Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 6 Oct 2004

Vol. 589 No. 4

Priority Questions.

Pension Provisions.

Michael Ring

Question:

121 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will amend the habitual residency condition for social assistance payments to ensure that non-contributory old age pension payments to Irish missionaries and citizens are restored; the number of persons who have applied for non-contributory pensions and have been refused since this legislation was introduced; the savings which have been made by his Department as a result of the habitual residency condition; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23464/04]

Minister for Social and Family Affairs (Mr. Brennan)

The requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for a range of social assistance and child benefit schemes operated by my Department with effect from 1 May 2004. The old age non-contributory pension scheme is one of the schemes affected. The basis for the restriction contained in the new rules is the applicant's habitual residence. The restriction is not based on citizenship, nationality, immigration status or any other factor. The effect of the restriction is that a person whose habitual residence is in the United States, Europe, Africa or elsewhere is not paid certain social welfare payments, including non-contributory old age pension, on arrival in Ireland. A person's "habitual residence" is determined in accordance with European Court of Justice case law, which sets out the grounds for assessing individual claims.

The habitual residence condition is being operated in a careful manner to ensure that Ireland's social welfare system is no longer open to all new arrivals in Ireland, while ensuring that people whose cases are appropriate to the Irish social welfare system get access to social assistance if they need it. Every effort is made to find grounds for making a positive decision when cases are being considered. Such grounds have to be compatible with EU law and other international and national legal obligations, however. It is not possible to discriminate in favour of any particular group or nationality. Specifically, it is not possible to discriminate in favour of missionaries or Irish citizens in general. The changes do not affect missionaries returning to Ireland on a permanent basis, for example to retire. They still qualify for an old age pension on the same basis as heretofore.

All cases received for determination on the habitual residence condition are dealt with in their own right. Decisions are based on the application of the guidelines to the individual circumstances of each case. Some 64 claims for old age pension have been refused to date on the grounds of habitual residence. It is not possible to estimate the resultant savings, however, because other aspects of the claims in question, such as the means involved, were not subsequently investigated. An applicant who disagrees with the decision of a deciding officer has the right to appeal to the social welfare appeals office. If such a person is in an exceptional situation and is without funds, a community welfare officer may provide a one-off exceptional needs payment under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme.

The habitual residence condition is a major new development in the social welfare system. As it has been in place for almost five months, a review of its efficiency and effectiveness is being carried out by my officials. The review will include an examination of the implications for various groups whose cases have come up for decision, including elderly missionaries returning to Ireland on holiday on a temporary basis. I am anxious to promote comprehensive pension provisions for all individuals and groups. In that context, I would be happy for my officials to enter into discussions with representatives of missionary orders and other groups to discuss their concerns about pensions and other social welfare payments.

Mr. Ring

When the Minister, the Taoiseach and the President go abroad, they give credit to missionaries before they give credit to anyone else by referring to them as wonderful ambassadors for this country. Although the new regulations affect just 64 people, they were the cause of a great deal of annoyance over the summer. When missionaries, such as Christian brothers, nuns and priests, return from Third World countries, where they are promoting this country and doing great work for the people of other countries, they prefer to apply for a pension for a few months rather than being a burden on their families. When the relevant legislation was being considered — the Minister, Deputy Brennan, was not responsible for this area at that time — Deputies on all sides of the House were given a guarantee that Irish citizens would not be affected by the changes.

Mr. Penrose

That is correct.

Mr. Ring

I am glad the Minister intends to meet representatives of the missionary orders. I ask him to arrange the meeting immediately. The 64 people who were refused the old age pension during the summer have served the State well and should receive back-dated payments. It is not right that the Minister, the Taoiseach or the President should say one thing when they are abroad, while the Government does something else. This was the meanest of the mean cuts.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

References to the President are not in order.

Mr. Ring

That is fine, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I have to put my point of view across. Will the Minister pay the 64 people who have been affected by this change? When will the Minister meet the missionary orders?

Mr. Brennan

I propose to arrange the meeting as a matter of urgency. I hope to meet the orders to discuss their concerns in the next week or two, if it can be arranged. Priests and nuns who retire to Ireland on a permanent basis will satisfy the habitual residence conditions for the old age non-contributory pension. As I have indicated, the matter is being examined in the context of the review of the habitual residence conditions, which is under way in the Department. I asked Department officials this morning to review the scheme, which has been in existence for some months, so that we can assess what we can learn from it. I am especially keen to deal with the missionaries issue, which I appreciate is of particular concern, as Deputy Ring said. I have asked my officials to study the matter and to bring some positive proposals to me in that regard. We will discuss the proposals with the representatives of the missionary orders as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Ring

I thank the Minister. We will monitor developments because it is serious that this anomaly, which should be corrected immediately, has arisen. I am glad the Minister is taking a hands-on approach to this matter. Very few people are affected by this measure, which is mean and should be dealt with.

