Vol. 621 No. 7
45 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the checks and balances in operation in his Department to ensure people who are entitled to receive various social welfare payments are receiving them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23225/06]
The recent value for money examination undertaken by the Comptroller and Auditor General looked at the rent supplement scheme during the period 2000-05. It did not examine the overall supplementary welfare allowance scheme.
The report found that expenditure rose substantially during that period, reaching €369 million in 2005, while recipient numbers rose by 38% to more than 60,000. One third of the overall increase in spending on rent supplement in the period under review is explained by increases in the number of recipients. The remaining two thirds related to increases in average rent supplement payments. The increase in the average rent supplement payment is attributable to a number of factors, including family size, location and rent levels.
The Comptroller and Auditor General commented on the need to capture and record additional information which would allow for informed analysis of movement in rent supplement expenditure. The report also raised the issue of adjusting rent limits downwards when rents were reducing in order to avoid unplanned gains by rent supplement landlords and or tenants. In this regard, the Department froze rent limits in 2002 and this, together with subsequent regulations on rents charged, has had a stabilising effect on rent limits in the relevant sector of the market. Rent levels fluctuated throughout the period under review. Data from the CSO show that rents rose up to April 2002 and then fell until January 2005, and have risen slowly since then.
The Minister is answering the wrong question. On the Order Paper Question No. 45 refers to something totally different.
The first question I have is on rent supplement. If the House is agreed I shall complete this question and return to Question No. 45.
Is it the fourth question in the Minister's brief?
No, that is different again.
The first question listed on the Order Paper concerns checks and balances in the operation in the Department. These questions are out of order, so I shall obviously have to work with them. The first question put down for me today deals with checks and balances. I shall continue with my reply to that one, if that is all right.
The primary objective of the Department's information policy is to ensure that all citizens are made aware of their entitlements and that they are kept informed of changes and improvements in schemes and services as they occur. The provision of information in a clear and accessible manner is an essential element in the achievement of this objective. Comprehensive information and guidance for social welfare schemes is available through the Department's network of more than 130 local offices throughout the country. Officers in 58 local social welfare offices are dedicated to providing information and are available to explain supports and services, and to assist people in completing forms and assessing their entitlements.
The Department produces a comprehensive range of information leaflets and booklets covering every social welfare payment or scheme. These information leaflets are available in a wide range of outlets throughout the country, including all local social welfare officers, citizens' information centres, post offices, many local community centres, as well as from the Department's lo-call leaflet line. The information is also available on the Department's website. The central information services unit in my Department operates a phone service where people can get information on all our services.
The Department takes a proactive approach in advertising new schemes and changes, as well as improvements to existing schemes and services, by using an appropriate mix of national and provincial media, information leaflets, fact sheets, posters and direct mailshots. Selective use is made of freephone services to provide information on new schemes and services, as well as at particular times of the year, such as at budget time. In addition to information aimed at the public, the Department routinely targets certain specific groups of customers to ensure that they are aware of the supports and services available.
In April 2005, a nationwide publicity campaign was undertaken for the respite care grant scheme to target carers who provide full-time care and attention and are, therefore, likely to qualify for the grant. Customers who received a respite grant in 2005 are being contacted regarding their possible entitlement to the grant in 2006. In addition, a fresh information campaign for carers will be undertaken later this year. In September 2005, a copy of the information magazine, Options & Opportunities, was sent out by my Department to more than 86,000 customers who are on the one-parent family payment. Feedback from this circulation to date had been very positive. In March 2006, the Department undertook a nationwide awareness campaign to promote and encourage those people to take up the family income supplement. This campaign lasted a week and included advertisements on television and radio, along with the provision of helplines.
Every effort is made by the Department to ensure that customers take up their full entitlement. The Department automatically issues application forms for child benefit on receipt of the notification of the birth of a child. New pensioners are issued with a checklist, advising them on all the support to which they may be entitled. The Department also works closely with Comhairle, the national citizens' information service, which provides information on social services in its network of centres throughout the country, on the Oasis website and through the citizens' information phone service. A number of voluntary organisations funded by the Department also carry out much work in this area.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The checks and balances in operation should ensure that only those entitled to receive various payments receive them. In 2004, almost 196,000 customers paid via the electronic funds transfer received mailshots from his Department. Six thousand of those letters were returned and more than 1,000 claimants' claims were terminated. Is the Minister satisfied that the checks and balances in the electronic funds transfer are in operation? Is he satisfied that only those entitled to receive payments from his Department receive them? What happens when claims are terminated? Is it true that they are terminated mainly because the recipients are no longer at the same address? If that is the case, what kind of losses accrue to the State as a result? Are those losses returned to the Exchequer?
