled to jobseeker's benefit for the duration. Where the tribunal decides in that person's favour and awards due compensation, why should the State be at a loss in the amount of the jobseeker's benefit it was obliged to pay out for months or even possibly a year or more because of the proved illegal actions of the employer? The latter should be liable to reimburse the State in such circumstances.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support this amendment. As Deputy Ó Snodaigh observed, we have seen an increase in unfair dismissal cases in recent years, with the workers involved often finding themselves in a very difficult situation as they wait for their case to be heard. In the past 24 hours, workers at Greyhound, a waste disposal company, have been locked out of their work premises. Their employer has not said that they are sacked or issued P45s; they have no idea what is happening. They have had a case against their employer at the Labour Court since February, but when they presented for work at 6 a.m. yesterday morning, they were told they had to sign a new contract or they would have no job. They refused to sign that contract, which involved agreeing to new work practices and a 35% cut in their wages. These drivers earn €636 per week, so a 35% reduction would bring their earnings down to €426.

These are men with families and financial commitments and they cannot afford to take that type of pay cut. They have taken their case to the courts and engaged with the company's chief executive officer, Michael Buckley. The latter took a unilateral action yesterday in refusing to let them go into work. He is saying it is not a lock-out, but he had replacement workers organised and ready to go. These new workers were waiting to be collected at Woodie's DIY store on the Naas Road and were put to work collecting bins within half an hour. It seems they had already been trained and had undergone health and safety instruction and so on. It is an absolute disgrace.

Another issue of concern regarding this case is that parts of its waste collection routes have been subcontracted out by Greyhound. We have been informed that the subcontractor collects workers in the Woodie's carpark, puts them in the bin trucks with instructions to cover a very large route and goes off for the rest of the day. Constituents have told us that Greyhound trucks have been collecting bins at 11.30 p.m., midnight or even 1 a.m., as a result of which complaints have been made to the local authority. What seems to be happening is that the subcontractor is keeping these workers out as late as it takes to complete the route in order to ensure the subcontractor's bonus is secured.

The Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Protection should take this issue seriously. It is possible the subcontractor is employing these workers illegally - I have no information in that regard, but it warrants investigation. Meanwhile, the permanent Greyhound employees are in limbo, with no P45s issued and the word coming from management that their jobs are there waiting for them if they sign the new contract. However, that contract is still under negotiation with SIPTU. This is a very serious issue and one worker ended up in hospital yesterday. Inexperienced people are being taken on to do the work of the permanent employees who came from Oxigen and South Dublin City Council under the transfer of undertakings seven years ago. We may well be looking at a major case of unfair dismissal here. This type of thing is happening more and more, including in Ballyfermot where a group of sacked workers - also SIPTU members - were told they must wait months before their case is heard by the Employment Appeals Tribunal.

There should be an intervention in this matter and an investigation into what is going on. There is a broader issue here in regard to waste management, which I accept is not the Minister's remit but that of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. I intend to raise it with him. Deputy Clare Daly and I have submitted this issue for discussion on the Topical Issue debate yesterday and today but it has not been taken. It is an urgent employment and social protection issue and I hope it will be taken tomorrow.

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

While I do not propose to accept this amendment, I acknowledge that Deputy Ó Snodaigh has raised a valid issue. There are potential consequences arising from the proposal which would have to be examined in regard to payments currently being made to workers who have been unfairly dismissed. Under the Unfair Dismissals Act, which is not within the remit of my Department, a case may be taken to the rights commissioners service of the Employment Appeals Tribunal if a person feels that he or she has been unfairly dismissed from employment. Where an unfair dismissal case is upheld, redress can take the form of an appropriate reinstatement, re-engagement or compensation for the financial loss involved.

The Deputy is proposing that the wrongdoer, namely, the employer, would be obliged to compensate all of those impacted by that wrongdoing. This would involve the employer having to provide redress not only to the unfairly dismissed employee, but also to the Minister for Social Protection for any costs incurred as a consequence of the wrongdoing. Broadly similar arrangements are provided for under the new recovery of benefits arrangements that apply in regard to personal injury claims, as provided for in sections 13 and 14 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2013. It is not exactly the same situation but there is a parallel. These arrangements, which are due to come into operation on 1 August, require the compensator to refund the Minister for Social Protection any relevant social welfare benefits that were paid as a result of personal injuries up to the date of the award of compensation.

The recovery of benefits arrangements avoids double compensation being paid to the injured party in respect of the same personal injuries through compensation for loss of earnings and the payment of social welfare benefits. As I understand it, the Unfair Dismissals Act specifically precludes the reduction of any awards for financial loss arising out of an unfair dismissal in regard to social welfare benefits paid as a result of the dismissal. This contrasts with the treatment of earnings from employment in the case of a dismissed employee who subsequently gets another job in calculating the financial loss arising out of an unfair dismissal. In such circumstances, the Rights Commissioner or the Employment Appeals Tribunal can offset the earnings from that job. Therefore, any proposal to oblige employers to reimburse social welfare payments paid as a result of an unfair dismissal would also have implications for the continuation of this double compensation being paid to certain dismissed employees. I presume the Deputy is aware of that.

As the operation of the unfair dismissals legislation is the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, the impact of any proposals along the lines envisaged in this amendment would need to be examined by his Department in the first instance. I will undertake to communicate with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at a formal interdepartmental level and get the views of the Minister and the Department on the proposal. As I said when the Deputy raised this on a previous occasion, the Department of Social Protection took over the payments arising from redundancy and insolvency and, as a consequence, we have upgraded the IT platform. Deputies will be aware that the waiting period in regard to redundancy and insolvency claims has been vastly reduced. It is now possible to process them quite quickly. However, we are only responsible for the administration. The legislation rests with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation but I am open to examining it and I will undertake to communicate with the Minister.

Perhaps the committee might arrange a further discussion and invite in the Minister or the officials from that Department to give their views on the issue. Perhaps it could do that in the autumn to give them some time to have a look at the background to this. I will also look at the comments made on financial costs and so on because there is merit there but I am not in a position to accept the amendment for the reasons I stated. However, I am happy to come back to it in the next general social welfare Bill.

3:20 pm

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

I thank the Minister for her commitment to address this further. The purpose of the amendment was to generate some debate on it given that we are recovering overpayments from social welfare recipients. The last time I proposed such an amendment, it was to last year's Social Welfare and Pensions Bill. Employers need to pay some money back to the Department rather than the worker who is unfairly dismissed paying it back. There are additional consequences, which should be borne in mind when a judgment is being made. As the Minister outlined, it is probably a lot more complicated. I was aware of some of the consequences but I will have to look at the others again. It would be a useful exercise for the committee to look at this.

In regard to the point Deputy Joan Collins raised, this is probably not the best place to deal with the issue of the Greyhound workers. I was there yesterday morning when the truck hit one of the workers. We need to look at employment legislation as advice given to the workers yesterday was that they should go immediately to the Department of Social Protection office to sign on because they had presented for work but were not allowed to work. That is a big burden on the Department of Social Protection which should not be imposed straightaway. Given the nature of labour laws and the way companies are seeking injunctions and are increasingly locking out workers, it needs to be addressed so that there is a quicker mechanism which prevents people being locked out of or refused entry to their workplace.

I hope the situation in Greyhound is resolved and I have heard the worker who was injured by the truck is out of hospital, but he was severely injured. There are question marks over the waste management system in the city of Dublin. I have asked colleagues to look at how it can be regulated rather than having trucks chasing each other in the middle of the night.

The whole issue of agency workers needs to be looked at. I saw with my own eyes what Deputy Joan Collins said happened. It was an absolute disgrace. If the authorities had been on the spot, they could have checked whether these people were qualified to drive the trucks and whether proper health and safety measures were in place. Recently, there was an incident where somebody slipped into the back of a waste management truck. That will happen if this situation continues to be allowed because these people do not know how to operate the trucks with which they are working.

