Vol. 592 No. 2
64 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the target for processing new claims for the carer’s allowance and one-parent family payments; the progress that has been achieved; his plans for improving target levels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28451/04]
My Department is committed to providing a quality service to all its customers. This includes ensuring that applications are processed and that decisions on entitlement are issued as quickly as possible having regard to the eligibility conditions which apply. The overriding consideration in processing claims is to ensure that customers receive their correct entitlement and decisions are not taken until all appropriate information is available.
Challenging key performance indicators are set for processing claims. In the case of carer's allowance, the performance target is to award 70% of claims within 13 weeks. For one-parent family, the target is to award 55% of unmarried cases within eight weeks and 65% of separated cases in 13 weeks. The average time currently taken to award carer's allowance is just under ten weeks, 74% of claims were awarded within 13 weeks in October 2004. The average processing times for one-parent family for September were 15 weeks in unmarried cases and 18 weeks in separated cases.
The time taken to process individual carer's or one-parent family payment applications varies with regard to the difficulty or otherwise in establishing the circumstances in each case. The majority of carer's and one-parent family payment applicants are in receipt of another social welfare payment while their claim is being processed. This payment will normally continue until their entitlement to one-parent family or carer's allowance payment is determined. However, every effort is made to process applications as quickly as possible and to minimise the time during which applicants have to rely on these alternative forms of support.
Targets and performance indicators are being reviewed in the context of my Department's modernisation action plan and, in this context, it is intended to devise a more comprehensive set of performance indicators and improved systems for measuring and reporting on inputs, outputs and outcomes for the future.
In addition, my Department's service delivery modernisation programme is under way. It is designed to use the most up to date technology and business models to improve delivery of services. This programme will facilitate integration of services and greater efficiency. While it will be some time before these benefits are fully achieved, I am concerned to ensure that service levels are maintained and improved in the meantime. To this end, my Department is engaged in an ongoing process to ensure that existing resources are prioritised to the greatest extent possible on front line service delivery.
In this regard, administration of one-parent family payments is being devolved to the Department's network of local offices. This is being done primarily to improve customer service. Claim processing times will be reduced through closer linkage with the local investigative officer network. In addition, lone parents will have more direct local contact with the Department's employment support services. As a result of these initiatives, claims for carer's allowance and for one-parent family payment are now being dealt with more quickly.
I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his appointment. I hope we will see an improvement under his watch. Is he aware, from his own annual report, that the standard clearance time for one-parent family payments in 2001 was 65% in eight weeks? That changed to 50% in eight weeks in 2003. The achievement level in 2001 was 31% and was 21% in 2003. Is he aware that the standard clearance time for the carer's allowance was 80% in eight weeks in 2001 and 70% in nine weeks in 2003? The achievement levels fell rather than rose and went from 26% to 22%. Why is that the case? Why have the targets been changed? Does the Minister realise the stress, worry and problems carer's and one-parent families have in waiting for the claims to be processed? When will this benefit, about which he speaks, be achieved? When will local offices pay one-parent family payments?
Processing of one-parent family payment claims in local social welfare offices has successfully got under way in 17 local offices throughout the country. By the beginning of 2005, approximately half of all new claimants for one-parent family payments will have their claims dealt with in their local social welfare offices. Localisation of the service to other local offices is planned to proceed on a phased basis in 2005.
There is an unavoidable time lag involved in conducting the necessary investigations. There is a plethora of schemes and cross-checking, inquiries and investigations are necessary to enable decisions to be made. There is an onus on applicants to furnish all necessary documentation. The investigative and inquiry stage is time-consuming and every effort is being made in this regard. A number of improvements were recently introduced to directly affect the carer's allowance in terms of time. We have reviewed all the existing procedures. Applicants who are refused on medical eligibility grounds are provided with an interim decision. Applicants who are automatically medically approved can be fast-tracked. Priority is now being given to any claim that is pending for eight weeks or more and additional have staff have been assigned. There is quite a volume of work and every effort is being made to deal with all the applicants as quickly as possible.
How many applications for the one-parent family payment and the carer's allowance are pending and for how long are they pending? If the Minister cannot give me that information now, he can give it to me later but I would appreciate an indication now.
I will probably have to give the Deputy the number later. We received 6,570 applications for the carer's allowance this year. A total of 6,267 have been determined and another 611 claims were withdrawn, including some claims received towards the end of the year. Some 3,980 people were awarded the carer's allowance in the first instance and there are currently 1,140 new claims on hand. More than 70% of these have been received in the past eight weeks or so. I will get the Deputy the information on the lone-parent allowance.