More than 4,500 letters were returned this year and investigations are ongoing. Why is the electronic funds transfer so loose? Why do so many people seem to receive payments to which they are not entitled? The checks and balances may need to be much tighter.
Nobody should receive a payment to which he or she is not entitled. People sometimes retain payments to which they have lost entitlement owing to increased income and so on. They are required to notify the Department of such information and sometimes they fail to do so. We recovered in excess of €400 million from our different checks, balances, surveys and control measures to ensure that nobody receives funds to which he or she is not entitled.
When we sent out the lone parent's circulation to 86,000 people, 2,000 came back. We find that information very useful because it allows us to update our database. Every time we do a mass circulation, we learn something by obtaining new addresses, information on income and so on.
I am not aware that there is a problem with electronic funds transfer, but I will take it up with officials in the Department. People increasingly opt for such transfers, including as much as 50% to 60% of new applicants for different schemes. At an overall level, about 30% of applicants avail of electronic funds transfer. We must ensure that controls are in place to check payments. We make 900,000 payments every week and we must keep a tight grip to minimise whatever small proportion of them that goes to those not entitled to them. In the event of fraud, we must take an uncompromising view.
Is the Minister satisfied that the only way to check on the electronic funds transfer method is by mailshot? Does he accept that the 4,500 letters returned last April represent a great number of unaccounted people? Each year, more than 1,000 claims for child benefit are paid for which people do not seem to exist. Is this money retrieved by his Department?
Absolutely. The Department takes a strong line on that. We must distinguish between outright fraud, where people set out to give the Department false information or fail to give information, and genuine departmental errors or errors made by the applicant.
The Deputy has regularly asked me about the money we spend on our computer systems. He is probably surprised how significant it is. A huge investment is being made in our computer and control systems to ensure that the €13 billion paid out every year by my Department is tightly controlled and that we learn something from each experience. If 4,500 letters are sent back, it often means a change of address, circumstances or condition. A very small amount might be due to attempted fraud, but we learn from every one. It does not necessarily cost the State money. If the letters are sent back, it often means we do not pay those people the following week because we may have learned that they no longer qualify.
46 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has received a copy of the eight year study Day In, Day Out, Understanding the Dynamics of Child Poverty by the Combat Poverty Agency and the ESRI; if he will use the study’s findings to inform key policy initiatives in his Department; the action he intends to take on the study’s conclusions; the efforts he is currently making to address child poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23223/06]
This question relates to a study, the title of which includes the words "Day In, Day Out" which is a good phrase to use in regard to politics.
I recently launched the Combat Poverty Agency study on the dynamics of child poverty. The study's key findings are that children tend to move in and out of poverty and that child poverty, and its duration, are affected by a wide range of factors, including the employment, education and health status of parents, and by the number and age of children in the household. The report recommends that the policy response to child poverty should be multi-dimensional in nature and should focus on income supports combined with measures that support employment, education and accessibility of services such as child care and health.
The Government has a strategic process in place for combating poverty, including child poverty, in the form of the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion and the national children's strategy. Ending Child Poverty was also one of ten special initiatives under the social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress. While these elements remain under active progression, I fully expect that the successor to Sustaining Progress and the next NAP/inclusion 2006-08 will add further impetus to the process.
It is estimated that some 65,000 children remain in consistent poverty and moving these children out of poverty remains my absolute priority. In this regard, I intend to build on the good progress that has been made thus far. Some 100,000 children have been lifted out of deprivation inside the last decade as a result of targeted measures and supports. The most significant measure my Department has taken in recent years to support families with children has been the very substantial real increases in child benefit rates, of which the Deputies are aware.
I have also made substantial improvements to the family income supplement which assists families at work on low pay. Assessment of entitlement to payment is now on the basis of net rather than gross income, while increases in the income limits have made it easier for lower-income households to qualify under the scheme. My Department also undertook a very successful nationwide awareness campaign last March, as was mentioned earlier.
In addition to the improvements outlined, budget 2006 contained a range of measures aimed at families with children. More than 350,000 children under six years of age, in 250,000 families, will qualify for the new annual €1,000 early child care supplement which will be paid on an agency basis by my Department. The cost of the supplement will be approximately €360 million in a full year.