I will withdraw the amendment on the basis of the indication from the Minister that she will get her officials and officials from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to look at the implications and come back with legislation in the future.

Photo of Joan CollinsJoan Collins (Dublin South Central, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I respect what Deputy Ó Snodaigh has done in withdrawing the amendment on the basis of what the Minister said. I refer to a situation where workers find themselves locked out. In this case, it has been two days and I hope it can be resolved fairly soon. Greyhound went to court yesterday and got an injunction because it said it was a picket. It was not a picket but workers outside the facility were wondering what was going on. They were not disrupting anything. The union has given seven days notice of industrial action. These workers now find themselves in a very difficult situation. Can they go to the community welfare officer, in particular if they have young children or families in need of finance by the end of the week? They cannot get jobseeker's benefit because they do not have P45s. I am not sure what to advise them when they ask me that question.

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

I will ask for some information from the officials but, as the Deputy will appreciate, the issue of industrial relations is not within the social welfare brief. I will ask the local office to give me a report on the situation because, as the Deputy knows, there can be some approaches there. However, I am not fully au faitwith the situation and have just seen the headlines. The question of industrial relations in terms of the law is the responsibility of the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 12, in Deputy Ó Snodaigh's name, is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Amendment No. 12 not moved.

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

I move amendment No. 13:

In page 12, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:"(3) Section 232 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3):
"(4) The Minister shall provide a copy of any regulation or variation to a regulation that she proposes to make under this section to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Education and Social Protection and the Committee shall, having considered the proposal or proposals, report back to the Minister before any such regulation or variation to a regulation may commence.".".
This deals with a section which, in the main, is a positive one.

It refers to the meaning of "family" in the context of the family income supplement. It changes the definition of "family" for the purpose of the family income supplement to allow for a person whose child is not normally a member of the household to be entitled to FIS. The change the Minister has proposed would mean that a person must be wholly or substantially maintaining a spouse or civil partner also. The Minister will define in regulation what normally residing in the household means. I do not have a problem with the proposal per sebut often the problem with regulations made in the House is that we see them after the Minister has made them. The proposal in the amendment is that a copy of the regulation or any future variation thereof would come before the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection for consideration of the matter before reporting back to the Minister. That could be done in much the same way as we now have a pre-legislative stage of a Bill. It would allow for views other than those of the Minister and the Department to be gained on various issues. That would be a useful exercise for Ministers in general to consider. In many ways committees give their imprimaturas well as the Minister. In some cases certain aspects of the practical application of regulations could be missed by those who compiled them and they could be highlighted by Members of both Houses from a variety of backgrounds who are more aware of the situation in practice. That is the intent of the amendment.

The Free Legal Advice Centres, in particular the Northside Community Law Centre, made a submission on 6 June very soon after the publication of the Bill and raised questions about the wording “wholly or mainly”. We do not have the amendments before us and some of our amendments were ruled out of order but perhaps some of what they intend to be captured might be addressed in the regulations because it relates to the definition of family. The intention is to have as broad a definition as possible to ensure nobody who should be entitled to FIS is prevented from getting it. If the amendment is accepted, we could have a discussion in the joint committee to see whether the definition of family is appropriate.

3:30 pm

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak specifically to the issue of family income supplement. I tabled an amendment which we spoke about privately last week that was ruled out of order. We are all coming from the same perspective on the issue. The last thing we want to see is people are trapped in the social welfare system and that every possible incentive is put in place to get people off welfare and into the workplace. Members on all sides of the House are committed to that.

Last week a newspaper article highlighted the fact that sometimes families with children are better off staying within the social welfare system than going out to work. I wish to highlight three examples in that regard specifically on families and family income supplement. The objective of family income supplement is to try to encourage people to take up low-paid jobs where they have families and that there would be a top-up payment – a very valuable supplement - from the Department of Social Protection. Probably the biggest gripe I have with the Department on the matter is that the FIS should be promoted to a far greater extent.

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

I agree but we have no budget.

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister will probably be surprised to hear how many public servants are unaware that they are eligible to get family income supplement. I find that amazing. One individual I came across works in the private sector. As I often do, I raised the issue of family income supplement and encouraged the person to apply. Every Member should try to do that at every available opportunity. He sent me an e-mail with a photo attached from his phone. The person is working full time in a low-paid job and he had to ring during business hours when the Department is open. When he rang the Department to inquire about family income supplement he was on the phone for three hours and 12 minutes before he got to speak to someone who could advise him about family income supplement. Sadly, that is not an isolated situation. I am aware of a number of people who have found it impossible to get someone at the end of the phone in the family income supplement section. I have no doubt the officials concerned are inundated but it does not make sense that someone who is in employment should have to spend three hours and 12 minutes on the phone to get through to departmental officials to find out if they are entitled to a supplement to assist them to remain in employment. That should not happen but the case I highlight is not isolated and the situation must be addressed.

The second issue I wish to raise specifically on family income supplement is the one I raised privately with the Minister last week. The Minister has created an anomaly within the legislation before the House which discriminates against low-income families. The objective behind the proposed new section is that if someone applies for family income supplement and is let go or laid off within the 12 month period, once he or she becomes eligible again, he or she would be entitled to the remainder of the 12 months of the family income supplement. That is okay if they go back into the same employment at the same rate or higher but there is no incentive for them to take up a job at a lower rate of income because while they would be entitled to a higher rate of family income supplement were it a new application, under the rules proposed by the Minister the application will be treated as a reactivation of the existing application. Deputy O’Dea’s amendment, which was ruled out of order, is on the same basis in that it states that one should get the rate that is applicable at that point, especially if it is a higher rate.

There is a precedent for such an approach. If someone applies for the old age pension and the current rate of payment is more beneficial to them than otherwise might be the case, the person is left on the higher rate. Surely a person should have an option to go on to the higher rate if they are in a lower paid job rather than excluding them from the employment market until they get a job that pays at the same rate or a higher rate as their previous employment.

The third anomaly in terms of trying to get families back to work is the change the Minister has made to the community employment, CE, scheme. Someone on a CE scheme now pays PRSI. That was introduced in the previous social welfare Bill. The difficulty is that someone with an adult dependant and two children who has an opportunity to get on a CE scheme is better off to the tune of €5.13 a week because of the PRSI liability before one takes into account the cost of going to work or providing lunch. There is no incentive for someone in that situation to take up a CE scheme. A person with an adult dependant and two dependent children are being told by the Department not to take up a CE scheme.

It makes far more sense to get someone into a CE scheme. The scheme in my adjoining parish in Moore, County Roscommon, has an exemplary record in getting people from CE schemes back into employment. Many of them have been very successful in breaking the cycle. The type of family in question will be better off, in theory, to the sum of €5.13. That is before they pay for the fuel to get to work and pay for their lunch, however, meaning they would be financially worse off by taking up a CE scheme. That should not happen. Instead, we need to break the cycle for them and subsequent generations, and encourage people to get back into employment through CE schemes. These anomalies are barriers to that happening.

3:40 pm

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

I do not propose to accept the amendment. Family income supplement, FIS, is a weekly tax-free support targeted at low-income workers who have children. FIS provides a crucial support for over 44,000 families at work and almost 100,000 children. Spending on the supplement was increased significantly this year by the Government with the total allocation coming to €280 million. Numbers in receipt of the supplement have also increased significantly though making qualification for it easier.