Health Board Allowances.

Willie Penrose

Question:

122 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the findings of the report by CentreCare and the Dublin Citizens Information Service, Creating Crisis: the Impact of Rent Supplement Restrictions, which show that cuts in the rent supplement have created severe hardship for many persons; if he will reverse these cutbacks; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23470/04]

Michael Ring

Question:

124 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs further to the recent announcements by Government about rent supplement, the effect these changes have had on the persons on the ground; the instructions he has issued to health boards in relation to rent supplements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23465/04]

Mr. Brennan

I propose to take Questions Nos. 122 and 124 together.

The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on behalf of my Department by the health boards, provides for a weekly or monthly supplement of rent to eligible people in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation needs. Although the scheme is intended to address short-term income maintenance needs, the numbers accessing it in recent years have grown substantially and the length of time people spend on the scheme has increased. Consequently, a number of changes to the rent supplement scheme were introduced earlier this year.

The likely impact of the changes was assessed in advance and the manner of their implementation was carefully designed to ensure that the interests of vulnerable groups such as the homeless, the elderly and the disabled are protected. The community welfare staff who administer the scheme on behalf of my Department were advised of the changes by means of a formal circular. My Department has been in regular contact with the community welfare staff before and since the introduction of the changes in January.

A working group was established under Sustaining Progress to facilitate engagement with the social partners in monitoring the impact of the changes to the scheme. The working group, which was chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, included representatives from ICTU and the community and voluntary pillars, as well as my Department and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The group met a number of community welfare officers as part of its work. The working group examined 498 randomly selected rent supplement applications which were refused since the measures came into effect in January 2004. The result was that they found that only 11% of refusals were because of the new measures. Many of those would in any event have been refused on other grounds. The group concluded that the new measures were not having any significant adverse impact with regard to the design of the measures, including the operation of the appropriate level of discretion by the community welfare officers. In that regard, I point out that more than 27,000 rent supplements have been awarded since the measures came into effect at the end of January 2004.

The recent report by CentreCare and the City Centre Dublin Citizens' Information Service stated that its purpose was to identify issues arising from the first six months since changes to rent supplement eligibility rules were introduced. The report was based on a survey of 51 cases where the applicant was refused rent supplement, with information relating to 40 other similar cases not included in the survey. The report does not show that the new measures are causing hardship. In some cases, rent supplements were awarded. It is also clear from the information given regarding several other cases cited that the application failed for reasons not connected with the new measures. My Department has identified several significant inaccuracies in the report and does not accept its central conclusions.

In the light of the report published by the social partners working group and the fact that more than 27,000 rent supplements have been awarded since the measures became effective, it does not appear that the changes in the supplementary welfare allowance rent schemes have created hardship. Deputies are aware that the arrangements are part of a wider programme of change whereby local authorities will progressively assume responsibility for meeting long-term housing needs, including those of people dependent on rent supplements for 18 months or longer. Those new arrangements will see local authorities put in place positive solutions for people with long-term housing needs, while the existing rent supplement scheme will continue to provide short-term income support in appropriate circumstances. The overall programme of change, particularly the greater role of the housing authorities regarding people who need rent supplements, will result in a better outcome both for the State and the individuals concerned.

Mr. Penrose

The Minister obviously disputes the findings and central thrust of the report which was carried out by the department of planning and development at the Dublin Institute of Technology and launched within recent weeks. Whatever one might say regarding some of the findings, does it not indicate that large numbers of vulnerable people are experiencing hardship as a result of the cuts to the rent supplement and the operation of the revised scheme? In particular, the changes to the eligibility for rent supplement are causing people to live in undesirable housing situations. The Government has cut holes in the housing safety net by removing eligibility from many people. What alternatives do vulnerable people have in the absence of the rent supplement provision? Does the Minister agree that not enough social or affordable housing is available for such people? He says that local authorities will fill the void, but how can they do that when housing waiting lists are overloaded with those awaiting housing allocations? Is Threshold also wrong? Evidence from it shows that the groups worst affected are returning emigrants, those with a crisis pregnancy, those moving from rural areas to urban ones seeking employment, and single homeless men. Where do they fit into this picture? Is the Minister trying to tell me that today?

I know the Minister has been burdened with one of the savage 16 cuts that his predecessor put in place. This is one that will come back to haunt the Government, along with 14 others, only one of the measures having been reversed. I appeal to the Minister to reverse those savage 16 cuts when he gets the opportunity. They saved a paltry €52 million and visited tremendous difficulties on large and vulnerable sections of the community.

Are the Simon Community, Threshold, the City Centre Dublin Citizens' Information Service and CentreCare all out of touch, or might it be the Minister's Department that is out of touch?

Mr. Brennan

As I said in my reply, there was a working group chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, involving the ICTU, the community and voluntary pillars and various Departments. There were meetings with community welfare officers. They examined 498 randomly selected rent supplement applicants who were refused and found that only 11% of refusals were as a result of the new measures. The group concluded that the new measures were not having any significant adverse impact with regard to the design of the scheme and especially the level of discretion that community welfare officers had.

As the Deputy knows, specific provision has been made to ensure that the interests of vulnerable groups, particularly the homeless, are fully protected in the implementation of these measures. In that context, no one with a genuine accommodation need will be made homeless as a result of the new measures. Under the Social Welfare Acts, a health board has the discretion to make a payment if, in its opinion, the circumstances of any case still warrant it. I have instructed my Department to review those 16 decisions and give me a report at the earliest possible date on how they are working and whether any hardship issues are involved. It may be that some of them need further adjustment, but I have asked for all 16 to be reviewed. That is not to say that I will necessarily make any changes to them, but I have asked for a review and a full report on each one with an assessment of the change's effect on any individuals and whether there might be another way of dealing with the issue.

Mr. Ring

There is a major conflict between the two reports from the different groups monitoring the effects of the rent supplement changes. Does the Minister think it acceptable that the Department's group met on four occasions and spoke in that time to only three community welfare officers? How could one have a proper report if that was the case? That is not a random sample of community welfare officers throughout the State. Will the Minister ensure his Department contacts the groups with which there is a conflict, namely, those which say that his report is not accurate, that their report, based on dealing with people involved, is correct, and that the cuts in rent supplement entitlement are having an effect?

Regarding the recent changes to the rent supplement which are undoubtedly having a major effect, especially with 52,000 on the housing waiting list and 1,733 social houses built last year, which means there is a major crisis, what deal has been done with local authorities? Perhaps the Minister might let me know what is happening regarding local authorities being able to rent houses from the private sector on long-term leases. What instructions have local authorities received from the Department? The Minister might not have the figures today, but I hope that he will let me know. How many local authorities have entered into private arrangements to lease houses?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not within the Minister's remit.

Mr. Ring

The Department of Social and Family Affairs pays the bills and instructs the local authorities.

Mr. Brennan

The Deputy informs me that three community welfare officers were consulted. I cannot say whether the Deputy is right or wrong. My information is that the working group involving the ICTU, the Department of the Taoiseach and the voluntary and community pillars met several such officers, although I am not clear on the exact number. If the Deputy wishes, I can certainly check that point for him. Some 27,000 rent supplements have been awarded since the measures came into effect at the end of January 2004. I have already given the figure that the group found that 11% of refusals were because of the new measures. The rest would have been refused in any case on other eligibility grounds. On the housing front, I will endeavour to seek out that information for the Deputy.

Social Welfare Benefits.

Seán Crowe

Question:

123 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has considered establishing a new allowance of similar value to the fostering allowance, particularly to grandparents who are looking after grandchildren in the absence of parents, especially in cases in which there is drug addiction in parents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23466/04]

Mr. Brennan

The foster care allowance can be paid only in respect of children who are taken into the care of the health board and placed in foster care under the Child Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations 1995, or in relatives' care under the Child Care (Placement of Children with Relatives) Regulations 1995. I understand that under the regulations it is possible for a health board to place a child with relatives in an emergency. However, the board must ensure that its regulatory obligations regarding the assessment of the child's and relative's needs are carried out as soon as practicable and that it conforms to all the other obligations regarding care plans and reviews.

Issues of foster care are a matter for the Department of Health and Children and the health boards, and any question of extending payment of the allowance in circumstances other than those which currently apply are a matter for that Department. The orphan's contributory allowance and orphan's non-contributory pension, paid by my Department, provide income maintenance in situations such as that raised by the Deputy, subject to certain qualifying conditions. The definition of an orphan for the purpose of these payments was extended in 1995 to include children where one or both parents are alive but have abandoned or refused or failed to provide for them. This expansion of the definition was a response to changes in family and social circumstances.

The weekly rate of the orphan's contributory allowance and maximum rate of orphan's non-contributory pension, which is paid to the child's guardian, is €107 per week. This is substantially higher than other payments made by my Department in respect of children. The highest rate of child dependant allowance is €21.60 per week. The foster care allowance is set at a rate of €289.50 per week for a child under 12 years of age, and €316.50 per week for children of 12 years and over.

The two payments have significantly different objectives and purposes. The orphans' payments, paid by my Department, are designed as income support measures while the foster care allowance is a very different type of payment which responds to very specific child care needs and the additional challenges faced by foster carers. There are no plans to change the present arrangements in this regard. I will keep the matter under consideration, taking account, inter alia, a review of these payments which was published by my Department in 2003.