65 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when he will complete his review of the 16 social welfare cutbacks announced in November 2003; if the review will be completed ahead of the publication of Estimates and budget 2005; the consultations he has had with charitable and voluntary groups regarding the impact of these cuts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28257/04]
The Estimates for the Department of Social and Family Affairs announced last November, included a number of provisions to better target resources within the social welfare code. I have asked my officials to review all of the measures in question and I expect this work to be completed in the near future. I will bring forward proposals, if appropriate, in the light of the findings of the review.
On 11 October last, I hosted a pre-budget forum to which a wide variety of organisations with interests in social welfare issues had been invited. In all, 27 organisations attended on the day and I extended an invitation to each of them to meet me separately to outline their work and to make their concerns known to me. Since then, I met a number of these organisations. I have listened carefully to any views expressed by them in regard the measures announced last year and, looking ahead, to improvements sought in social welfare provisions generally in the forthcoming budget. I intend to meet the remaining groups over the coming months.
My priority in the forthcoming budget is to make significant progress in delivering on the social welfare commitments in the programme for Government, Sustaining Progress and the national anti-poverty strategy.
Resources will be targeted towards helping those most in need in order, not alone to raise their standard of living, but to ensure that everyone is a valued citizen who can make his or her individual contribution to society, regardless of circumstances. The intention is to make a positive difference in the lives of people around the country who depend on the social welfare system and I will bring various proposals forward in that regard in the near future.
I have already congratulated the Minister on his appointment to the new portfolio and wish him the best of luck. However, he has created a fog of confusion, given that he now professes to being a socialist. We were not aware that he was a closet socialist until his statement recently at a meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. Accepting the Minster's bona fides and his expression of socialist tendencies, which I had not encountered heretofore, he must have been shocked at the rightwing bent of his Government and his predecessor, who visited these savage cuts upon ordinary working class people and the marginalised. It begs the question as to how it all happened. How could the actions taken by a Government of which the Minister was a member and which shares responsibility for every decision made at the Cabinet table, slip under his socialist nose? The cuts have brought hardship to so many vulnerable people, for the sake of cynical money, €58 million initially and subsequently less than €15 million, the price of a few electronic voting machines.
Let us get down to a few facts. The Minister now accepts it was a major mistake by his Government, and particularly his predecessor, to do what they did in November 2003. It inflicted hardship on people in receipt of rent supplements, on victims of domestic violence who now must declare themselves homeless in order to qualify for rent supplements as well as dietary, crèche and MABS supplements and it emasculated the back to education allowance which is so necessary for many lone parents. We all profess that the best way out of poverty is through education and we emasculate the very scheme that facilitates this.
The Deputy is taking a circuitous route to the question.
I have indicated the questions. Will the Minister say how these cuts could have escaped the application of the poverty-proofing regime which is supposed to operate under the partnership process and Sustaining Progress? Was everybody asleep or was this applied at all, was it just another fog of confusion or does poverty-proofing mean anything to this Government?
The Deputy will have to judge for himself whether I am a socialist or a capitalist. I explained to my parliamentary party that throughout my political life I have always believed in competition and in growing the economy strongly. The purpose of a competitive economy is not just to produce a few millionaires but to assist the boats that get left behind in the rising tide. That did not dawn on me since I took on this portfolio, but has always been my view. However, my previous post was concerned with growing the economy and helping to bring about the necessary level of growth so that we could arrive at a point where our social obligations could be met in a more targeted and focused way.
I have announced a review of these changes that were made, on a case by case basis. I have already spent many hours in discussion with officials on each and every one of them. If the Deputy goes through them in detail, I am sure he will be aware that some are designed to remove abuse. Others will be changed, I believe. If one reviews them with an open mind one will see that some of the changes were designed so that available resources could be concentrated in areas of genuine need and to ensure there was no abuse of the system. I have already indicated that these measures are being reviewed and I will bring forward the relevant proposals in the near future. I will fully explain to the House where we stand, item by item and on a case by case basis.
I would like to say to Deputy Penrose——
I have a minute left.
Time is running out for him.
Time will run out for the Government if it continues to behave like that.
There is a difficulty with the Priority Questions. If we have long rambling introductions it will restrict the number of questions which may be asked.
I will abide by the Acting Chairman's ruling and will ask one brief question, as I am trained to do. The Minister made an extraordinary admission when he said recently, in reply to a parliamentary question, that neither he nor his Department knew how many people had been hurt by the cuts and reforms introduced. This is despite the fact that we have been articulating this for the past 12 months, as have the 30 community and voluntary organisations who represent those people. Is that not an extraordinary admission or is it a sign of a Government out of touch with reality?