One of the key tasks in the Ending Child Poverty initiative under Sustaining Progress was to address obstacles to employment for lone parents. As the House is aware, I launched a major Government discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents. That report puts forward proposals for reforms in this area. These proposals are currently the subject of an extensive consultation process and, as I said previously, I hope to bring forward proposals for legislation in the course of this year.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Preparation of an implementation plan regarding the non-income recommendations of the discussion paper is in progress.
The establishment of the Office of the Minister for Children under the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, represents a major reorganisation of policy and services for children that will facilitate the development of a strategic and co-ordinated approach to children policy and the delivery of services both at national and local level.
I am confident that, through the targeted measures already being taken by the Government and the initiatives being planned, a decisive and lasting impact will be made in the eradication of child poverty.
A more apt title for the study would be "one day at a time" from the point of view of many young children who are experiencing poverty. Despite our affluence, is it not an indictment of our society that a report from the Combat Poverty Agency tracing a period over six or seven years indicates that just under one fifth of children, or 182,000 children, experience poverty over an extended period of between five and eight years. That illustrates a significant failure to intervene in a focused and targeted way to ensure that statistic becomes obsolete. Income poverty is measured as being below 60% of the median income threshold for society as a whole. Is it not also a fact that the age of children and family size tend to affect the length of time for which a child experiences poverty?
Given that a quarter of all our children experience poverty for one to two years and one-fifth remain locked in poverty for between five and eight years, the question must be asked why all those dramatic initiatives, targets and interventions have failed to singularly address an issue that blackens the name of our country across the world? We are now noted to have significant elements of child poverty. What targeted policies will be introduced to arrest and eliminate this trend? One child in poverty is one too many in a country that is awash with cash. Why is this number of children experiencing poverty?
The report reveals that a child whose parents did not go to secondary school, in other words, whose education was confined to basic primary level, is 23 times more likely to live in poverty compared to a child whose parents have achieved third level education. Should the focus in this respect not be on education? A multifaceted approach is required to tackle this problem. The welfare benefits and the child care allowances the Minister mentioned are all well and good but they have failed to reach the target. Is it not important to increase access to employment, to remove disincentives and poverty traps, to have more pre-school education and to have affordable child care at pre-school and post school level? We need to target child poverty. In my view and that of the Labour Party, every child has the right to be brought up free from poverty, to enjoy a fulfilling childhood and to realise his or her full potential. That is what the Labour Party believes and that is what should be written into the Constitution if it means anything today.
The Minister should use this report. It is useful in that it should enable us to develop policies and measures that target the root causes of poverty. Let us not have only documents on tackling this issue and some social partners coming out and blowing their trumpet about what they have achieved. They have achieved nothing while child poverty is at the current level. Have we a national partnership agreement and, if so, what elements of it will tackle child poverty? What elements of the national anti-poverty strategy will tackle it? What provisions are there in the national development plan to address it?
What is needed to tackle this problem is a co-ordinated strategy at Government level, joined-up thinking and joined-up Government. The involvement of the Office of the Minister for Children is required. The Minister for Education and Science has a key role to play in early intervention to support the education and development of young children. The involvement of the Minister's department is critical together with the involvement of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. We need to ensure that the transition from welfare to work is supported to eliminate poverty traps, especially for children of lone parents. We need flexible child care services, education and training supports, flexible employment arrangements and a proper balance between parenting and working. I suggest to the Minister that a co-ordinated approach be adopted to eliminate child poverty once and for all.
I do not disagree with the sentiments expressed by the Deputy. My absolute policy priority is child poverty. It is way ahead of all the other responsibilities I have, for which I make no apology, because at the start of the 21st century, as the Deputy said, even one child living in poverty is one child too many.
The debate that has been raging about statistics is one with which I must contend every day. The EU SILC survey shows that consistent poverty experienced by children reduced from 12% in 2003 to 9% in 2004, and that was the position two years ago. The best estimate we can give of the position today is a figure of approximately 65,000, but that is 65,000 children too many. However, using exactly the same measure, approximately 100,000 children would have been added to that figure a decade ago. Therefore, we are making solid progress in this area and we need to continue to do so.
Child benefit is a major help to families, as are the various schemes available, family income supplement in particular, lone parents allowances — and it was noted there is a prevalence of child poverty in lone parent families. All these allowances are being substantially and steadily increased. Disregards have been put in place as well as a system to encourage and allow people to move from welfare back to work. All these measures are targeted to finally eliminate that scourge from the country.