The purpose of this support is to provide an incentive to such workers to take up or stay in employment, rather than claiming a social welfare payment. While weekly social welfare payments are increased according to the family size, weekly income from employment does not take any account of the worker’s family size. Weekly social welfare payments under FIS are increased according to family size, namely, €100 per week for the first child and pro ratafor subsequent children. In the case referred to by Deputy Naughten of the recipient with a spouse and two children, on social welfare they would receive €400 a week plus some additional benefits. Even on a minimum wage job, FIS would bring their income significantly over that figure.

In keeping with the purpose of the FIS scheme, in the situation where a claimant for FIS is living apart from his or her spouse or civil partner and children, it has been the practice to pay FIS in these cases where the claimant is maintaining both his or her spouse or civil partner and his or her children. The relevant legislative provisions relating to entitlement in cases where the worker is living apart from his or her spouse or civil partner and children is not fully clear and section 9 clarifies entitlement to FIS in these circumstances. Section 9 redefines what constitutes a family for FIS purposes and affirms that FIS cannot be paid to a claimant who is maintaining a child where that child is not residing with the claimant, unless the claimant is also maintaining his or her separated spouse or civil partner with whom the child is residing. It further clarifies that in such cases FIS cannot be paid if the spouse or civil partner with whom the child is residing is in receipt of a weekly social welfare payment in his or her own right. There have been 30 such cases where clarification has been required.

Under the provisions contained in section 9, the circumstances in which a child is to be regarded as normally being a member of a household for FIS entitlement purposes will be specified in regulations to be made in accordance with section 232 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. This is not an issue where the parents or guardians and children are living together. However, where the parents or guardians are living apart, regulations are required to set out the rules to be used to determine with which parent or guardian the children will be regarded as normally residing for FIS entitlement purposes.

This amendment proposes that any regulations required to be made in accordance with section 232 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act would have to be submitted to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection in the first instance. Accordingly, such regulations could not be made before that committee reports back to the Minister. As I indicated on Committee Stage, the provisions contained in section 9 will be brought into force by way of a commencement order. The relevant regulations required in accordance with section 232 will be made as soon as the necessary commencement order has been signed. There are several other commencement orders and regulations which are also required to be made following the enactment of this Bill. I envisage the relevant commencement order and regulations relating to section 9 will be signed in September or October. I have undertaken to send copies of this commencement order and the relevant regulations to Deputies as soon as they have been signed. Section 4(6) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act requires that all regulations made by the Minister under that Act must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as practical after they have been made. If a resolution annulling the regulations is passed by either House within the next 21 sitting days, those regulations will be annulled. Accordingly, I do not consider this amendment is necessary.

In the case to which Deputy Naughten referred, I presume the individual in question was on to the Longford social protection office. If he gives me the details of that, I will make an inquiry about it. When I came into the Department, an enormous backlog had built up in social protection offices. All Members were aware of this and showed huge patience while we updated all IT platforms. Some of the schemes went to Letterkenny where staff have handled them very well there. With the improvement in the waiting times dealing with applications and reviews, we got rid of many of the backlogs with FIS. If the Deputy gives me the details of the case to which he referred, I will see if there is a problem with the phone lines.

It must be remembered just under 100,000 people are benefiting from FIS and it is helping families back into work. The staff in the Longford office, in fairness to them, have worked very hard to improve the service.

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was not saying they had not.

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

I agree with the Deputy’s point about more advertising. The Department does not have much of any budget for advertising, unlike many other Departments. I would be more than happy if the Deputy proposed we get some additional funding for our advertising budget. The Department pays up to €55 million to RTE in regard to television licences so maybe it could give us a discount in advertising rates to get more social welfare information out to the public. We have also upgraded the Department’s website.

If Deputy Naughten gives me the details of the case in question, I will make an inquiry about it. I would be concerned that anyone was hanging around for that length of time for a response.

3:50 pm

Photo of Denis NaughtenDenis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister write to me regarding the other two anomalies?

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

If the Deputy sends me a note about the specific anomalies I will come back to him.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

At the end of this month a very big issue will arise because 6,000 single parent families will no longer be in receipt of €70 a week in respect of the child under their care. This needed to be addressed because €70 a week is a big amount of money and equates to a food bill. It amounts to a €3,500 a year food bill which the 6,000 single parents affected by this, mostly women, will not receive. According to the Minister's explanation, a Scandinavian system was to be put in place before this amount of money was withdrawn. Has the Department made any assessment as to how many of the 6,000 parents will be eligible to apply for the family income supplement, FIS? This would at least be a counterbalance to some degree. The €70 a week, or €3,500 a year, for the 6,000 people amounts to €21 million. It is literally taking the food off the table of one-parent families unless there is a counterbalance. What is the counterbalance?

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

The matter does not relate to the legislation we are discussing.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the counterbalance sense.

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

It is not affected by this legislation. I have introduced a jobseekers transition payment, whereby lone parents of children aged between seven and 14 years will be encouraged to go back to education and training. I have made money available to the Department of Children and Youth Affairs from the Department's budget for this purpose. Lone parents taking up work are eligible for FIS, and our experience of the changes in the FIS rules is that many lone parents are significantly better off. It is not a matter in the legislation, but if the Deputy wishes to give me an example I can state we have worked very hard with organisations representing lone parents and other organisations which take an interest in lone parents. The way the changes in FIS for which I have been responsible have been introduced means there has been a very enhanced take-up of FIS by lone parents and, together with income from employment, this has resulted in significant enhancement of lone parents' income. If the Deputy has a particular concern about a particular case he might let me know and I will have a look at the circumstances.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not doubt for a moment the Minister's motivation and her good intentions. Where did the substitute Scandinavian framework to counterbalance this specific loss go? Has it disappeared?

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

The Deputy has probably read about the unfortunate things that happened in the past in Ireland in mother and baby homes. Women did not have an opportunity to earn an independent income. The mother and baby homes died out when a former Labour Party predecessor of mine, Frank Cluskey, who was a former Member of the House and Minister, introduced specifically the right for women who were parenting on their own to have an income. As a consequence we had a sea change from the situation where women parenting on their own had to fall back on charity. Women in particular should have capacity and be enabled by the social welfare system, because perhaps having a child early whom they have been looking after on their own meant they may have missed out on education and training. It should in particular make provision and encourage women to be able to take up education and training, as opposed to the legacy issues about which we read and which will be the subject of an inquiry.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is getting confused.

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

While this is not the subject of the legislation, if the Deputy has a specific case I will be delighted if he brings it to my attention and I will certainly examine it.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were the Minister's own words.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This has nothing to do with the legislation.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were the Minister's own words.

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

To clarify, Deputy Mathews is referring to the fact the Minister specifically promised she would not bring about changes in child benefit until such time as a Scandinavian-type system of child care was in place in this country.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know what the Minister was saying.

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

The changes have been brought about, but I cannot see a Scandinavian type system.

Photo of Peter MathewsPeter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is exactly the point. I thank Deputy O'Dea.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Deputy addressing the amendment?

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

On the amendment, we introduced FIS, which is a good system, but it is riddled with anomalies. I have pointed out a number of them on several occasions. As I pointed out on Second Stage some of these anomalies constitute a poverty trap. The amendment I tabled was ruled out of order but I will refer generally to the section. FIS is calculated as 60% of the difference between a certain threshold and the income a person earns if it is under this threshold. The threshold depends on a person's circumstances, such as how many children he or she has. The Minister is stating that if people start the year in a low income job they will qualify for a certain amount of FIS, but if they drop off the FIS system during the year for one reason or another, such as losing a job and receiving jobseeker's allowance or jobseeker's benefit or no longer working 38 hours a fortnight, and before the end of 12 months they qualify for FIS again they will be paid for the last couple of months but at the same rate as they received at the beginning of the year. This makes no sense. If people comes back into the FIS system because of returning to employment they might have a job which pays more than the job they had at the beginning of the year, in which case they may be entitled to less FIS or perhaps no FIS, but they will be paid. They might have a job which pays less than the job they had at the beginning of the year, which means they would be entitled to more FIS but they will only receive the same amount as they did at the beginning of the year, even though they now need more because they are earning less. This does not make any sense. I proposed that when people return to the FIS system FIS should be calculated on their circumstances at that time. This is eminently reasonable, but it was ruled out of order because it might constitute a charge on the Exchequer. It is equally or even more likely it would result in saving the Exchequer money.