There are numbers in some cases, but not in others because applications have to be made. While the number of people who apply for a scheme is known this is not necessarily the case as regards those who do not apply. That is why it is not always possible to get accurate numbers. The Deputy will also be aware that in the case of the rent supplement, for example, discussions with the social partners included a review as to whether there was any hardship in that area and produced some samples which are currently being examined. The reason there are not accurate figures in some cases is largely because the Department is not aware of those people who do not apply for a particular scheme.
66 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the new measures or sanctions he proposes to introduce in response to the considerable problems highlighted in the recent report compiled by the CDI entitled How are our Kids. [28114/04]
I welcome the study, to which the Deputy refers, and like many others am concerned at its findings. It demonstrates the urgency of the action required to combat poverty, which impacts on our most vulnerable citizens, especially children. The study is based on a sample of 187 children drawn from 79 households in Tallaght west.
The area differs from the average in this country in the following important respects: the population is much younger than the average, 54% under age 25, compared to the national average of 37%, while the proportion of children leaving education early is significantly higher than the national average; almost 7% of the population lives with a disability of whom 14.6% are under 15 years age, compared to the national average of 5.3%; the proportion unemployed, at 10.6%, is more than twice the national average, while a further 4.6% are unable to work; almost one in three of households is headed by a lone parent, with just under 24% of such households having a child under 15 years, compared to national averages of 12% and 5.3% respectively; Those living in the area are, therefore, at a much higher risk of poverty than the national average. The national anti-poverty strategy, which has been in operation since 1997, is being constantly developed, a process being co-ordinated by the office for social inclusion within my Department. The strategy is designed to meet the type of challenges highlighted by this study, which are cross-cutting in nature and require an integrated approach.
A key objective of the strategy is to move towards eliminating child poverty and to have a situation of greater equality for all in terms of access to appropriate education, health and housing, thereby seeking to break the cycle of disadvantage and exclusion experienced by certain children in society. A report on the implementation of the strategy for the period 2003 to 2004 is currently being finalised and will be published shortly. This will provide a basis for an evaluation of the progress made so far in combating poverty and social exclusion and what the priorities should be for further action.
The evaluation will take place in consultation with the social partners, the community, voluntary sector and other interested parties with a view to a report being forwarded to the EU in June next year. A key priority will be to further develop a more effective regional and locally based approach to combating poverty, within the context of the RAPID programme This programme, launched in 2001, is designed to improve the quality and delivery of services and facilities in identified areas of urban disadvantage, which includes parts of west Tallaght. The ongoing review of the NAPS will examine how national policies in areas such as income and employment supports, child care, health, and education can be better integrated with locally based services to more effectively combat concentrations of poverty, especially in areas of deprivation. Above all, the review will seek to identify priorities for immediate action, given the urgency of significantly improving the well being of the children, whose situation is so well documented in the study. The findings of studies such as this are being fully taken into account in this process. I have also asked my officials to discuss the study with the authors and to identify other priorities for action.
The Minister has answered one of the questions I intended to ask by saying his officials will meet the authors of the report, which I welcome. I am putting a series of questions on the report to a number of Ministers. According to the report, the people in Tallaght are subject to a disproportionate burden of poverty and inequality. While I have no doubt there are other areas in the State with a similar burden, there is a special case to be made for this particular area. The fact that I represent it is immaterial as I would raise the issue were I the representative of any other area.
According to the report, one in three families is headed by a lone parent, which is four times the national average. While people talk about problem areas, it is Government and society which have created the conditions in which those problems have occurred. It is for us, therefore, to come up with the solutions. The report refers to a solution-based approach to the problems in the area. On foot of the meeting with the report's authors, the Minister or one of his officials should consider specific solutions to try to resolve the problems in the area. In his reply, the Minister accepted there was a problem.
Deputy Crowe is falling into the trap of making a speech during Question Time.
Sorry about that. While the Minister outlined clearly the problems in the area, I am calling for a direct approach to tackling the problem. If there are job losses in a particular area, we normally establish a task force. While I am not necessarily looking for that, I want some form of short and long term response to the problems in this area.