Mr. Crowe

I am pleased the Minister says he will keep the matter under review. This area has expanded over the years. Many Dublin Deputies would be aware of cases where children have been abandoned and left to be cared for by their grandparents. The Minister has explained the system but there is a great anomaly involved and a major difference between the fostering allowance and the orphan's allowance. That needs to be examined.

Many families in such situations do not know where to turn, and many young social workers are not aware of the allowances. That needs to be addressed. Being new to the Department, the Minister should prioritise the matter. It is not merely a problem in Dublin but is spreading through the country. I know that the debate about carers will continue later, but those of whom I speak feel abandoned. The children have in many cases been abandoned. They do not know to whom to turn. The State seems to turn its back on them and makes it difficult for them to receive allowances. I could cite many cases where people have been left to look after their grandchildren and do not hear from the parents. The grandparents are reluctant to come forward and say the children have been abandoned, partly because they are elderly and face age-related difficulties when attempting to claim allowances.

Will the Minister consider the matter? I know the budget is coming up. While the Minister says there are differences in the situations of orphans and foster children, the work that grandparents do in these areas is much the same.

Mr. Brennan

The Deputy states the matter well and has captured in his words the personal and human dimension of this issue. A great deal of trauma surrounds the issues related to orphans, definitions, payments and relationships. As I said, I will review the matter and take into account the payments which were published by my Department in 2003. I will conduct that review as a matter of urgency, taking into account what Deputy Crowe said. I will do that without any commitment today other than to study the matter, which I have not yet had an opportunity to do.

Question No. 124 answered with QuestionNo. 122.

Paudge Connolly

Question:

125 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if it is intended to restore eligibility for the back to education allowance to persons who were unemployed for six months, in view of the hardship caused to persons by the 15 month stipulation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23468/04]

Mr. Brennan

The back to education allowance is a second chance education opportunities programme designed to encourage and facilitate people on certain social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications and thus their prospects of returning to the active workforce. The conditions for entitlement to the third level option of the back to education allowance were revised with effect from 1 September 2004. From that date, the qualifying period was increased from six months to 15 months for new applicants intending to commence third level courses of study.

The scheme was always intended to benefit people who had difficulty finding employment because of a lack of education qualifications. In many cases, people who have not completed second level education are held back in their efforts to obtain employment. The scheme provides these people with an opportunity to improve their qualifications and thus their prospects of obtaining work. It was never intended to be an alternative form of support for people entering the third level education system.

One of the factors that influenced the change in the qualification conditions is the concern that some people may go on the live register specifically to qualify for the back to education allowance. In the academic year 2003-04, the majority of participants in the third level option of the scheme were in receipt of an unemployment payment for 12 months or less when they accessed the scheme. It was therefore decided that the qualifying condition should remain at six months for people who wish to pursue a second level qualification. Restructuring the back to education allowance in that way ensures that this support retains its focus on the more vulnerable groups in our community, particularly people who do not have a second level education qualification and who are at risk of becoming dependent on social welfare payments on a long-term basis.

Time spent pursuing a second level course with the assistance of the back to education scheme will count towards meeting the 15-month qualification condition for the third level option. In a situation where priorities had to be set and choices made, those in greatest need of assistance under the BTEA have been protected.

Mr. Connolly

I thank the Minister for his response and welcome the fact that he has decided to review these cutbacks. Does he agree that the back to education allowance has the laudable aim of bridging the gap between unemployment and a return to work? For lone parents in particular and for people with disabilities, the extension of the time frame from six months to 15 months acts as a disincentive. If people are unemployed, it is much more difficult for them to re-motivate themselves and return to education.

I attended the launch of a pre-budget submission by people with disabilities. They have outlined their difficulties, including their additional cost of living costs and the cost of mobility. The latter is reckoned at about €40 weekly and is another one of the hurdles the disabled must jump. Will the Minister agree that restoring the back to education allowance will help lone parents to become more independent and contribute equally to society? Will he agree that this would be cost-effective and self-financing over a period of time? The changes to the back to education scheme have saved €1 million but it is regrettable that they were made because some people were abusing the scheme. We should investigate those abusing the scheme rather than punish those benefiting from it.

Mr. Brennan

The scheme was designed to help those who have not worked for some time to improve their employability and their job readiness by giving them a chance to improve their qualifications and education. As the Deputy hinted, the scheme is a recognition of the special difficulties people can face when attempting to get a foothold in the labour market.

There are no plans to abolish the back to education allowance. The concern is always to support those who need extra help to equip themselves for the job market. Since it began in 1990, the number who have accessed the scheme has steadily increased, from 67 in 1990 to 7,648 for the last academic year. I intend to review it, taking into account the points made by Members.