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

The Minister stated when regulations are made they will be laid before the House, and if we manage to get the House to have a debate on it and we are in the majority we will have an opportunity to nullify it. I am trying to avoid this situation in the first place by trying to ensure, not only with regard to social welfare legislation, that where regulations are made they go before committees of the House for discussion. We should get into this practice and it is in line with the new method of working in the House with the pre-legislative stage. I understand from what the Minister stated that she is not inclined to do so on this occasion, but I ask her in future discussions around the Cabinet table on Dáil reform that this mechanism is examined.

As 11 Members of the Houses and sometimes more sit on the committee, this means 11 different sets of eyes are available in this regard. Moreover, every Member of the House is entitled to attend the committee. Members can then try to spot where regulations may not be fully conversant with life outside. As Deputy O'Dea observed in respect of the anomalies that arise, in the case of anomalies on how the family income supplement, FIS, works, for example, one sometimes only finds out a year later when one or two cases arise, after which one may come across six or seven cases. Sometimes, the Deputies on this side of the House or even on the Government backbenches can spot these anomalies in advance but it is too late because by the time they see the regulations, they have been laid before the House. I have been in the Oireachtas for 12 years and in that time have never seen a regulation that has been laid before the Houses brought before the House and overturned. Such regulations sit there until such time as new regulations are made.

Consequently, it is a pity the Minister is not inclined to accept this proposal. It is like some of my other proposals made in the past, in that I will continue to make them until somebody listens at some stage and hopefully Members will get a system in which Parliament is regulating better, rather than simply the Department and the Minister.

4:00 pm

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

I will be happy to consider that suggestion. Obviously, a general arrangement would need to be made with regard to the whole of the Dáil and all the different Departments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 14 in the name of Deputy Naughten is out of order, as it is a charge on the Exchequer, as are amendments Nos. 15 and 16 in the name of Deputy O'Dea.

Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, not moved.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

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

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 14, line 20, to delete “cessation referred to in that paragraph” and substitute “such cessation”.
This is a technical amendment that is required to correct an inaccurate reference in paragraph (a) of section 11(1).

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

As for amendment No. 18, in some ways this is similar to the argument I made in respect of amendment No. 13. This is slightly more peculiar because it deals with the proposals regarding habitual residence conditions. A positive change is being proposed in this Bill and I have already stated that quite a number of its measures are positive. However, it requires the departmental officials to make on an ongoing basis a determination as to whether somebody remains habitually resident. I understand the two-year rule is disappearing, as it should do, as required by European law. In this amendment, I am trying to encourage the Minister to allow the draft regulations come before a committee or the Dáil or whichever, before signing off on them. This would enable Members to try to ensure the regulations would stand up to proper testing. In this case, the Minister will produce the regulations and while I do not propose in this amendment that they should go before the Oireachtas committee, in line with my other amendment this is what the intention would be.

At the very least, however, regulations should set out how the Department intends to control this change and how it intends to verify that a series of different decisions are not being made in different parts of the country with regard to habitual residence. This issue has caused problems for a number of people who have approached me. In such cases, an official has made the wrong determination, even though from my experience, it was quite clear the person in question would have qualified for social protection benefits in the past. This meant the people concerned were obliged to appeal or, if they approached me sufficiently early, to get a review. In fairness, the relevant officials, be they from the Department or the Social Welfare Appeals Office, have in most cases in which it was quite clear that somebody qualified overturned the original decision. It is a complicated area and that is why, if it is set out quite clearly in regulations, there would not be any mistakes from either the officials or from those Members who are looking in. I acknowledge that sometimes, Members also get it wrong and, having looked at a case, can give advice to somebody that he or she is deserving of a social welfare payment but sometimes they do not see the full picture. However, were the regulations set out as clearly as I would hope, it would be easier in respect of what is a very complicated aspect of qualification for social welfare payments.

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

I do not propose to accept amendment No. 18. The Deputy noted and welcomed the provisions in respect of the two-year rule. Consequently, the issue here is that unless this kind of change is introduced, it could result in the State continuing to pay social assistance to claimants who may no longer have that entitlement, having, for example, lost their status as migrant workers. Essentially, it provides for that situation, if appropriate, to be reviewed. The five factors, which are derived from European Union legislation such as Article 11 of Regulation No. 987/2009, the European Court of Justice jurisprudence including the Swaddling case and the Knoch case among others, are listed in section 246(4) of the Social Welfare Consolidated Act 2005. Guidelines on habitual residence have been published by my Department. They are freely available to everybody and are updated regularly to take account of developments nationally, at EU level and at the European Court of Justice. Full training is given on the use of the guidelines to all deciding officers and designated persons with refresher training offered when the guidelines are updated.

If a person is dissatisfied with a decision given regarding habitual residence, two avenues of appeal are open to that person. He or she may seek a review of that decision or he or she may appeal to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office. As the elements for the decision-making process already are laid down in primary legislation and there are adequate means of redress through the review and appeal procedures, I remain of the view that it is unnecessary to provide secondary legislation as proposed by the Deputy in amendment No. 18.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 18 not moved.

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

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 18, to delete lines 1 and 2.
This pertains to the proposal by the Minister to second 20 gardaí to the Department of Social Protection to help in the detection of fraud by people who are claiming social welfare benefits. On Committee Stage, I argued that while I was not opposed to the measure, I found it strange that it was included in this legislation because I believe it is a duplication of what already is available through the Criminal Assets Bureau, CAB, and the promises by various Ministers for Justice and Equality that CAB would be recalibrated to look beyond the high-profile cases. As Members are aware, CAB has the Minister's multi-agency approach in respect of dealing with social welfare.

It comprises the Revenue Commissioners, An Garda Síochána and, if required, officials of Departments, which in many cases is an inspector of the Department of Social Protection. I am unsure whether the gardaí involved are required in such numbers. I have argued previously for more social welfare inspectors to help out because an increase in the number of inspectors results in more money being recovered. I am not arguing against this proposal per se. My concern is the provision in the Bill about the wearing of uniforms. Current powers for secondment stipulate that gardaí must be in uniform and this provision could allow gardaí to work under cover for the Department. That sounds fine, and they can do so in any case, but my amendment provides that they should stay in uniform. I refer to the practice in multi-agency checkpoints which often are made up of representatives of the Revenue Commissioners who are not in uniform and representatives from the Department of Social Protection who do not wear a uniform nor do I intend them to wear a uniform. As a consequence, a multi-agency task force checkpoint might not have any identifiable uniforms on show. I am concerned at that approach. Maybe if the gardaí are confined to office they do not need to be in uniform, but the social welfare inspectors who have visited homes do not wear a uniform and I do not see the reason a garda in uniform would make any major difference. That said, I will not delay the passage of the Bill on this issue. It was not the subject of discussion on Committee Stage. The other provisions in section 15 are fine and this one seems to be an anomaly.

4:10 pm

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

This is a pilot scheme. It is envisaged that the secondment will be for a period of 12 months. The proposal has been progressed by the Department, the Department of Justice and Equality and An Garda Síochána. The primary function of any garda assigned to the Department's special investigation unit will be to investigate allegations or to initiate investigations into social welfare fraud. The role will be consistent with the functions already performed by officers in the special investigation unit, SIU. These officers will be responsible for fraud investigation and to ensure control activity is undertaken within the three main pillars of the Department's compliance and anti-fraud strategy, namely, prevention, detection and deterrence. Officers will be required to collate and assemble suitable evidence to enable a deciding officer to review an entitlement to a social welfare payment and in certain circumstances to use in legal proceedings where offences have been committed under the Social Welfare Act.