I thank the Deputy. I acknowledged in my reply the work of the authors of the report and outlined that a meeting would take place. The Deputy is correct to focus on west Tallaght, the percentage figures for which are unacceptable. We must continue to tackle the problems. While the people of Tallaght receive in the first instance all of the benefit supports people receive nationwide, special, extended supports tailored to meet the needs of the particular area are also required. For example, my Department's area manager in Tallaght is a member of the board of Tallaght area partnership and the west Tallaght RAPID implementation team. The facilitator based in the local Tallaght office is a member of the Tallaght partnership's early school leaver strategy group. Work is also ongoing in Jobstown and with local community organisations such as the Tallaght lone-parent community development project. There is a host of other projects, details of which I can supply to the Deputy, though I am sure he knows them far better than I do through his connections with them.
67 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the recent findings by the Combat Poverty Agency that 35% of poor children come from households that are headed by a person who is in employment; his plans to address this situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28452/04]
I omitted previously to offer my congratulations to Deputy Stanton on his appointment to his party's Front Bench. I wish him well, though not too well.
The Deputy refers no doubt to the Combat Poverty Agency's recent pre-budget submission to the Government. The submission refers to children in families supported by those in low-paid employment who are deemed to be at risk of poverty as their income falls below the 60% relative-income threshold, which is 60% of median income. Tackling child poverty continues to be one of the Government's key priorities. The problem of child poverty is multifaceted and requires a multifaceted response through agencies such as the revised national anti-poverty strategy, the national children's strategy and, more recently, the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion. Through these strategies, the Government has committed to specific and measurable targets to achieve greater equality of access to adequate income, appropriate education, health and housing to break the cycle of disadvantage and exclusion experienced by certain children in society.
The Government recognises the importance of supporting and protecting families and children. Our aim is to achieve the national anti-poverty strategy target of reducing the number of children who are consistently poor to below 2% by 2007 or, if possible, to eliminate by then consistent poverty among children. Significant progress has already been made towards achieving this target. The number of children who are consistently poor has more than halved in the four-year period from 1997 to 2001, falling from 15.3% in 1997 to 6.5% in 2001. I emphasise that our aim is to reduce consistent poverty to below 2% rather than eliminate it completely.
A key factor underpinning the reduction in child poverty is the reduction in the numbers of parents who are unemployed. Our aim is to continue to maintain high levels of employment and to remove obstacles to taking up employment especially in the cases of lone parents and parents with large families. This approach is reflected in the investment in child benefit which is an employment-neutral payment offering an effective means of channelling income support to low-income families to tackle child poverty. Payments now amount to €131.60 for the first and second child and €165.30 for third and subsequent children.
The issue of child poverty in the homes of persons working in low-earnings employment is recognised by my Department through the directing of further income support towards such families by way of family-income supplement. This supplement provides cash support through weekly payments to families, including lone-parent families, whose earners work for low pay. Improvements to the scheme such as the assessment of entitlements on the basis of net rather than gross income and the progressive increases in the income limits have made it easier for lower-income households to qualify for the supplement. The number of persons in receipt of family income supplement at the end of October 2004 was 14,303 while the average weekly payment was €74.16. An allocation of €56 million has been made for the scheme in the 2004 Estimates.
The importance of tackling child poverty is reflected in the identification of ending child poverty as one of ten special initiatives to be undertaken under Sustaining Progress. Under this initiative, key policy issues are being addressed including child income support arrangements. The work being undertaken under the special initiative will further enhance our capacity to tackle the issue of child poverty. Further improvements to child income support arrangements will be considered in a budgetary context.
Does the Minister accept the findings of the Combat Poverty Agency, which is an independent statutory agency, that 35% of poor children live in working households? I take it he has seen the report. Does the Minister agree it is time to move away from consistent levels of poverty to talk about relative income poverty, which is the measure used across Europe? Does the Minister agree that family income supplement is completely inadequate and must be increased by at least €35 per week?
I have no reason to doubt the Combat Poverty Agency's statistic that 35% of poor children come from households headed by a person who is in employment. The figure according to which I have been operating in the Department is that 66,000 children are on the front line. These are the children on whom I want to focus if possible. The figure is accepted by the Department, all of the agencies involved and in independent assessments. While one gets extra numbers depending on how far out one draws the line, the number of children on the very front line is 66,000. That is completely unacceptable as the mark of a civilised society must be the way it treats those 66,000 kids. I am determined to focus support directly on these children with some urgency.
The Deputy also asked me about family income supplement. As with all such schemes, one would like to do more. The supplement is intended to be an additional payment for those in low-paid employment who have families and in that connection it is of help. The current level of payment of approximately €74 does not seriously tackle the issue and is no more than an incentive. I do not claim more than that for it.
What measure has the Minister used to arrive at the figure of 66,000 children?
