Vol. 608 No. 5
1 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress he has made in his plans to amalgamate family income supplement, child dependant allowance and back to school clothing and footwear allowance into one second tier payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31230/05]
My Department provides child income support in a number of ways. The principal support is child benefit, a universal payment which is neutral vis-à-vis the employment status of the child’s parents and does not contribute to poverty traps. Over the period since 1997, the monthly rates of child benefit have increased by €103.51 at the lower rate and €127.78 at the higher rate, increases of 272% and 258% respectively.
Child benefit rates now stand at €141.60 per month for each of the first two children and €177.30 per month for the third and each subsequent child. Child benefit is paid to over 530,000 families is respect of over 1,020,000 children.
A second child income support is the child dependant allowance, paid in addition to weekly social welfare payments in respect of over 257,000 children at full rate and over 85,000 at half rate. Since 1994, successive Governments have held the rate of child dependant allowances constant while concentrating resources for child income support on the child benefit scheme. It is important to recognise that over that period, the combined weekly value of child benefit and child dependant allowance has increased by more than double the rate of inflation.
In addition, my Department provides cash support by way of weekly payments to families at work on low pay through the family income supplement scheme. A number of improvements have been made to the scheme over the years, including assessment of entitlement on the basis of net rather than gross income and progressive increases in the income thresholds, making it easier for lower income households to qualify for payment. As a result, there are currently over 15,800 families receiving a weekly FIS payment, reaching nearly 31,186 children. This is the highest number of FIS recipients in the history of the scheme.
The back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme operates from the beginning of June to the end of September each year and is administered on behalf of my Department by the Health Service Executive. This payment is made in respect of a child if the parent is in receipt of a social welfare or health board payment, is participating in an approved employment scheme or attending a recognised education or training course and has household income at or below certain set levels. Under the scheme an allowance is payable in respect of qualified children aged from two years to 22 years.
In 2004, over 70,500 applications were approved under the scheme, benefiting some 153,400 children at a cost of €17 million. This year it is expected that the scheme will cost €18 million and that a similar number of children will benefit.
The social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, recognised the importance of targeting child income support at low income families with a commitment to examine the effectiveness of current arrangements. The National Economic and Social Council was asked to undertake an examination of the possible merging of family income supplement and child dependant allowance into a second tier child income support. Such a payment would be aimed specifically at targeting child poverty by channelling resources to low income families without creating significant disincentives to employment. The NESC is currently considering its draft report and I look forward to receiving a finalised report shortly, which will be of significant assistance in informing the future direction of child income support policy.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I have committed myself to finding solutions by making sensible decisions that have at their core increased support for those who feel most vulnerable, neglected or apprehensive in our society, while at the same time working to bring about reforms that go behind the payments and aggressively strike at the very heart of the social issues that give rise to the need for welfare supports in the first place.
I thank the Minister for his response. Has the Minister received the report on the second tier payment? Will he agree that he will not be in a position now to make the necessary changes for the budget and the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill that any such report might suggest? Given that will probably be the case, what are the Minister's plans to introduce a second tier payment in the medium to short term? If he is not in a position to make changes in the budget and the Social Welfare Bill, does that mean these people will have to wait another year before improvements are made? Is the Minister totally dependent on the report from the NESC or has he made any further progress in his Department with regard to making it easier for people to access the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and FIS in particular, given that the uptake of both appears to be quite low? Does he agree with the Combat Poverty Agency that the uptake of FIS is only about 40% of the eligible applicants? Has he any plans to improve that? Is the Minister satisfied that in all Department offices nationwide there are clearly displayed signs indicating the availability of the FIS payment and, if not, will he ensure such signs are put in place in prominent positions?
I am not dependent exclusively on the NESC report in this regard but it is an important and valuable piece of work. I do not yet have the report from the NESC. I am aware it has to consider some drafts internally at the next meeting of the National Economic and Social Council. As I said in my reply, the policy in this regard will be very much informed by the proposals from NESC. Having said that, it was specifically asked to examine, and I understand it is very much in favour of, some form of an amalgamation of the child dependant allowance and the family income supplement and to target that at that lower level.
The Deputy asked whether the people involved might have to wait another year. It does not rule out the Minister for Finance or myself examining in the budgetary context CDA, FIS and back to school clothing and footwear allowance rates, the three major instruments which attack child poverty, which we will do. It may be that we can make some progress towards a second tier while we await the full report from the NESC.
As the Deputy is aware, I have instructed all offices to promote FIS in terms of bringing its availability to the attention of the appropriate people. A total of 15,800 families currently receive a weekly payment, which is to the benefit of 31,186 children. I have asked all our outlets throughout the country to promote FIS to a greater extent, and we had a number of mail-shots on it.
2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps he will take to substantially increase the fuel allowance to recipients in view of the huge price increases in gas, oil and home heating which impacts on the elderly; if, in this context, he will ascertain from the Department of Finance the amount in additional duties raised by that Department due to increases in fuel prices that have brought unanticipated revenue into the central Exchequer; if some of this money will be redirected to the elderly by way of financing significant increases in the fuel allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31106/05]
The aim of the national fuel scheme is to assist householders who are in receipt of long-term social welfare or Health Service Executive payments towards the cost of their additional heating needs during the winter season. Fuel allowances are paid currently for 29 weeks from the end of September to the middle of April each year. Some 274,000 households benefit under the scheme at a cost of €85.4 million in 2005. An allowance of €9 per week is paid to eligible households during this 29-week winter heating period. An additional €3.90 per week is paid to about 123,000 people living in the designated urban smokeless fuel zones, bringing the amount payable in those areas to €12.90 per week.
In addition to fuel allowance, over 300,000 pensioner and other households qualify for electricity or gas allowances through the household benefits package, payable towards their heating, light and cooking costs throughout the year, at an overall cost of €108.8 million in 2005. As currently structured, these allowances are linked to unit energy consumption so that these people are protected against unit price increases in electricity or gas.
There is also a facility available through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to assist people in certain circumstances who have special heating needs. An application for a heating supplement may be made by contacting a community welfare officer at any local health centre.
Fuel allowances are a supplementary entitlement payable for part of the year, over the winter heating season. The Government has concentrated budget resources on providing significant real increases each year in all primary social welfare pension, benefit and assistance rates. This is a more costly approach than increasing fuel allowances but it delivers a better outcome for pensioners and others by substantially increasing their income in real terms over the whole year to better assist them in meeting their normal basic living costs.
I am keeping the fuel allowance scheme under close review, particularly in the light of the significant fuel cost increases in recent months, and I will consult as necessary with my Cabinet colleagues in this regard.
Increases in the rate or duration of the fuel allowance would have significant cost implications. For example, increasing the duration of the fuel allowance by one week would cost just under €3 million per annum. Increasing the fuel allowance by €1 per week would cost €8 million per annum. Given the significant potential extra scheme costs involved, any increase in fuel allowance rates or scheme duration are matters to be examined in the context of the budget and in the light of my plans for increases in social welfare rates generally.
Utilising yields from VAT and excise duties on fuel products is a separate matter for my colleague, the Minister for Finance, and for the Government in the context of the budget.
The Minister met the community and voluntary groups, as did I. One of the main items on their agenda was to seek an increased fuel allowance. Does the Minister not agree that, apart from today which is out of the ordinary in that it is the first time since 1969 that a temperature of 20° Celsius has been recorded in late October, a tough winter is predicted? In that case, pensioners will have to face payments of €21 for a cylinder of gas and €15 or €16 for a bag of coal. Is the Minster aware of the 25% increase in gas charges announced in recent weeks as well as ESB price rises and a 21% rise in other fuel costs? While the €9 extra fuel allowance is welcome, it is virtually useless because it has not kept pace with the rate of inflation.
There has been an unanticipated windfall for the Revenue from fuel price increases which at the same time diminish the ability of ordinary people, especially the elderly, to purchase fuel for domestic heating. It would be only right for such gains to be given back to those people. It is no use waiting until the December budget to act because it will be too late by then. It would cost an additional €3 million per week to extend the seasonal fuel allowance. Alternatively, the fuel allowance could be increased to €12 per week. The Minister should take either step to look after the elderly.
Can the Minister account for the mean-spirited tactic employed by his Department, which withdrew the €9 per week fuel allowance that was previously paid to pensioners living in sheltered accommodation in Dublin's inner city area? It may well have happened in sheltered accommodation in Cork as well. Why was that decision made and what total savings accrued as a result? What sort of mean, penny-pinching officials are at work in the Department who would leave the most vulnerable people exposed in this way? It appears to signify or perhaps even epitomise a change in Government policy that I thought had finished once the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, left office and the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Coughlan, had left this portfolio. Is the Minister, Deputy Brennan, now trying to hit the most vulnerable people for the sake of a few measly euro? Is that what it comes down to?
The Deputy has made a good argument for re-examining the fuel allowance given that it has not been touched for many years and in light of recent fuel price increases. I will examine that closely in the context of the forthcoming budget and the subsequent social welfare legislation. There has been a windfall to the Exchequer from VAT and excise duty arising from fuel price increases, but the Department of Finance will always say that is revenue accruing to the State which must be argued for by all Ministers. It is not necessarily earmarked for or assigned to any one area. It is additional income for the Exchequer, but the Exchequer always has additional outgoings.
Fuel allowances were not increased in recent years, principally because successive Ministers decided it would be better to put the money into the main social welfare rate. The latter is paid over 52 weeks while the fuel allowance is seasonal. By increasing the main rate substantially in recent years, people have been left some control through the overall increase in their general income. That policy was accepted by everybody until the recent large upsurge in fuel prices which has forced us to reconsider the matter.
As regards the issue of sheltered accommodation, it was through no act on my part other than that the system itself clicked into place. I have sent for the files on this matter. Some 237 people are affected——
That is right.
——and I intend to address the situation. I have discovered that those 237 people were in receipt of a fuel allowance to which they were not legally entitled. It was taken away in the ordinary course of events, but I will examine how best I can deal with the issue. I hope to make an announcement on it shortly.
3 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he has taken in response to the notice of infringement issued by the European Commission to the Government regarding the extent to which welfare benefits are being denied to EU migrant workers here. [31104/05]
The requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for certain social assistance schemes and child benefit with effect from 1 May 2004. It was introduced in the context of the Government's decision to open the Irish labour market to workers from the new EU member states without the limitations being imposed at that time by many other member states. The effect of the condition is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere is not paid certain social welfare payments on arrival in Ireland, regardless of citizenship, nationality, immigration status or any other factor.
The European Commission wrote to the Government on 22 December 2004 raising a number of issues concerning its compliance with EU law on workers and their families. Officials from my Department and the Attorney General's office met Commission officials on 15 May last to discuss the issues raised and explain that the operation of the new condition was fully in line with the criteria set out in the case law of the European Court of Justice. These criteria are the length and continuity of residence in a particular country, the length and purpose of absence from Ireland, the nature and pattern of the employment, the applicant's main centre of interest and the future intention of the applicant concerned as it appears from all the circumstances.
In addition, full consideration is given in the decision-making process to the requirements of EU Regulation 1408/71, which co-ordinates the social security rights of people who move within the EU. Rules which apply to migrant workers, that is, persons who have taken up employment in Ireland following their arrival here, are strictly observed.
The habitual residence condition does not apply to social insurance benefits such as unemployment benefit or retirement pension and therefore does not affect an entitlement which is based on the aggregation of the migrant workers' insurance records in Ireland and their country of origin.
A formal response by the European Commission to the points made is still awaited. It is expected that the Commission's examination of the matter will be concluded to the satisfaction of both parties by the end of this year.
I am none the wiser as to whether the Minister expects the European Commission's opinion to prevail in this situation. Many of us on this side of the House warned that this is exactly what would happen when the regulations were introduced by his predecessor, Deputy Coughlan. We said that the regulations had too many inconsistencies. One of the groups that found themselves being discriminated against were Irish citizens returning to this country having been outside the State for more than two years. Despite what the Minister has just said about social insurance records, the initial effect of the regulations was to start a clock ticking again once the accession countries had joined the EU. This was despite the fact that many migrant workers had already been in the country with work permits and had built a social insurance record here.
I appeared on "Morning Ireland" with the previous Minister, Deputy Coughlan, who giggled her way through the situation with the programme's presenter. She did not outline the true facts about social welfare entitlements for people from many of these countries. In any case, if the system is not insurance-based, people entering our country will, for the first six months, be using their own country's social insurance record at the rates of payment that prevail there. Many such countries have very low social welfare rates. There is not much incentive for people to come here to live on the low social welfare rates that apply in their countries in this very high cost economy. In the event of the European Commission's view prevailing, as is likely, does the Minister anticipate additional costs in terms of departmental expenditure? What would be the extent of those costs?
Is the Minister prepared to offer an apology to Irish citizens who found themselves unnecessarily caught up in this net and being discriminated against on their return here, and to the group of workers from valid EU accession countries that found themselves in a social welfare grey area because of the unnecessary and ill-devised introduction of this set of regulations?
I am sure Deputy Boyle would agree that we want to be as decent and honourable towards people who come to our shores as we possibly can be. Our current regulations are among the most liberal in the world, and certainly in terms of the European Union we have one of the more liberally interpreted regimes of any of our colleague countries. We must strike a balance between being decent, humane and supportive of people from the accession states and other countries who come to us for various reasons while at the same time discouraging any form of international welfare tourism.
If Deputy Boyle was on this side of the House he would take the view that we must strike a balance. It is not just a question of two years, four or five other criteria also apply. One is entitled to welfare here if one meets the five conditions that relate to one's centre of interest. If one can demonstrate that one's centre of interest is Ireland then the two-year rule does not necessarily apply. We have been increasingly generous towards people coming from the accession states, especially in regard to child benefit. A total of 150,000 people have come from the accession states in the first 15 months of the operation of that scheme.
4 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if it is his Department’s policy in regard to the carer’s allowance or carer’s benefit that when a claimant has his or her payment refused, reduced or stopped, that he or she is fully informed of his or her right to appeal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31231/05]
Decisions on entitlement to social welfare schemes are made by statutorily appointed deciding officers under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 1993, as amended. Social welfare appeals are undertaken by duly appointed appeals officers. All persons who apply for carer's allowance, carer's benefit or for any social welfare scheme are informed of the decision on their entitlement and the reasons for the decision. Additionally, where a person is refused or where his or her entitlement is reduced, he or she is also advised of his or her right of appeal to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office.
Social welfare regulations provide that decisions on social welfare claims must be set out in writing and, where the decision is unfavourable, the reasons for the decision must also be recorded and included in the notification to the persons concerned. Any person who is dissatisfied with a decision made by a deciding officer of my Department, may, by giving notice of appeal to the chief appeals officer within the statutory time limit of 21 days, have the question referred to an appeals officer for determination. An appeal may be sent either directly to the independent Social Welfare Appeals Office or it may be handed in to any office of my Department for transmission to the appeals office.
It is the general policy of my Department when disallowing a claim because underlying conditions are not satisfied, to offer a review of the claim in the light of any further information a person may wish to submit in support of his or her claim. This does not take from the right of appeal but affords the claimant the opportunity to have the claim fully examined before involving the formal appeals process.
The principal eligibility conditions for receipt of carer's allowance are that full-time care and attention is required and is being provided and that the means test that applies is satisfied. For carer's benefit, the conditions are that full-time care and attention is required and is being provided and that certain PRSI contributions are satisfied. In the case of claim applications or reviews of entitlement and following necessary investigations, decisions are issued in all instances to the person concerned.
In the case of carer's allowance and benefit, more than 10,000 claims have been decided thus far this year and formal decisions have issued to the persons concerned. Similarly, in the case of any reviews undertaken, the persons concerned received formal decisions and have been duly notified of their right of appeal.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
If the Deputy has a particular case in mind where he feels a decision relating to carer's allowance or benefit, or any other social welfare payment has not been appropriately applied or where a person's right of appeal has not been adequately notified to the claimant by my Department, he should let me have the relevant details and I will ensure the necessary investigations are carried out and refer back to the Deputy as soon as possible.
Does the Minister agree that matters are getting worse in the Department with regard to carers? The target was 80% in eight weeks in 2001 and 26% was achieved, now the target is 70% in 13 weeks and 50% of that has been achieved. Will the Minister comment on that and tell us why it is taking so long for the Department to reach the target?
In cases where carer's allowance is stopped, is it the Department's policy to tell the applicant that he or she has the right to appeal the decision? In the event of applications being turned down, applicants are invited to write to the appeals office for a form on which to make an appeal. Will the Minister make a change to the effect that every time an application is refused or if an entitlement is altered, an appeal form will be automatically sent out with the refusal letter?
I do not know if the form is sent out. I will check that for Deputy Stanton. If an entitlement is stopped or reduced, the policy is that the claimant is informed of his or her right of appeal. The Deputy may have a particular case in mind. If a person voluntarily gave up his or her right to a particular allowance, he or she may not be notified of the right of appeal, as this would not seem to be appropriate. If an allowance was stopped by virtue of a decision of the Department then a claimant would be entitled to an appeal.
Last year the Department carried out 215,000 reviews. We deal with more than 900,000 families on a weekly basis. There is always enormous pressure on the Department and its officials try to meet their obligations and targets as efficiently as they can.
What percentage of decisions, are actually overturned? If the percentage is very high does that mean the deciding officer in the first instance is being too strict and should this be examined to ensure that people are not needlessly put through hardship?
I do not have a figure on file and the Deputy should not hold me to this but I recall that about 40% of decisions are overturned, which is quite high. On the one hand it shows people are being strict and on the other hand it shows that the appeal mechanism works. I will examine the matter.
5 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps he will take to eliminate the euro-for-euro clawback which recipients of social welfare assistance rent allowance must bear, whereby if their pensions or incomes increase by a particular amount the said increase is neutralised by the fact that the rents are assessed on the basis of social welfare assistance rates leading to people who receive increases in their basic social welfare payments being no better off; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31107/05]
Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on my behalf by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive, a weekly or monthly rent or mortgage interest supplement is available to assist eligible people who are unable to meet their immediate accommodation needs through their own resources.
Rent and mortgage interest supplements are subject to a means test. They are normally calculated to ensure that, after payment of rent or mortgage interest, an eligible person has income equal to the rate of basic supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her family circumstances, less a minimum contribution, currently €13, which each recipient is required to pay from his or her own resources.
In general, a person does not face any reduction in the amount of his or her rent supplement as a result of budgetary increase in his or her primary social welfare payment. Where the supplementary welfare allowance rate increases by the same amount as other social assistance rates, there would be no resulting reduction in rent supplement rate.
This has been the situation in recent budgets, including last year where I increased all short-term social assistance payments, including the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, by €14 per week. Accordingly, people continued to receive their existing rent supplement without any clawback, as well as gaining fully from the significant increases in their primary social assistance payments.
In the past, where budget increases in rates of payment were granted to old age pensioners at amounts higher than that which applied to supplementary welfare allowance, a special income disregard was introduced to ensure the people concerned received the full benefit of their budget increase. The amount of income in excess of the basic supplementary welfare allowance rate that can be disregarded in the means test for rent supplement for people aged 65 or over who are in receipt of a social welfare pension or equivalent payment from another country is now €26 per household. The first €60 per week of additional income from other sources is disregarded.
I assure the Deputy that I intend to continue the arrangements to ensure customers do not lose any rent supplement entitlement by virtue of increases in their primary social welfare payments in the next budget.
I thank the Minister for his detailed and comprehensive reply. However, no matter how one tries to portray the system, people are still no better off. Is this not one of the poverty traps? We are trying to create an environment in which increases are not clawed back. If one is in receipt of rent supplement, is there not a euro-for-euro clawback? Has the Minister checked this with community welfare officers? I heard from a number of sources that there is such a clawback.
To widen the debate, does the Minister intend to focus on poverty traps in the forthcoming budget, such that earnings disregards will be increased substantially to ensure those who would normally be entitled to secondary benefits, such as the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, will not be denied them?
Does the Minister not feel it is disgraceful that the carer's allowance is included as income in the assessment of needs pertaining to the back to school clothing and footwear allowance? Every other allowance made available by the Department is disregarded. Will the Minister admit the carer's allowance is the one payment that should be disregarded in respect of applicants for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance? Do the criteria as they stand not convey to people on the very margins that they are always caught and can never gain no matter what they do? Will the Minister increase earnings disregards so secondary benefits can be made available to those whom we all want to see obtaining them?
The euro-for-euro clawback to which the Deputy referred is applied, but only in respect of income exceeding the disregards and the €26 is allowed. The disregards are such that if there is an increase in one's welfare income, there is no corresponding euro-for-euro reduction in one's rent allowance.
There is a need to update thresholds, disregards and limits regularly because time erodes their value. With the upcoming budget in mind, we are considering very closely the levels of disregards and the various limitations and thresholds. They all must be increased at a pace to keep up with and, I hope, exceed the rate of inflation.
On the Deputy's final point, I will have to check the facts. I was surprised to hear him suggest that the only income taken into account in determining eligibility for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance is the carer's allowance.
It is all taken into account but the carer's allowance is included.
Okay. It is not the only income taken into account.
The carer's allowance is from the Minister's Department.
My view was that all income was taken into account in determining eligibility——
Yes, including the carer's allowance.
——including the carer's allowance.