The gardaí will be working closely in collaboration with other compliance and fraud investigation agencies to ensure social welfare abuse is comprehensively deterred and detected. They will participate in operations such as the joint investigation unit operations with Revenue, the taxi regulator and the National Employment Rights Agency, as well as multi-agency vehicle checks. This inter-agency activity is a key element to assist in fraud investigation, and the shadow or hidden economy will be a key priority for joint investigations.

In serious cases of identity fraud or multiple claiming of allowances, gardaí assigned to the Department will be actively engaged in the detection and prosecution of such cases. There is also scope for them to be engaged in the investigation of cases at ports and airports to deal with what is termed welfare tourism. This will give an enhanced capacity to detect this practice.

Invitations have been issued for applications and more than 200 have been received. The locations for the scheme will be the Dublin metropolitan area, Dundalk, Letterkenny, Monaghan, Longford, Galway, Cork, Limerick, Navan and Sligo. Successful applicants will be seconded to the Department's special investigation unit. An interview board has been constituted comprising a Garda superintendent and inspector as well as the principal officer who holds the national management responsibility for the special investigation unit.

Any garda seconded to the Department will be issued with a certificate of secondment which will clearly identify that he or she is appointed to work with the Department. This certificate will include a photograph of the person concerned. I wish to reassure the Deputy and the public that, as a matter of practice, departmental investigators identify and produce their certificate of appointment to all persons they deal with.

The change in the Bill to remove the phrase “in uniform” is being made, first, to achieve consistency between section 250(16) of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005 which currently requires a social welfare inspector to be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána in uniform and section 250(16B) which, while also requiring a social welfare inspector to be accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána, does not have an in uniform condition. The second reason for the removal of the phrase is to allow for gardaí seconded to the Department to accompany social welfare inspectors carrying out activities under section 16 without the requirement to be in uniform. This is a practical issue. The seconded members remain members of the Garda Síochána and they are appointed to the Department of Social Protection with appropriate photographic identification. I repeat that this is a pilot scheme and there will be an opportunity to review its operation in due course.

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

I am happy with the Minister's response. The legislation does not state that the scheme will lapse after a certain period of time. It is being run as a pilot scheme but the legislation allows for it to continue, I presume.

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

Yes.

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

However, it does not allow for a report to go to the committee for discussion. I understand this may be for operational reasons. I will withdraw the amendment and at a future date the committee can decide whether the provision was successful or whether it needs to be extended or changed in any way.

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

I am happy with that. We update the anti-fraud initiative from time to time. It has yielded very significant revenues to the Department, which is very important, including recovery of moneys. I would be very happy to report on the project. Probably the appropriate opportunity to report will be when I am reporting to the committee or to the House on the anti-fraud initiative and the work of the special investigation unit.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.

4:20 pm

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

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 21, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

"(2) The powers conferred on the Minister by sections 14, 16 and 17 shall not be utilised until after the Department of Social Protection make all reasonable efforts to recover these payments through installed repayments.".
This amendment does not relate to people who are defrauding the system but to people who, on the basis of a mistake on their own part or the part of the Department, find themselves owing money to the Department, in other words, cases of overpayment. Normally in such circumstances the Department demands repayment and this is done by way of instalments deducted from a person's social welfare payments. The Minister proposes to change the position to give the Department the power to take back an overpayment in one lump sum. I reiterate that the persons concerned are victims of a genuine mistake, rather than fraudsters. As I and other Deputies pointed out on Second Stage, some of those affected may need the lump sum and we could cite several examples where this is the case.

The purpose of the amendment is to ensure discretion is exercised in this matter. Rather than the Department dipping its hand into a person's lump sum and taking back the precise amount owed, it should first seek to make an instalment arrangement, provided it is appropriate in the circumstances to do so. I accept the Minister's point that in some cases people have other resources from which the overpayment can be returned.

My amendment does not fully capture the objective I am seeking to achieve. I attempted to change the text but did not have an opportunity to do so because of the short period between Committee Stage and Report Stage. As the Minister will be aware, Deputies were given a briefing by departmental officials in advance of the Bill being introduced in the House. When I raised this issue I was informed that discretion would be exercised and each case would be considered on its merits. I accept that will be the case and the Department will not demand that the full amount be repaid immediately in every single case. However, the decision in all cases will be at the discretion of the relevant social welfare official. While I have come across social welfare officials who are extremely reasonable, decent and very easy to deal with, unfortunately others I have encountered could not be described in such terms. The position of the person in respect of whom an overpayment has been made depends on the official with whom he or she is dealing. Being at the mercy of an official means a person can be lucky or unlucky. If it is intended that such cases should be examined on an individual basis, guidelines should be laid down in the Bill to narrow the discretion available to officials.

In many cases, the decision by the Department as to whether to take an overpayment by way of a lump sum from moneys to which a person is entitled to receive from the Department or another Department can make a great difference. A guiding principle should apply to such cases. If it is intended that restraint should be exercised, depending on circumstances, this intention should be reflected in the legislation.

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

I agree with Deputy O'Dea on this matter. Care must be shown when making attachment orders. It is well and good that overpayments made to those in receipt of State moneys should be captured from payments made to such persons. While this is probably right and proper in the vast majority of cases, specifically when an award is being made to a person, people should be able to request that discretion be shown when such anomalies or cases arise. I cited the example of a senior citizen who applies for a sustainable energy grant to insulate his or her home before the arrival of winter. Such work must be paid for in advance, which means the applicant must obtain a small loan to pay the contractors perhaps €2,000 or €3,000 for the works. If it subsequently transpires that the person received an overpayment of €1,000 or €2,000, this sum will be taken in a lump sum from the grant of €3,000 available under the sustainable energy scheme before it is paid to the applicant. This is done on the basis that the grant is made by the State. Such a scenario would leave the individual in question with a bank or credit union debt and interest to pay.

The blanket capture of overpayments will not always work because hard cases will always arise. In such cases, the Department should consider payment by instalment. In fairness to local authorities and the Department, they have been willing to recoup overpayments by way of instalment where a person's sole income is derived from social welfare payments. The legislation was changed in the past year or two to increase the amounts the Department could recoup in instalments from a person's social welfare payment. I believe the maximum weekly instalment, which previously stood at €2, was increased to 15%, which means a weekly amount of €27 can be recouped from the maximum rate of jobseeker's allowance.

I note the contrast between these provisions and the provisions that apply to taxpayers seeking to have tax overpayments reimbursed. Such claims may only be made for overpayments made in the previous four years. In the case of the Department, however, I have with me a letter in which it is seeking to recoup, at a rate of €30 per week, an overpayment made in September 1984. In another case, it contacted a person requesting that an overpayment of €19.20 made in 2005 be repaid at a rate of €2 per week. Given the bureaucracy involved in issuing this letter, I assume it was not cost-effective to seek such a small amount.

All money owed to the State should be recovered, unless we agree to my previous proposal to introduce a social welfare amnesty and draw a line in the sand. It is handy for the Revenue Commissioners to draw a line in the sand under all tax owed for more than four years as this allows them to get away with not repaying people who either do not understand the taxation system or should pay more attention to their tax affairs. In some cases, the overpayment is caused by the complexity of the tax system or a taxpayer's ignorance of the reliefs available. After four years, taxpayers seeking to recoup overpayments in tax are told, "hard luck". The State, on the other hand, is always able to pursue overpayments.