The next question is No. 47.
That question relates to the Pensions Board. Before I take it, I wish to advise the House that I do not have a prepared answer for Question No. 48, for which I apologise. There must have been some confusion as a result of a postponement last week, which is totally on my side. I apologise to the House for that and I can deal with this matter at another time.
47 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the actions which have been taken by his Department to implement the recommendations of the Pensions Board review of the conditions and regulations of income continuance schemes. [23162/06]
The Pensions Board was asked to review, in consultation with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the position and regulation of income continuance plans. These products often interact with occupational pension schemes and it was considered necessary to establish the facts of the situation and to clarify the position for the bodies with an interest in this area, namely, my Department, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Pensions Board. The report was compiled by consultants Watson Wyatt and Matheson Ormsby Prentice Solicitors and was published on the Pensions Board website in December 2005.
Income continuance plans provide cover to individuals in the event of long-term illness or disability which prohibit the person from following his or her normal occupation. These plans are insurance policies and the financial regulator regulates the providers of the products since May 2003.
Different types of products are available in the market — those sold directly to individuals by insurance companies and those that are employer sponsored. I am aware of issues arising with the latter type of product relating to avenues of redress in the event of problems or complaints arising.
As the employer is the beneficial owner of the policy underpinning the income continuance arrangement, there is no access for the individual to the Financial Services Ombudsman. The consultants' report suggested that corporate income continuance plans should be brought within the remit of the Insurance Ombudsman, now the Financial Services Ombudsman, and my Department has raised this issue with the Department of Finance with a view to making progress in this area.
In general, the report found that lack of adequate disclosure has been the most significant source of misunderstanding in the interaction of income continuance plans and related pension plans. To overcome this it was suggested that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should introduce regulations to improve the flow of information to employees on income continuance arrangements. The consultants have also suggested that guidance notes on disclosure requirements on occupational pensions need to be strengthened to cover some aspects of the income continuance arrangements.
In this regard, I have recently signed into force new disclosure of information regulations for occupational pension schemes. The Pensions Board is drafting the guidance notes in respect of these regulations and, in this context, will consider how best to implement the recommendations made in the consultants' report in so far as they relate to pension benefits.
I thank the Minister for his reply which highlights the complexity of the issue. It involves at least one other Department, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and as it is a financial product, probably the Department of Finance.
I agree with the Minister that the matter should be brought under the remit of one Department. However, that does not change the current situation where different Departments have had particular responsibilities for the problem as it has arisen. The situation is obvious with regard to Tara Mines, and at least 3,000 people could be affected by the misapplication of these schemes. Given that these are products that have been linked with occupational pension schemes and that it is a long-standing problem, the Minister and his Department have a direct responsibility. Will he explain how they intend to deal with the problems?
It has been indicated that the misapplication of the benefit to the employers as agents could be as high as between €300 million and €500 million, which should have gone directly to workers affected by work related accidents. Given the figure is of that scale, that thousands of people have, potentially, been defrauded, and given the linkage to occupational pension schemes, there is a pressing case for the Department to indicate how it will alleviate the problem in the short term.
I welcome the Minister's reply on better disclosure arrangements for occupational pension schemes. It would benefit all of us in the House if the Pensions Board supplied the guidelines to us as soon as possible.
Given that this was a bought-in or add-on scheme in terms of private enterprise providing work and pension support for people in specific industries, does the Minister accept that it undermines the scope of his policy direction in which he has been trying to encourage a greater take up of private pension schemes wherever and however possible?
The Watson Wyatt report found that 238,000 people are insured under these plans, with 85% of the plans arranged through employer sponsored or voluntary groups. I am anxious that the schemes come under some form of monitoring and regulation. The report recommended that they be brought under the Insurance Ombudsman, now called the Financial Services Ombudsman. My Department and the Department of Finance are discussing how best to make this happen. I support the consultants' suggestion and am of the view that the services must be within the ambit of the Financial Services Ombudsman. We will try to ensure this happens as soon as possible so that the schemes may be overseen.
It is worth pointing out that these are not so much pension plans as insurance plans. They insure against a person not being able to continue work in certain circumstances.
They were sold as add ons to pensions.
That is often the case. They are often a bolt-on product and part of it. However, for the moment we are treating them as insurance products and that is the reason we are considering sending the issue not to the Pensions Ombudsman but to the Financial Services Ombudsman. That is the route we will take and I trust it will make a difference. More than 200,000 people are involved and their interests must be protected. The Financial Services Ombudsman should be in a position to do that.
The central point of my original question did not so much concern who takes ultimate responsibility. The Financial Services Ombudsman will deal with the schemes in the future. The 200,000 people on the schemes largely get the service they paid for and those who are not linked to their employer as the agent do not suffer a detriment in the payout likely to accrue to them. However, a cohort of people have been damaged in the past. Regardless of who takes responsibility for the issue in the future, I am concerned that someone should take responsibility for the way these schemes have been misapplied in the past. I want an answer and guidance from the Minister as to what role he can and should play in that.
These insurance policies are essentially private arrangements entered into between employer and employee. I will examine whether the ombudsman can play a role with regard to the existing stock, but I doubt we can make much progress in that area because retrospection is difficult when establishing new responsibilities. That said, it may be open to me to ask the ombudsman, when he takes responsibility for the area, to examine what occurred and suggest how we can assist.
The Minister has already explained that he does not have a formal reply for Question No. 48.
I do not have a formal reply, but I am happy to deal with the question, if the Deputy wishes.
48 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has given further consideration to his Department’s policy of reassessing savings derived from means-tested non-contributory pension payments when reviewing estate cases; the percentage of these cases set up for overpayments where next of kin have stated that the overpayments arose from savings accumulated from non-contributory pensions for each year since 2000; if he is satisfied that his Department has made sufficient efforts to ensure non-contributory pensioners are aware of the clawback policy operated by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23226/06]
The issue of reassessing savings derived from means-tested non-contributory pension payments when reviewing estate cases has been discussed many times and the Department continues to study and examine the situation. Deputies have put the case that, where people with savings from their non-contributory pensions die and their estate is examined, we should find some way to disregard the block of savings which emerges when the estate goes to probate and we discover it.
When probate is taken out and the accounts of the deceased are closely examined, substantial so-called savings are often found. The last time I answered this question, I explained the policy and that there is a clawback because the amount of money in the account now shows the person was not entitled to the pension at the time. I cannot change that. An initial examination of the issue showed it was impossible to tell the difference between whether the money in the account was saved from the non-contributory pension or whether it came from some other source. The real issue is whether the money comes from another source such as a small inheritance, a gift or payments from a relative.
Ring-fencing this became a major issue. It was decided that we would not depart from the present policy until we had one about which we were very sure-footed. We continue to consider it as asked in Question No. 48.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Perhaps he should come to the House more often without notes. Is the Minister aware of the particular case of Anthony Hennigan that was brought to our attention at committee? Is he aware that a social welfare appeals officer found against the Department in this issue? Is he aware that almost 50% of these cases arose from savings from means-tested pension payments according to an internal memorandum in the Department of Social and Family Affairs? Will the Minister not agree that 50% represents a major issue even though Department officials told me in committee that they did not consider it to be so? Will the Minister confirm that it is the practice to deduct funeral and legal expenses applicable to the estate before an over-payment is calculated? Is he aware that the appeals officer in his report stated that he found no evidence before him of such consideration being given in that case? Will he give an assurance that the correct procedure is being followed in every case?
Will the Minister make himself aware of what the appeals officer said about the circumstances of the case with reference to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, in particular the appeals officer's report that he did not find any significant reference by the deciding officer to the appellant's submissions which relate to the special circumstances of this case? However, he was assured that all the circumstances were fully considered. Will the Minister agree that it is wrong to penalise older people and perhaps their elderly relatives by double assessing their means? In other words after having been assessed for a non-contributory pension, an older person will save up for a rainy day. When such a person passes away a further assessment is made. Does the Minister agree that this is continuing and that the saving threshold from 1977 to 1979 was £200 and from 1979 to 2001 it was £2,000 and that those thresholds are still being applied? I ask the Minister to consider the issue as a matter of urgency and make the necessary changes.
I am not particularly aware of the specific case, but given that the Deputy has raised it, I will make a point of studying it. The Deputy might be aware that I am examining the area of non-contributory policy in any case. As I said to the committee last week, the number of people on non-contributory pensions is reducing each year and obviously those on contributory pensions is increasing correspondingly or even faster. Up to half those on non-contributory pensions are on partial pensions. Enormous effort is going into means testing these and making changes as to the proportion of pension received at every stage. This area needs to be examined and in that context we can review this issue.
