Vol. 483 No. 4
20 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the examination, if any, of poverty traps and disincentives to work which have been initiated by him since his appointment; if so, the outcome of this initiative; and the proposals, if any, he has to eliminate these for 1998. [20607/97]
It is crucial that social welfare services are made more responsive to the needs of the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed. While it is necessary to provide vital income support to unemployed people and their families, it is equally important that we accelerate the provision of opportunities to assist people break out of the cycle of unemployment.
In this context, I am convinced there is a need for much greater emphasis on education and training and I am considering improvements in the range of back to education programmes which will build on the existing second level and third level allowances and enable a greater number of unemployed people to gain the educational qualifications and job skills now in demand in the jobs market. These improvements will be considered in the context of the forthcoming budget.
Another crucial area is the effect of the so-called secondary benefits on the incentive to take up and remain in employment and training. This is a highly complex area, particularly as it embraces a range of schemes, including, for example, the medical card scheme and the differential rents schemes, as well as schemes operated by my Department. Given its complexity and that it comes within the responsibility of a number of Departments, a consultancy study of this area has been commissioned. The study is being overseen by an interdepartmental group. It is intended that the consultants will complete their work by the end of the year and I look forward to receiving their final report shortly thereafter. I am confident this work will highlight some of the anomalies which have developed over the years and will provide my Department as well as the other Departments involved with valuable guidance on the future development of policy in this area.
On a more general level, my Department constantly monitors the operation of its schemes with a view to ensuring that poverty traps and disincentives are removed. Further measures in this area are being considered in the context of the forthcoming budget.
We all agree it is necessary to iron out anomalies. There will always be anomalies in a complex system and we should endeavour at all times to eliminate them. Does the Minister see merit in establishing a public forum where the public could highlight anomalies as they apply to their situation? For example, at the forum they could be given advice by experts such as Colm Rapple who last week in the Sunday Business Post highlighted a case raised by Deputy McGrath. Such a forum would give people an opportunity to expose anomalies and discuss how best to resolve them.
Unlike Deputy O'Keeffe, I would not demean the ability of Oireachtas Members to expose anomalies in the social welfare system. They have done this for many years. As has been the practice in recent years in the run-up to the budget, I held a forum where 26 lobby groups put forward their views on the budget and anomalies in the system. There is scope within the existing system to deal with such anomalies. A committee of the House which will deal with this entire area will shortly be established. Members of the public have the ability through the media, particularly by way of letter to the editor, to point out anomalies.
I would not attempt to demean the efforts of my colleagues, some of whom have highlighted anomalies in the House and to me. There are two sides to this matter, one is the need to highlight the anomalies and the other is the efforts to find a solution. This is the context in which I referred to a forum where suggestions could be put forward on how to iron out anomalies in a cost-effective way. The case highlighted by Deputy McGrath is a typical example. As he said, a married person with three children in receipt of a family income supplement and a wage of £230 per week will lose money if he gets an increase. This person would need to receive an extra £2,000 per year if he was to increase his take home pay. We need a forum where such issues can be teased out and cost-effective solutions devised. Otherwise these poverty traps and disincentives to employment will continue.
The regulations governing family income supplement have been the source of much discussion by no less a forum than Partnership 2000 which put forward suggestions which are part of the agreement which must be implemented over the next two years and which is under consideration by my Department. My Department is keenly aware of the anomalies which crop up in the system from time to time. New schemes can also create anomalies in their own way. This week I signed regulations on tapering withdrawal for the qualified adult allowance under a number of schemes. This means people will be able to earn more than £60 on a tapered basis. Up to 10,000 families will benefit by an average of £19 per week as a result of this initiative. I hope in the coming budget and future budgets to address a number of the anomalies which have been highlighted by Deputies, the social partners in the context of Partnership 2000 and the public.
We will reserve judgment until after next Wednesday.
The Deputy might be pleasantly surprised.
As the time for priority questions has concluded we will take the remaining two priority questions in ordinary time.