I repeat the warning I gave on Committee Stage that this provision has the potential to create problems in certain cases involving grants, reliefs and so forth. I refer specifically to people on low wages who are not in receipt of social welfare payments. Repayments can be made by instalment in cases where the person who has been overpaid receives a social welfare payment.

However, because this is a lump sum coming back to somebody, whether he or she is in work or on social welfare, the overpayment could be deducted in full. That means somebody who has an expectation of money coming back to him or her could end up with a lot less or end up in the situation, as I stated, in the case of an energy sustainable grant or even a disability grant, where he or she has to fork out some of the money to get an extension done, for example, to facilitate wheelchair access. I want to warn the Minister and highlight that before she signs off on the Bill.

4:30 pm

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

The issue of the recovery of overpayments, particularly in relation to fraud, is significant for the Department. If my memory serves me correctly, it amounted to €73 million last year, almost the cost of the free travel scheme. The sums involved are significant.

I do not propose to accept this amendment. In response to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General require the Department to recover overpayments. The Department, unlike the Revenue Commissioners, does not charge penalties or interest. I note this can be a sensitive issue.

The Department has existing powers of attachment in relation to earnings and amounts held in financial institutions by debtors. It takes a measured approach in the use of its existing powers. From correspondence I have seen from Deputies, I am aware that they often intervene if they feel there are extenuating circumstances of which the Department ought to be made aware. I, as Minister, and officials have been happy to take that into account where we have received that information.

The existing powers are operated within strict guidelines that contain explicit safeguards. They are only exercised where a person with a debt continuously ignores his or her obligations to repay what is legally due to the State, and where it is established that there is a reasonable capacity to pay. Fundamentally, the provision is underpinned by the capacity-to-pay principle. Where a notice of attachment is considered, a final demand issues to the person concerned advising him or her of the consequences of not repaying. Before the Department moves to issuing a final demand, it has already undertaken a protracted process to endeavour to get the overpaid person to engage with the Department about his or her debt and to discharge what is legally due. The overpaid person is given an opportunity to make representations so that any factors associated with the recovery of the overpayment can be duly considered. The overpaid person has an opportunity to advise an officer of the Minister of all outgoings and the person's financial circumstances. This will critically inform whether a notice of attachment is issued and what amounts should be contained in the notice of attachment.

The new provision in this Bill will allow the Department to consider recovery of social welfare debts from amounts due to be paid to its debtors from other State funds. The safeguards that are built in to the existing powers of attachment will also continue to apply in these cases. The overall objective of my Department's debt recovery policy is to maximise the recovery of overpayments to protect public money at a time of scarce resources. All overpayments due to the Department must be repaid. Unlike other agencies, in particular, the Revenue Commissioners, we do not charge penalties or interest. The recovery of funds is an important cash flow for the Department. I would not like the Department to be berated by the Committee of Public Accounts because it did not recover a sufficient amount of the money due to the Department.

The system is operated carefully and all avenues are exhausted to get the person to agree to the return of an overpayment. As the Deputy stated, the amounts involved, in terms of somebody who is on a social welfare payment, are strictly limited to 15% of the primary social welfare payment and other social welfare payments in respect of dependants or children are not included. It is only in respect of the primary social welfare payment for the person concerned.

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

There is no suggestion from this side of the House that the Department should not pursue situations where it has paid money out incorrectly. Of course, it has a responsibility to recover overpayments. We are simply making the point that sometimes such overpayments are not the fault of the payee. Sometimes such payments arise because those recipients made a genuine error in their application and often they happen because the Department has made an error.

The Minister makes the point that, in relation to attachment orders, every effort has been made to recover the money before the attachment order is issued. That is not absolutely correct. Attachment orders have issued in certain cases where there was little enough communication between the debtor and the creditor in advance. In any case, the attachment order procedure here does not apply in relation to social welfare and the point holds, certainly, for social welfare overpayments.

The Minister has stated that the Department intends to be measured in this matter. I accept it is her intention that the Department be measured, be restrained and exercise reasonable discretion in these type of cases. All I suggest - I am not in favour of making legislation too long and complex - is if such is her intention, she should state that in the Bill. It will not add much to the Bill, at most a couple of lines. If that is her intention, she should say it so that all deciding officers will know that they have an obligation to be measured, restrained and reasonable in the operation of this new power.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Photo of Anthony LawlorAnthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 23, between lines 19 and 20, to insert the following:"(2) The definition of a qualified member as a trustee of a pension fund and the definition of a person eligible to vote for the trustee of a pension fund means an active member or deferred member or a pensioner member of the relevant scheme on that date or on such previous date.".
This arises out of an anomaly in the legislation whereby deferred members have no rights or say in who are the trustees of a pension fund. I can see a problem associated with it whereby a short-term deferred member may be a long-time member of the pension fund but towards the end of his career either lose his position or change jobs and as a result has no say whatsoever in who would represent him on the trustees of the pension fund. It seems totally unfair. We are in a democratic state and I would have thought that all those who are members of a club, an organisation or, in this case, a pension fund would have the right to a say as to who should represent him or her. Not alone do they not have a right to a say as to who should represent them, they themselves cannot be voted into the position of trustee of the pension fund. If a person has made contributions over a long number of years and circumstances have changed, where the person has moved on to another employment or the company provided a redundancy package and this individual has moved on as a result, the person cannot have any say in the role of a trustee. I agree the trustee is supposed to represent everybody, but it is unfair that someone who is part and parcel of the pension fund does not have a right to vote.

We should look at this. As to whether we should do so in the Bill, I saw it as an opportunity when we were talking about the role of trustees in pension funds.

I thought it might be an opportunity to define who a trustee was and who could vote for the trustees. I ask the Minister of State to examine this matter and give it serious consideration. I am also aware that we may have to take on board potential EU legislation that may impinge on this area. We should look at this issue, however, to see whether we can do something in this Bill or in future legislation to give deferred members the same rights as pensioners and active members who are paying into the pension fund.

4:40 pm

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept this amendment. Procedures for the appointment of trustees are usually set out in the trust deed and rules of a pension scheme. Section 62 of the Pensions Act allows for regulations to be made to provide for member participation in the selection of persons to be appointed as trustees. I understand that, in practice, the provisions of the member trustee regulations are rarely used and the composition of the trustee board is very often agreed at scheme level on a consensual basis.

It should be noted that under existing trust law, all trustees, no matter how appointed, have an obligation to act in the best interests of all members. Trustees cannot act as a representative or advocate for a particular subset from which they are drawn but must serve all classes of beneficiary impartially. In its guidance to trustees, the Pensions Authority reaffirms these principles which are also complemented by the provisions in the Pensions Act.

The current focus in relation to trusteeship is on raising the performance of trustees and proposing minimum standards for trustee education, knowledge, understanding and behaviour that would be considerably more demanding than the current trustee training requirements. This is with a view to supporting best outcomes for all scheme members.

This issue of trusteeship will be considered in the context of evolving pension policy and in particular in the context of the report by the Pensions Authority arising from the defined contribution consultation process, which the Pensions Authority launched in August 2013. I expect the report on this consultation to be with the Minister in early autumn.

Proposals are emanating from the European Commission in relation to amendments to Directive 2003/41/EC on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision. These proposals include enhanced governance structures for pension schemes which have significant impacts on the roles of the scheme trustees. The current proposals require trustees of a pension scheme to hold relevant professional qualifications. Negotiations on these proposals are ongoing and are likely to continue until the end of next year. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection was briefed on the proposals to amend the directive. The committee will be kept up to date on progress.

