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

81. To ask the Minister for Social Protection the status of the report into the effects of the cuts to jobseekers' payments on those aged under 26 years of age; when he expects the report to be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25764/17]

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

The National University of Ireland, Maynooth (NUIM) is undertaking a piece of research at the moment which is examining the effectiveness of the reduced rates in encouraging young jobseekers to avail of education, training, employment programmes and opportunities. My Department has not commissioned the NUIM to undertake this research, rather, as part of an effort to encourage and promote research my Department has facilitated the NUIM access to the data from the Jobseeker’s Longitudinal Database in order to undertake this research. Initial results of the research were published as a working paper in April 2017 and this is available on the NUIM website.

Under Pathways to Work 2016-2020, my Department is committed to review and report on the impact of the reduced payment rates for jobseekers aged 18 to 25. This review will be finalised this year, and will take account of the results of the NUIM research.

Should a young jobseeker on a reduced jobseeker’s allowance payment participate on an education or training programme they receive a higher weekly payment of €160, which is increasing to €193 per week from September 2017. With effect from March 2017, rates of jobseeker’s payments were increased for claimants of all ages as a result of measures I introduced in Budget 2017.

I am committed to ensuring my Department identifies effective measures to incentivise and support young people in finding and securing sustainable jobs. The best way to do this is through engagement processes and by incentivising them to avail of educational and training opportunities, thereby enhancing their employment prospects.

Bríd Smith (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

82. To ask the Minister for Social Protection when the report on the contributory pension scheme will be ready; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26006/17]

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

99. To ask the Minister for Social Protection when he plans to report on the pension inequality that has emerged post-changes to the way the State contributory pension is calculated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26040/17]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 82 and 99 together.

I understand that the Deputies’ questions relate to a comment I made in the course of the recent Social Welfare Bill 2016, when I announced that the issue of homemaker periods would be considered in the context of the Total Contributions Approach (TCA) reform that is being planned, and would feature in the consultation document produced as part of that process. The aim is to implement the TCA, to replace the current yearly average approach, with effect from January 2020, subject to the required legislative and technical changes.

I have stated that I expect a paper regarding the TCA to be available later this year, following receipt of data from the independent actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund, which will be used to cost options in this reform. This data is expected in the coming months. Following its receipt that paper will be prepared, outlining and costing various options, including, as promised, options regarding homemaker periods.

It should be noted that there are several payments that are made to people over 66 by my Department, and the average personal payments made by my Department to men and women of this age are close to parity, with a differential of just 2%. This is reflected in CSO figures which show that women over 65 are 0.3% more likely to be at risk of poverty than their male counterparts (10.8% compared to 10.5%), and men over 65 are 0.3% more likely than women of that age to be in consistent poverty (2.9% compared to 2.6%). Most people will understand that such small differentials are statistically insignificant, and when it comes to the main domestic social indicators of poverty, men and women over 65 are at parity. It might also be noted that both of these indicators show that men and women over 65 are far less likely to be in poverty than working age people, who are the ones funding pensions on a pay as you go basis, as 16.9% of the general population are at risk of poverty, and 8.7% are in consistent poverty.

Similarly, EU figures show that Ireland has significantly smaller gender pension gaps and gender poverty gaps for over 65s than is the norm among our EU neighbours, even though some of those have longer periods of higher female participation in the labour market. In Ireland, unlike other countries, the State pension benefits received by a very high paid worker with significant PRSI deductions are identical to those of a part-time worker on the minimum wage in otherwise similar circumstances. It is not the case, as is sometimes suggested, that people with 20 or so years of contributions can expect a full contributory pension, and in most countries, even those with significant homemakers schemes, such a record will generally result in a significantly lower pension than they would be paid had they not had such gaps in their records. A challenge with the Total Contributions Approach, therefore, will be to ensure that the outcomes for women under the new scheme are at least as good as has been achieved to date.

In the meantime, where somebody does not qualify for a full rate contributory pension, they will generally qualify for an alternative payment, unless they have significant additional means. If their spouse has a contributory pension, they may qualify for an increase for a qualified adult amounting up to up to 90% of a full rate pension, which is based on their own means and is paid directly to them. Alternatively, they may qualify for a means-tested non-contributory State pension which amounts up to 95% of the maximum contributory rate, based on a household means test.

Most pensioners would satisfy the means tests for these two payments, and the very large majority of people paid them receive the maximum rate. Those alternatively in receipt of SPC payments at a lower rate, therefore, are among the better off pensioners who have significant additional means, over and above state supports.

I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputies.