Dan Boyle
Question:6 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when the Pensions Board report on options for introducing mandatory pensions will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30968/05]
Other Questions.
Pension Provisions.
Brendan Howlin
Question:13 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons who have taken out PRSAs at the latest date for which figures are available; the overall proportion of the eligible workforce this represents; his plans to review the scheme in view of the low take-up rate to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30948/05]
Simon Coveney
Question:23 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when the Pensions Board will produce the pensions strategy report; when he will come to a final decision on a new pension system to address the looming pension crisis; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30839/05]
Michael D. Higgins
Question:44 Mr. M. Higgins asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the basis on which he is considering the introduction of mandatory pensions for workers in the private sector; the nature of the review being undertaken; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30947/05]
Liz McManus
Question:61 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when the review of pensions strategy that he has asked the Pensions Board to complete will be published; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30950/05]
Simon Coveney
Question:71 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if, with regard to the introduction of a soft mandatory pension system, the effectiveness of this new system in improving pensions take-up in the labour force; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30838/05]
Damien English
Question:90 Mr. English asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the proposal from IBEC that the Government should spend up to €800 million next year to encourage lower paid workers to take out private pensions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30847/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6, 13, 23, 44, 61, 71 and 90 together.
It is Government policy to encourage people to participate in occupational and private pension arrangements so they can, when they retire, maintain their pre-retirement standard of living. To this end, a range of measures has been introduced in recent years, including personal retirement savings accounts, PRSAs, mandatory employer PRSA access where occupational schemes are not available and an ongoing national pensions awareness campaign.
On overall occupational and private pensions coverage, CSO figures for the first quarter of 2004 show that 52.4% of persons in employment have a supplementary pension. Of a national workforce of some 2 million people, an estimated 900,000 do not have a private or occupational pension to boost their incomes in retirement. The key target group for Government action in the supplementary pensions area is those who are 30 years of age and over. The national pensions policy initiative suggested that up to 70% of this group will need to supplement their social welfare pensions to maintain living standards in retirement. The most recent CSO figures suggest that 59.1% of people in this group have the necessary pensions cover.
There is no doubt that progress on pensions coverage is being made given that, in recent years, there has been a steady increase in the number of people taking out PRSAs and in those participating in occupational schemes. The most recent figures from the Pensions Board show that just over 55,000 PRSAs had been taken out up to the end of June 2005. However, overall pension coverage is increasing at a lower rate than is desirable. The reasons for this are many and varied and include, for instance, issues of affordability and the fact that many people feel they are too young to consider pension provision.
As the House will be aware, in February of this year I asked the Pensions Board to commence work on a comprehensive review of our overall pensions strategy in advance of the original timeframe of September 2006.
The review encompasses an examination of the main strategic recommendations contained in the national pensions policy initiative, including those relating to the adequacy of income in retirement, coverage targets, levels of social welfare pensions, sustainability of State pensions, including public sector pensions, and the tax support for private and occupational pensions.
The review is also examining the question of alternative ways of addressing adequacy and coverage issues, including the question of mandatory provision. The role the State might have in future pensions provision is also being examined.
Mandatory pensions can take a number of different forms. In many countries, particularly in the EU, the state plays a central role in the provision of compulsory supplementary pensions. In other countries, the requirement can be for a person to participate in an occupational or private sector scheme. A variation of the mandatory system was introduced in New Zealand earlier this year and involves automatic enrolment of a person in a scheme with the option available to withdraw if he or she wishes. I understand this type of initiative, known as a "soft mandatory" option, is also being considered in the United Kingdom. As it is a relatively new concept in pension provision, it is difficult to say how successful it might be in dealing with pensions in an Irish context. However, the Pensions Board is looking at the system as part of its overall review.
On incentives generally, I am aware of the potential of maturing SSIAs as a way of increasing pensions coverage and I have also asked the Pensions Board to consider how we might tap into the savings habit that has been created to develop attractive pension-based savings initiatives. I understand it was in this context that IBEC put forward its proposal on incentives for pensions provision. It has suggested that the contribution limits allowed for tax purposes be lifted to facilitate the transfer of SSIAs to pension schemes.
Work on the Pensions Board review is nearly complete and I expect to receive the final report within the next couple of weeks. At this stage, I am not proposing any particular measures but I will consider the conclusions of the Pensions Board very carefully and consult my Cabinet colleagues on the way forward.
Internationally, governments are trying to deal with the challenge of funding pensions for an older population who are generally living longer and healthier lives. The Irish position is by no means in crisis. The demographic trends are to remain favourable for the next ten years or so and this allows us time to address the issues concerning our pensions system. It is essential, however, that we take action sooner rather than later so we can deliver on our commitment to ensure an adequate retirement pension for everybody.
The Minister did not indicate when he is likely to receive the report of the Pensions Board and, on foot of receiving it, when he anticipates it will be published, assuming he believes it should be published in the interest of the ongoing debate. I encourage him to adopt such a belief. In his public statements on this issue the Minister has indicated at least a preference for mandatory pensions. Maybe I misinterpreted his statements. While that has value, there are also difficulties in regard to how to compel individuals to make specific provision. I am glad to hear the Minister say——
The Deputy should confine himself to questions because we have moved beyond Priority Questions and other Deputies will wish to submit questions. Question Time is intended for the Deputy to ask a question to elicit information from the Minister. I ask all Deputies, now that we have moved on from Priority Questions, to be more precise in their questioning.
I ask the Ceann Comhairle to pardon my phraseology. I am trying to phrase my questions in such a way as to fit the omnibus reply the Minister put together which moves away slightly from my original question.
The report is expected to deal with tax reliefs, which is significant in light of my question about when it will be published because we are approaching the budget and the Finance Bill. There has been much criticism of the inequalities in tax relief for private pensions. Will the Minister indicate when the report will be published and whether he intends to interact with the Minister for Finance to tackle the inequalities in the tax system to encourage private pension schemes?
I should receive the Pensions Board report in a few weeks. I intend to publish it after the Government has considered it in order to have a debate on the options for the future. I have asked the board to think radically. I do not know what it will propose but I trust that it took on board my request not to dodge the issues.
The nation needs to address this serious situation but it is not a political issue. Every country, including the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, is struggling with pensions because people live longer and retire earlier than in the past and the gap between the two is great. The tax relief we give on pensions is almost €2 billion per annum.
That is more than we pay out.
It is exactly the amount I pay out every year in social welfare pensions. A significant amount of State money goes into the system.
One figure looming large is that 500,000 women in the workforce have no provision for occupational pensions. The Government cannot allow that to continue indefinitely. That is why I am interested in the concept of mandatory pensions but I will be advised by the Pensions Board's comments on their practicality. The experiment in New Zealand whereby people are in schemes unless they choose to opt out of them might be worth considering here. The United Kingdom is considering it too. If we let the present system tick over, those in the public service and many others are well covered, and if we are elected often enough to this House we are well looked after. However, those 500,000 women are not well looked after and we have a responsibility to deal with that issue.
Has the Minister discussed this matter with IBEC or ICTU because he must be aware those bodies hold differing views? Has he given any consideration to the soft mandatory pensions and how they are being reviewed in England?
Can the Minister do anything to make the personal retirement savings account, PRSA, more attractive to people? Why did people not take it up despite the fair wind of publicity it received? What was the trigger that caused it to fail so notably? Had it been taken up, the situation we face 20 or 30 years from now would surely not be the urgent matter the Minister is rightly addressing.
IBEC and ICTU are represented on the Pensions Board so to that extent they are being fully consulted and have a direct input. I will consult them directly after publication of the report to hear their responses to it. I have pressed my colleagues to include pensions on the agenda of national pay talks and partnership agreements and not focus only on workers' current requirements and pressures.
A total of 55,000 people have taken out PRSAs. The number is growing steadily but is well below what it should be. The main reason for the slow uptake is that it is voluntary and employers are required to facilitate taking out a PRSA but not to push people to do it. A completely voluntary scheme that involves paying out a weekly or monthly sum is always difficult to sell.
There may be a case for being tougher on employers to bring the PRSA more forcefully to the attention of the employee. I do not wish to say too much before the report comes out but this may be a soft mandatory area where employers might be required to ask employees to say "No" rather than help them to say "Yes".
What was the Government's target for PRSAs? What is the annual tax relief on PRSAs? The Minister said there is no crisis, yet this scheme has existed for ten years. What is his view on allowing people to work longer? What requirements would need to be introduced to allow that happen?
If that happened what would be the pension ramifications? If the Pensions Board's report is not to be submitted to the Minister for a few weeks followed by publication and a debate, it will be some time before we see any action on this issue. Does he have any plans to make changes in the meantime?
A total of 55,000 people hold PRSAs. There was no formal Government target but I would have expected that at least 100,000 might have joined the scheme by now. I do not have a breakdown of tax relief between different schemes because tax breaks on pensions cover a range of schemes. I am sure it is available and broken down by scheme and I will get the figures for the Deputy. PRSAs are only one aspect of this issue because there are other tax efficient pension arrangements. The overall figure is close to €2 billion. I can get the exact figure for the Deputy.
It is not as much a crisis here as in other countries because our demographics are still favourable. Within the European Union only 44% of people aged over 50 are in the workforce. In the United Kingdom the figure is 53% and the figure here is probably similar. I need to pin that figure down so the Deputy should not hold me to it. People in their early 50s in the western world are leaving the workforce. Since 1985 life expectancy has increased by five years into the 80s. That period imposes a significant strain on pension systems. It will take the wisdom of Job to consider the situation where a person is retired for longer than he or she worked.
The wisdom of Solomon.
The Deputy is better than I am on the Bible, but with the kind of numbers facing us it will take biblical wisdom to figure out how the western world can continue to afford the decent pensions to which we should aspire.
Job was very pessimistic.
As for taking action, I will publish this report. The issues are fundamental and no Government could move far in this area without an intense public debate on what people are prepared to do. Basically, one is asking people to pay now for something which they might not avail of for 30 or 40 years. That is not an easy proposition.
I listened to what the Minister said about the SSIA scheme. Hopefully there will be some imagination used and a pension incentive provided. Everyone is concerned about how that money will affect the economy.
The Minister talked of some people feeling that they are too young to consider pensions. Does the Minister accept that part of the problem is that many young people are living beyond their means? More young Irish people are buying property than young people in other European countries. They are thinking of pensions in terms of property. Does the Minister agree that while people on the Continent go down the pension route, in Ireland we seem to be looking for more adaptable ways of saving for one's pension?
We take the attitude that young people party all night and sleep all day but that is not true. Does the Minister agree that young people have mortgages, child care costs, transport costs and so on? It is part of the difficulty that people feel they have not currently got the money for pension saving and are leaving the matter for later. Does the Minister agree that it is a matter of creating a package which will attract young people into pension schemes?
We must call a halt as we have already spent 18 minutes on this question.
I have a couple of family members in their early 20s and the least I will say is that they are living beyond their means.
Perhaps beyond the means of the Minister.
I take Deputy Crowe's point. He mentioned the Continent, but the PRSI take on the Continent is substantially greater than it is in Ireland. Taxes and the take from payroll are much higher there than in Ireland. There is greater involvement in pensions on the Continent because much of the saving there is semi-mandatory, while in Ireland, apart from the basic PRSI system which funds our State pensions, we do not have a mandatory element. Society may have to make a decision as to what extent it wants to live for today or invest in pensions for tomorrow, either through the PRSI or PRSA system, or directly through the tax breaks system. This is a societal issue which we must address.
Departmental Staff.
John Gormley
Question:7 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps he will take to reduce the number of sick days taken by officials in his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30977/05]
In 2004, the total number of sick days recorded in my Department, in respect of a total workforce of approximately 4,730, was 6.6% of the potential working days in the year. It was also 6.6% in 2003. The average number of sick days per employee was 13.5 working days, down from 13.6 days in 2003. Some 92.4% of the total number of sick days in 2004 were covered by medical certificates while 22.7% of the Department staff took no sick leave during the year and, overall, 38.8% took less than two days.
A considerable proportion of the total number of sick days in 2004 was accounted for by a small number of staff who were on long-term sick leave in the year. Some 22% of all the sick days were accounted for by 74 staff who were on sick leave for at least six months in 2004. When the sick leave for these staff members is factored out, the average number of sick days per employee was 10.5 working days, down from 10.7 days in 2003.
As a general rule, the cases of employees who have been on sick leave for approximately six to eight weeks are referred to the chief medical officer for the Civil Service for review. The CMO plays a crucial role in advising the Department on employee fitness for work from a medical perspective. In these situations, the employee is required to provide a detailed medical report for the CMO. In certain circumstances, the CMO may request the staff member to attend for medical examination.
My Department has identified the issue of addressing and minimising absenteeism as one of the priorities of its human resources strategy. This is of vital importance in ensuring that the Department provides a high quality service to its customers. It is also recognised that absenteeism increases the workloads of staff who have to provide cover for absent colleagues, particularly in areas working under considerable pressure.
My Department has developed, through its partnership process and in consultation with unions and staff associations, a comprehensive attendance management policy, aimed at addressing the issues arising in the context of sickness absence in an effective and balanced manner.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The policy was circulated to all members of staff in June 2005. The production of the policy fulfilled a key commitment in my Department's action plan under the Sustaining Progress national agreement. The policy re-states and clarifies the existing practices but also contains a range of initiatives, based on research and feedback, which, taken together, have the overall objective of managing attendance so as to foster an attendance culture.
A key principle of the policy is that everyone in the Department has both rights and responsibilities regarding attendance. It recognises that the vast majority of absences are entirely legitimate and that it is crucial that people who are ill should not feel under pressure to attend work. However, it also emphasises that both managers and staff have a responsibility to discuss attendance issues in a constructive and fair manner. The policy also recognises that good practice with regard to attendance is already in evidence in the organisation and it is important to build on this.
In its policy, the Department acknowledges that attendance is a multi-faceted issue and that to maximise attendance it is necessary to promote a positive working environment, to inform and advise staff on health and lifestyle issues and to minimise work-related stress. This is being done by implementing a diverse range of measures in areas such as health and safety, health promotion and stress management, provision of a wide range of work-life balance arrangements and improved communication and consultation methods across the organisation.
Progress on the implementation of the policy will be reviewed by the Department's management committee and the partnership steering committee and updates will be communicated to all staff. The management of attendance through the implementation of its attendance management policy will continue to be a key priority of the Department's human resource strategy.
I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he accept that the sick leave rate in his Department is relatively high within the public service outside of the Prison Service? One of the factors to explain this might be the fact that Department staff must deal with the public, who themselves are sometimes in distressed states, which would cause the staff a great deal of stress.
What support structures does the Minister feel confident exist already, and what structures is he considering putting in place which would help minimise worker stress levels which result in this level of sick leave in his Department? Is there any general discussion among his officials with regard to tackling the levels of sick leave, which seem to be static over the past few years?
The sick leave figures in the Department are high when compared across the Civil Service. The best reason I can offer is that of the 4,730 staff, many of them are front-line staff dealing sometimes with very difficult situations in difficult areas geographically. That is one possible explanation though more work is needed to fully ascertain the situation.
The Department's management committee, the partnership steering committee and top management in the Department are involved in a range of measures dealing with health and safety, health promotion, stress management, provision of a wide range of work-life balance arrangements, improved communications and consultation methods right across the organisation. Much emphasis is being put on lifestyle issues to minimise work-related stress and there is discussion and communication with and among staff to reduce the sick leave figures.
Anti-Poverty Strategy.
Joan Burton
Question:8 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps he will take to address the serious problems of poverty addressed in the recent report of the Combat Poverty Agency, Mapping Poverty: National, Regional and County Patterns, and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30944/05]
I welcome this important report produced for the Combat Poverty Agency by the Economic and Social Research Institute. Using data from a number of sources including the 2002 census, the living in Ireland survey 2000 and the national survey of housing quality 2001-02, it identified the varying incidence of poverty risk throughout the country, with the highest incidence being in the Border and west regions.
Exploring the reasons for spatial variations in poverty risk, the report found little evidence of a causal relationship between poverty and location per se but rather found that the main factors determining poverty relate to the socio-economic composition of households. It found poverty to be more influenced by structural factors such as lack of education, low-paid work, unemployment or non-participation in the labour force.
A strategic process to combat poverty and social exclusion, with a particular focus on tackling these structural factors in an integrated way, is provided for in the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion. The plan contains a series of commitments across the relevant policy areas accompanied, where appropriate, by targets, including targets to increase participation in quality employment, to improve levels of educational attainment and to improve access to services and good quality housing. A recent review of implementation of the plan has shown that 51 of its 58 targets and commitments had either been met or were in the process of being met.
The plan also has a particular focus on groups regarded as being most vulnerable to poverty, including persons living in areas of rural disadvantage and urban poverty. The CLÁR and RAPID programmes operated by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs have a range of actions targeted specifically at these areas.
Given the spatial dimension highlighted by this report, it is important to develop focused local level anti-poverty plans to support the national action plan. I welcome the fact that a number of such plans have already been developed in some local authority areas, with more under development. The local development social inclusion programme is another important element of locally based activity to combat poverty and social exclusion.
Social welfare spending has more than doubled from €5.7 billion in 1997 to €12.25 billion in the current year and has provided significant real increases in payments during this period. This work must continue.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
For every €3 now spent by the State, €1 goes on social welfare payments, of which we make about 1 million per week. In drawing attention to these increases, I am not complacent about the current situation. Much more remains to be done to tackle the problems of poverty and exclusion experienced by persons in the most vulnerable groups and areas. I am determined, through vigorous implementation and development of the strategic process and in full consultation with all the stakeholders at national, regional and local levels, to continue to build and improve on our achievements so far. Reports such as this help by enabling us to focus programmes and resources to best effect in the preparation of the next national action plan, in which this report will be fully taken into account. I commend the Combat Poverty agency for commissioning the report and the ESRI for producing it to such a high standard.
What evaluation has been carried out on this report? Is the Minister concerned that poverty is rampant in rural areas, including Counties Donegal, Leitrim and Mayo? Does he agree that these counties have the greatest number of elderly people, small farming activity, low levels of educational attainment and highest levels of economic dependency? Can any action be taken to alleviate these problems?
There is a strong correlation between housing tenure and risk of poverty. The report noted that the risk of poverty among local authority tenants is five times greater than for people in other types of housing. Is that not a significant finding? Does the Minister agree that a signal is sent to the market arising from this issue? Further steps must be taken to address geographical variations in poverty distribution.
Is it not instructive that lone parenthood, illness and lack of education are the three major parameters? Will the Minister ensure joined-up government in this area by co-operating with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, to eradicate the distressing levels of poverty described in this worthy report.
The report found that geographical location, per se, is not the main source of poverty but that the residents of certain rural areas have a higher age profile. Some urban areas experience lower levels of educational attainment, while there is a lower participation in the labour force in other regions. The combination of these factors is more significant than geographical location.
I will continue to discuss collective responses with the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, and other colleagues in the Government. The combination of expanding social welfare provisions, the national action plan against poverty, focussing on lone parents and making services more accessible will allow us to address issues of poverty.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Paul Connaughton
Question:9 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the fact that persons (details supplied) dependent on social welfare receive €413.02 per week, including child benefit payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30837/05]
Following the social welfare increases awarded in last year's budget, the lowest rate of social welfare payment currently stands at €148.80 per week. Depending on their circumstances, social welfare recipients are also entitled to additions to the personal rate of payment in respect of a spouse or partner and dependent children. In the case of a two-adult household with three children, the weekly social welfare payment including child benefit is in the order of €413.
Government policy with regard to social welfare rates is guided by the commitment in the revised national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS, to increase the lowest social welfare personal rates to €150 per week in 2002 terms by 2007 and to set the appropriate equivalence level of child income support, combining child benefit and child dependant allowances, at 33% to 35% of the adult rates. We remain on target to achieve this objective. In budget 2005, the lowest rates of social welfare were increased by €14 per week while the rates of child benefit were increased by €10 to €141.60 per month for the first two children and by €12 to €177.30 per month for the third and subsequent children. The equivalence level of child income support now stands at 33.3% of the lowest social welfare rate for those receiving the lower rate of child benefit and 38.8% for those on the higher rate.
The details supplied with the question claim that an income level of €528.49 per week is necessary for a family of two adults and three children to avoid being in consistent poverty. This is not quite correct. The figure has been calculated by the CORI justice commission and refers to the 60% median poverty line for a family of two adults and three children. This is the so-called at risk of poverty indicator, which is one of a range of measures used by the EU to measure poverty and social exclusion. The relative income measure is essentially about inequality of incomes and identifies those with an income below 60% of the median income for society as a whole and who as a result may be at risk of poverty. The poverty measure that underpins the revised NAPS is the consistent poverty measure which identifies those who are at risk of poverty and deprived of certain items considered by Irish people as necessary to ensure a basic standard of living.
What is the basic minimum income for a family with three children to avoid consistent poverty? Has the Department calculated the figure needed in order that such a family can afford essentials? Am I correct in saying that the Minister fundamentally disagrees with CORI's figure?
The issue is bedevilled by attempts to statistically measure poverty. Estimates are made in terms of consistent poverty, risk of poverty and relative poverty, with different purposes for each. In addition, the Central Statistics Office, the EU and the UN have different measures of poverty.
What is the Minister's measure?
I do not have a figure.
He has no view.
I have been around too long to estimate for the Deputy what people need to live.
He should seek the wisdom of Job.
While I would ask a similar question if I was in opposition, consistent improvements have been made in this area. When making a determination on State support, account must be taken of different circumstances, for example, whether a family lives in a local authority or inherited house or has to pay a mortgage.
Does the Minister agree that income poverty is the basic cause of consistent poverty? Does he have any idea of what the appropriate basic income should be for a family of two adults and three children? He should stop muddying the waters with his waffle. How close is the Minister's estimate to that of CORI?
The sum of €528.49 was supplied in the details accompanying the question. That is a suggestion from one quarter. The other figure is €413.02 which was referred to in the question. To give the Deputy an appropriate answer to his question, all the circumstances of the family must be taken into account.
No, only the family income.
To ascertain what is an adequate income for any family, and not only a family living in poverty, depends very much on——
The family's basic income.
——the circumstances of the family.
The Minister has been around here too long.
I think so.
Local Authority Housing.
Martin Ferris
Question:10 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he has taken to provide better accommodation for one parent families. [31003/05]
In general my Department has no function in securing accommodation for one parent families or any other social welfare customers. However, under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, 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.
The rent supplement scheme is geared to meeting more immediate short-term housing needs through the private rent sector. Under the scheme, it is up to the individuals to secure suitable rented accommodation for themselves and their household, and apply for support under the rent supplement scheme if they are unable to meet the cost of this accommodation from their own resources. Statutory rent limits apply to accommodation for rent supplement eligibility purposes, varying according to geographic location and the applicant family size. My Department keeps prevailing market rent levels under close review.
I am satisfied that one parent families and other applicant households should be able to rent appropriate and suitable accommodation within the rent supplement scheme limits in all areas of the country. In recent years, a significant number of people have come to rely on rent supplements for extended periods, including one parent families.
In response to this situation, the Government introduced a new initiative in July 2004 aimed at meeting the longer-term housing needs of these people. These new rental assistance arrangements give local authorities responsibility for meeting long-term housing assistance needs, including the needs of those people on rent supplements for 18 months or longer. The scheme involves structured arrangements to secure long-term availability of privately rented accommodation, particularly accommodation currently occupied by tenants in receipt of rent supplement under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, and to encourage the supply of additional accommodation.
Local authorities will meet the housing needs of these individuals through a range of approaches including the traditional range of social housing options, the voluntary housing sector and, in particular, a new public private partnership type rental accommodation scheme.
The aim of the new system is to minimise ongoing dependence on rent supplement by progressing to a position where local authority accommodation is available for all those with a long-term housing need.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The plan is that this situation will be achieved within a period of three years from commencement of the new arrangements in each local authority, and in any event no later than September 2008. The rent supplement scheme will continue to provide support to those who have a short-term housing need.
Combat Poverty has stated that 75% of the housing list is made up of one parent families. That means those families are currently living in rented accommodation. The Minister referred to changes in terms of the transfer of responsibility to local authorities. Will he explain how such provision is being rolled out? According to the officials in the local authorities to whom I talked about this, it seems to be a slow process.
Has the Deputy a question?
I have asked a question. How does the Minister view such provision is being rolled out?
Regarding young lone parents living in temporary accommodation, provision for which is a responsibility of the Minister's Department, is the Minister satisfied with the accommodation that is available? He talked in terms of——
I will have to call the Minister because there is only one minute remaining.
I am unhappy at the pace at which the new scheme is taking off. Only about 30 or 40 people have been facilitated under the scheme by the local authorities. That is disappointing and we need to do far better. The rent supplement was only ever intended to be a temporary support. It was not meant to become a permanent housing arrangement. That is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to examine. I am disappointed with that take-up and will press for an improvement in it.
Does Deputy Crowe wish to ask a very brief question?
No, I will leave it at that.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.