That is the figure supplied to me by the Department of Social and Family Affairs as the number agreed with the agencies, in various studies and in the national anti-poverty strategy. I realise there are different definitions and that we can argue about consistent and relative poverty as well as the poverty of children in households headed by people who have jobs as opposed to those in households headed by persons without them. The initial conclusion I have arrived at is that it is a wide argument. There is no disagreement on the fact that we need to deal with the needs of the 66,000 children and that is where my focus will be.
68 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if special savings incentive accounts of social welfare recipients will not be included in assessment for social welfare payments when such accounts matures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28258/04]
I have recently asked my Department to carry out a comprehensive examination of the current arrangements for assessment of capital, particularly in so far as they apply to SSIAs, and I will consider what action needs to be taken on foot of it. I expect that this examination will be concluded in the near future.
In assessing means for social assistance purposes, account is taken of any cash income the person may have, together with the value of capital and property. Capital may include the following: stocks and shares of every description, which are assessed according to their current market value, savings certificates-bonds, national instalment savings, which are assessed according to their current market value, and money invested in a bank, building society and so on. Amounts held in SSIAs are treated in the same manner as the other capital I have just outlined, subject to the examination.
It is important to note that in assessing the value of capital, significant disregards are applied. The first €12,697.38 of capital is disregarded and the assessment is on a sliding scale for amounts above this sum. In the case of the old age pension, for example, a single pensioner with capital of up to €20,315.80 qualifies for a full pension while a single pensioner with capital of up to €68,565.84 qualifies for a minimum pension. These amounts are doubled in the case of married pensioners.
The current system continues the policy of ensuring that those with modest amounts of capital receive the greater share of available support, whereas the small proportion of people with large amounts of capital are assumed to be in a position to avail of it to contribute, at least partially, towards meeting their needs.
As already stated, I will consider in the near future the position of moneys held in SSIA accounts. I will bring the outcome of that examination to the Government as soon as possible.
I appreciate that the Minister is carrying out a review and acting quickly in this instance. Is he in a position to indicate how many may be affected? I suggest the number of social welfare recipients investing in SSIAs is small. Does the Minister agree that some who were in employment and invested in SSIAs for two or three years and who have since left the labour force or retired would suffer? Does he agree that many social welfare recipients would not have much to invest? Even at a minimum of €63 per week, some were putting it by to help educate grandchildren. Does the Minister agree that if a person in receipt of a non-contributory pension which is means-tested had €15,000 or €16,000 and invested the minimum of €63 per month over the five years, this would put him or her in a position whereby he or she would lose some of the pension? Would it not be a travesty that people who may have put away small amounts for the future would jeopardise their mean-tested welfare payments down the road? Does he agree it is contrary to the spirit of the once-off scheme that social welfare recipients should have their social welfare payments affected in an adverse manner by a scheme advocated by the Government as a giveaway?
I thank the Deputy and his colleague, Deputy Lynch, who raised the matter with me, as a result of which I asked for an examination. I have indicated I am sympathetic to a change. There are a number of issues I have to consider. It would probably be the first time we distinguished between the different forms of capital. One may be saying to a person who has savings certificates, money invested in a building society or in a credit union or ordinary savings in their bank account that their money is not as important as that in an SSIA because the Government promoted it. That message would form one complication. If a decision were taken to exempt SSIAs from the assessment, what does one say to a person who does not like SSIAs and has saved his hard-earned few bob in the credit union? Those are issues I must consider. At the same time it is a once-off scheme promoted by the Government and that too has merit.
It does not affect a large number of social welfare recipients. Perhaps 12,000 to 15,000 would be within the thresholds. We have no way of knowing how many of those would have SSIAs. The Deputy could try calculating how many of the 15,000 within the threshold would have SSIAs. Given that fewer than half of those may have SSIAs, we are talking about a few thousand people. It is probable that it would not be enormously expensive to deal with it, but there is the issue of distinguishing between different types of capital. This disregard is quite high. In the case of an old age pension, for example, a single pensioner with capital of up to €20,000 qualifies for a full pension while a single pensioner with capital of up to €68,000 qualifies for a minimum pension. These amounts are doubled in the case of married pensioners.
There are issues involved. I am sympathetic to this case because the Government promoted SSIAs. When funds are available, the question must be asked whether one targets them towards those who were energetic enough to invest in SSIAs or spreads the available funds on the basis of whether one has capital, be it in a credit union or in an SSIA, and that a pound is a pound wherever one saves it. Those are the issues I must consider before coming to a conclusion.