I can assure the House that the Department and the Pensions Authority are committed to ensuring all trustees, irrespective of their origin, administer their schemes in the best interests of all their members and in accordance with the provisions of the Pensions Act. I must stress again that the trustees of a pension scheme are required under trust law to act at all times in the best interests of scheme members, irrespective of whether trustees are appointed under the terms of the trust deed and rules of the pension scheme or whether they are appointed under regulations made under section 62 of the Pensions Act.

Photo of Anthony LawlorAnthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I somewhat expected that answer and I understand that a trustee has to represent everybody who is a member of a pension fund. What I am trying to get across, however, is that some members of that pension fund - the deferred pension members - do not have a right to vote. Nor do they have the right to go forward as trustees. My amendment seeks to give them an equal right similar to the active members and pensioner members. I understand what the Minister of State said about the review. I can also see that perhaps in future we will introduce legislation to cover deferred members, but currently they do not have the same rights, irrespective of how long they may have been paying into a pension fund. Some may have been paying into such a fund for five or six years, while others may have done so for 20 years. They might have deferred their pension for one reason or another, but they do not have any rights to vote for trustees or to act as trustees.

In a democracy, we need to give these people who have paid into a pension fund the right to choose those trustees who represent them. I welcome the fact there is an ongoing review of this matter. I hope it will be dealt with in future legislation. I know my amendment is a bit rough but I can tailor it to ensure deferred members have rights. We should define how long they have to be in a pension fund before getting voting rights. Having listened to the Minister of State's comments on EU directives and the report of the Pensions Authority, I hope we will get legislation to allow deferred members to have the same rights as active and pensioner members.

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The issue of a trusteeship will be considered in the context of evolving pension policy and in particular in the context of the Pensions Authority's report arising from the defined contribution consultation process, which the authority launched in August 2013. I expect the report on this consultation to be with the Minister in early autumn.

While acknowledging the Deputy's points, I must stress that the trustees of a pension scheme are required under trust law to act at all times in the best interests of scheme members, irrespective of whether the trustees are appointed under the terms of the trust deed and rules of the pension scheme or whether they are appointed under regulations made under section 62 of the Pensions Act.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the amendment being pressed?

Photo of Anthony LawlorAnthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Minister of State assuring me there will be a review of this when the report comes before the Minister in the autumn?

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. The Pensions Authority's report arises from the defined contribution consultation process, which the authority launched in August 2013. I expect the report on this consultation to be with the Minister in early autumn.

Photo of Anthony LawlorAnthony Lawlor (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. I will not press the amendment as the Minister will have the report in early autumn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 23, to delete lines 29 to 32.
The Minister of State is lucky because I am trying to get back to a committee. I will be brief as we have discussed this matter previously. This section of the legislation relates to the pension elements and circumstances whereby we are dealing with the unilateral restructuring of pension schemes as directed by the Pensions Authority. In that sense, Deputy Lawlor's amendment is somewhat obscure because it does not really matter who the trustees are. Ultimately, the Pensions Authority can dictate anything over the trustees' heads. Even if deferred members had the right to elect their own trustees, those trustees can be superseded by decisions of the Pensions Authority. My fear is that this section gives the authority even greater powers in that regard.

We are dealing with scenarios where pensioners' benefits will be cut. It is not a positive scenario where they will be getting extra benefits, so it is very difficult. We have to see it against the backdrop of difficulties that have emerged in defined benefit pension schemes. So far, the State's response to them has been wholly inadequate and out of kilter with developments in Britain where the authorities have adopted a more responsible attitude.

Consider some of the big defined benefit schemes which are currently in the news, such as the Irish aviation superannuation, IAS, scheme. That scheme has 15,000 members, some of whom are facing massive reductions in their benefits. When they signed up to their contracts, their terms of employment required them to be members of the scheme. They are now faced with the double insult that their colleagues who worked with them in Britain are going to get their full pension entitlements thanks to the legislation put in place in that country. It is important to set the scene in that regard.

The measures that the Minister is introducing should be viewed in the context of other legislation which is currently before the courts. A High Court ruling in 2012 found that the pension deficit in the IAS scheme was a contingent liability for the companies concerned, which led the workers and members of the scheme to believe that the trustees would be able to take legal action to force the companies to honour their pension liabilities as defined by the High Court. I fear this section, which gives the Pensions Authority an overriding power over the trustees, will tie their hands in that regard and is potentially in conflict with legislation that is before the courts. In Britain, a number of relatively recent landmark cases involving defined benefits, including a case involving IBM, resulted in rulings that workers have a reasonable expectation to a certain commitment on their retirement based on the contracts they signed.

The guidance notes prepared on foot of the passage of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill 2013, which we discussed prior to Christmas, were tilted in favour of the employers and did not take adequate account of the rights of members. The fact that no employer covenant accompanies this section of the legislation weakens it considerably in that regard. I do not think it is necessary because it gives too much power to the Pensions Authority to do what it likes over the heads of the trustees. For that reason, I am proposing the deletion of the relevant clause.

4:50 pm

Photo of Dinny McGinleyDinny McGinley (Donegal South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am aware of the difficulties that many pension schemes currently face. In regard to the IAS scheme in particular, while I am aware that extensive efforts are being made by all parties, including the expert panel, to resolve the extremely complicated issues arising, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on an individual scheme. It is important to note that the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013 ensures that pensioners maintain a significantly higher priority in pension scheme funds. However, it also fair and equitable in cases where the scheme is under funded and all members have made substantial contributions that some measure of protection is afforded to all members of the scheme. The concept of intergenerational risk sharing is not consistent with the previous situation, whereby people of working age could potentially lose their entire benefits in the event of a scheme being wound up before pensioners lose any benefits whatsoever.

Existing provisions in section 50 of the Pensions Act 1990 gives the Pensions Authority the power to issue a directive to a pension scheme to restructure certain benefits. The measures set out in this Bill will ensure that trustees shall notify members of the details of such a direction and their right to appeal. Section 24 of the Bill provides that trustees are required to notify the members of the direction and the measures the Pensions Authority may specify to be taken in such a restructuring, or if no measures are specified, such measures that the trustees consider may be necessary to reduce the benefits in the scheme. If the Minister was to accept amendment No. 24, it would mean that the members of the scheme would not be notified of the details of the measures considered necessary to bring the scheme to a sustainable funding position.

This section of the Bill also provides that trustees notify members of the right of appeal to the High Court against a direction by the Pensions Authority to restructure scheme benefits. The majority of directions issued by the Pensions Authority to date were on the basis of an application from the trustees of the scheme to restructure scheme benefits. Such applications to the Pensions Authority can only be made after the trustees have completed a comprehensive review of the scheme and after consultation with employers and scheme members. The Pensions Authority can also issue a unilateral section 50 notice in circumstances where the trustees of a scheme are not complying with scheme funding requirements as set out in the 1990 Act.

As the Deputy will be aware, the function of the Labour Court is to investigate industrial disputes. Having regard to the circumstances and the process underpinning the issue of a section 50 notice by the Pensions Authority, it is considered that the High Court is the appropriate court to hear such an appeal.

In regard to amendment No. 26, section 3 of the 1990 Act already makes it an offence for a trustee to fail to notify members where the Pensions Authority makes a direction for a scheme to restructure scheme benefits. Therefore, these amendments are not required.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise to Deputy Clare Daly because I should have pointed out that amendments Nos. 24 to 26, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. If other Deputies wish to speak on the amendments, this is the moment to do so.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think the Minister of State was responding to amendment Nos. 25.

Photo of Olivia MitchellOlivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He mentioned amendment No. 24 in his response. Deputy Clare Daly may speak on amendment No. 25 if she wishes to do so.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This legislation is being put forward as a positive measure to allow members of a scheme to be open to a certain procedure in the event of a wind-up of the scheme, in terms of access to information. The High Court is proposed as an accessible mechanism for members of the scheme. The point of the amendment I have tabled is that experience has not shown that the High Court can play such a role. In the case of determinations by the Pensions Ombudsman, it is already possible to appeal to the High Court but such appeals are rarely pursued because they involve a cohort of elderly citizens. The people concerned are 72 years old on average. It does not appear suitable to me to ask them to pursue a costly High Court procedure.

It would be preferable for members of the scheme to be given access to the State's workplace industrial relations machinery. We have discussed this previously in the context of the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill 2013 and it was suggested that the issue might be dealt with in the guidance notes. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation was asked subsequently about the matter and has indicated that he is examining the possibility of opening up the Labour Court mechanism. It is not possible at present for people to access the Labour Court if they are not currently employed but there must be some way around that. We raised this issue initially more than six months ago and more could be done to address it.

The equality issues for pensions were discussed by the Equality Tribunal and there are surely routes other than the High Court that could be accessed by workers in dealing with such issues.

Trustees are already in law obligated to consult members but the groups of existing retired staff and deferred members do not have a recognised collective voice. That must be addressed. The Minister indicated she is not prepared to discuss individual schemes, but with the Irish aviation superannuation scheme, the retired pensioner group has seen a proposition of €7 million to be taken from them in restructuring. The expert panel met these people and indicated it could not deal with the group because it has no status, despite their living standards being on the line. These people were sent on their merry way and the expert panel made no recommendations and did not address the scenario. There must be a much better mechanism than what exists now and even what is being proposed in the amendment. Access to the Labour Court would be a better alternative, along with some mechanism for recognising groups.

5:00 pm

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

I will be moving amendment No. 26. If I understand the section correctly, it does not give the pension authority the right to override trustees, as that right has existed since 1990 and arises in pensions legislation. When trustees get a unilateral direction from the Pensions Authority to restructure the fund, it puts an obligation on the trustees to inform the pensioners, which is some sort of progress.

I agree with Deputy Daly about the issue of appealing to the High Court. I could not believe my eyes when I read that people could appeal to the High Court. It is prohibitively expensive and difficult, as it involves contacting solicitors, senior counsel and all sorts of such characters. Surely to goodness there can be an appeal and if the Labour Court is not appropriate, it could go to some other mechanism that could be reached quickly and relatively inexpensively. The thought of appealing some aspect of a direction to trustees or how they deal with it to the High Court is farcical.

My amendment deals with the fact that an extra obligation is being put on trustees but there is no sanction in certain legislation if trustees do not comply with it. The Minister's able replacement mentioned that it was already covered so will the Minister clarify that? What is the sanction if trustees fail to inform members of a direction from the Pensions Authority?

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

I am sorry but I had to leave for a couple of minutes. I have some detailed notes on the comments. Since becoming Minister for Social Protection, my officials and I have devoted an enormous amount of time to getting defined benefit pensions schemes in particular across the line so as to save schemes from closing. That has happened to significant numbers of schemes, particularly since the onset of the economic crash. I do not want to comment on individual schemes but the most important act is to seek to save schemes and, if we can, get them across the line. I am happy that since we changed the legislation, the number of schemes moving to a significantly better position and which can continue has increased.

For the members of schemes, current workers and deferred and retired members, I appreciate these are very difficult issues. In many cases changes are agreed to make a scheme viable and I hope that in future, with returns on the markets improving, members may agree to changes allowing the overall liabilities of schemes to be diminished. If financial conditions improve, it may be possible to continue schemes, with the different positions of members being recovered.

Many people here have spoken at times about Ireland potentially defaulting, and I have always been of the opinion that it would have been unwise for a variety of reasons. People may have seen stories recently about the court cases in the United States relating to Argentina, which defaulted way back in 2001. We are now in 2014 but that country is still unable to resolve the issues arising from the default 13 years ago. It has been reported on the financial pages of most national and international newspapers that Argentina is potentially at risk of a further default many long years after its first.

Many defined benefit schemes have been seriously affected, as the pensions regulator pointed out on numerous occasions, by the catastrophes that occurred on the financial markets. If we can get schemes to address some deficit issues - I will not speak about a particular scheme - and members can reach agreement, this could come with a continued recovery in stock markets and particularly with regard to government debt and international bonds. People are aware, for example, that Irish debt is on sale now at only a small margin above the German debt rates. People may also have seen in recent months that Ireland's ranking has improved enormously, and such events set the ground conditions for significant potential recovery, provided scheme members can reach agreement. I certainly hope that can happen.

Members are concerned about issues being brought before the Labour Court and into the industrial relations forums. The industrial relations issues are not a matter for this Department, although I understand what Deputies have said regarding the Minister responsible for industrial relations, who is examining the matter. The matter of going to the High Court is again a matter for that forum.

Trustees are already compelled to act in the best interests of all members. Section 3 of the Act already makes it an offence for a trustee to fail to notify members where the Pensions Authority makes a direction for a scheme to restructure benefits. The object has to be to seek to get schemes into a recovery position.

I am happy to say that has happened in respect of several schemes. I am fully aware that these are exceptionally difficult negotiations, particularly given the long and complex histories of several of the schemes. I do not have any power to act in respect of the industrial relations legislation. It is a matter for the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation but I will certainly convey the views Members have expressed in this debate to him.

5:10 pm

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The trustees were always required to inform members of reductions and so on. It has come to light that retired people and deferred members do not have the right to be consulted. They can be told that their pension will be decimated but one cannot have a say in the negotiations that might resolve that situation or contribute to improving it. The need to have that right and to represent a group of people has come to light in respect of some of the present schemes. We need to do more about that.

I know this does not fall fully within the remit of the Minister here present but a commitment was made when the last Bill was passed to have discussions between the two Departments. The Minister says that officials in the Department of Social Protection have raised it with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation and it is under consideration. How hard is this to deal with? I do not wish to sound smart but the problem the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Employment has identified is that pensioners are dealing with their former employer. Technically, they are no longer employees. That is a problem in the way the Act is dealt with.

How do such groups get representation? The Minister suggested ways around this, for example some employers have early retirement groups and there is an income stream which could be regarded as a link to overcome the problem. Just as trade unions can go to the Labour Court and use the State’s industrial relations machinery, there might be a code of practice on how pensioner groups could be regulated in the same way as trade unions, for elections and the right of all people to nominate their own representatives. They want to have a say, and not to be told after the event.

Does the High Court have to be an option? It is intimidating, financially prohibitive, and in practice will not be used even if it is proposed as a positive step. I can say that with certainty because individuals who are not happy with the adjudications of the Pensions Ombudsman already have the right to go to the High Court and must do so within 21 days but that does not happen. The Equality Tribunal has dealt with pensions. There are ways around the problem if the will is there.

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

I appreciate the Deputy’s interest in this and her detailed knowledge, given the constituency she represents. I also know many in all three categories - workers, people whose pensions are deferred and pensioners - and I understand their huge concern about their retirement pension. The legislative changes I have brought forward are an attempt to ensure that as many defined benefit schemes as possible are put in a recovery position. In many cases this involves detailed negotiations and discussions. I believe that is possible. It may well be that once this period of extraordinary difficulty is over and we move further into recovery, renegotiated schemes will help the firms that gave rise to the schemes recover financially and have a stable future, which is extremely important, not just for the people who work in some of these companies but for the whole Irish economy. It is a very complex and challenging situation.

There have been discussions between the Departments of Social Protection and Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. I will raise the issues again with the Minister. It is most important to get as many schemes as possible across the line satisfactorily, even if that is a very difficult negotiation.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Photo of Clare DalyClare Daly (Dublin North, United Left)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 24, line 2, to delete “High Court” and substitute “Labour Court”.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 27, in the name of Deputy Naughten, has been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 27 not moved.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.