There is an essential principle in the question asked by the Deputy. As the law stands the existing limits must be applied. If we subsequently discover that the accounts of a deceased person reveal something different from what we had been led to believe five or ten years earlier, it cannot be ignored under the present law. As I have said many times, I am very keen to examine the operation of non-contributory pensions as those on such pensions end up worse off than contributory pensioners. While contributory pensioners must contribute to the fund, there is no means test and they can earn what they wish. They are entitled to have other pensions. Whereas the dwindling brigade of non-contributory pensioners find that we means test very severely and although in the budget I increased the amount they can earn, they do not have the facility to earn additional funds. I have commenced the process of examining that area in recent weeks. Regarding this claw-back, we would be happy to examine any proposals on how to ring-fence such savings and confirm and verify them. It would be extremely difficult and I have no such proposals at present.
Does the Minister not agree that his officials have stated that 50% of the cases relate to means-tested payments? Under the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1993, the circumstances of each case must be taken into account. Is the Minister not concerned that the deciding officer found that did not happen in this case?
I will study the case in question and find what lesson can be learnt. If all the payments come from means-tested payments, that should not lead to a claw-back in most cases.
It does.
I will look at how it operates in practice. In principle if savings come from means-tested payments, they should not be of such a scale as to necessitate a claw-back, unless the person is extremely frugal, and it is hard to be frugal on means-tested payments.
They can be.
I will consider the matter. The principle is solid. Every case is considered on its merits under the present law. However, the broader area of non-contributory pensions needs examination.
49 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the envisaged timescale for the State to significantly reduce or completely eradicate consistent and relative poverty. [23222/06]
Since 1997, with the first national anti-poverty strategy, the Government has adopted a strategic approach to reduce and eliminate poverty. The need for a strategic approach reflects the complex nature of poverty which is multi-faceted in its causes and effects, and, as a consequence, requires a multi-policy response.
It has been a priority of successive governments to reduce and, if possible, eliminate basic poverty. To measure progress in achieving this objective, the consistent poverty indicator was devised by the ESRI. The numbers experiencing consistent poverty is calculated by identifying, from among those at risk of poverty, those deprived of at least one good or service considered essential for a basic standard of living in Ireland today. The data for this indicator are obtained from the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC.
The survey in 2003 showed a significant reduction in the consistent poverty rate, from 8.8% in 2003 to 6.8% in 2004 continuing a downward trend over the period since 1997. The low levels of unemployment and the substantial resources devoted to social welfare and other social services, which have been increasing in real terms, are bringing about this downward trend. Analysis suggests that 250,000 people, including 100,000 children, have been lifted out of deprivation and hardship since 1997 as a result of the concentrated and targeted measures and supports.
The Government is committed to continuing these policies. It is simply not possible to say with confidence, however, especially in light of methodological and measurement issues, when the policies will result in consistent poverty being fully eliminated. The level of consistent poverty will continue to be measured under EU-SILC which will enable us to monitor the progress being made and to apply extra resources and revised policies to meet the overall goal.
The "at risk of poverty" indicator is one of the common indicators agreed at EU level. It measures the numbers with incomes below 60% of median income for the whole population. Paradoxically, the numbers below this "at risk of poverty" threshold have increased in recent years despite the significant improvement in real terms of incomes across the board. This has been due to the major increase in the incomes of the population as a whole, arising from more and better employment and lower tax levels. Other key factors are the major reduction in unemployment and increased employment participation.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Those most at risk of poverty are families with children, particularly lone parents and larger families, people with disabilities and older persons living alone. A key policy objective is to remove barriers to employment for those capable of employment and provide the supports they need to obtain employment, such as education, training and child care. A discussion paper on ways of meeting these challenges for lone parents and other low-income families with children is being considered.
A decrease in the "at risk of poverty" rate from 19.7% in 2003 to 19.4% in 2004 was recorded by EU-SILC and shows that existing policies are beginning to have an effect on this indicator. Given the dependence of this indicator on the movement of incomes generally and their volatility over recent years, it is difficult to set targets for a reduction in numbers classified as at risk of poverty under this measure, or state when poverty classified in this way will be eliminated.
The main purpose of indicators is to identify clearly those who are most deprived and vulnerable in society and the progress being made in improving their position. These issues are currently being addressed in the preparation of the next national action plan against poverty and social exclusion, being co-ordinated by the office for social inclusion in my Department, which is due to be finalised by September.
I am confident that, through the targeted measures being taken by the Government and the initiatives being planned, a decisive and lasting impact will be made in the eradication of poverty.
We have attended launches of many different reports in recent years. The reality is that those on welfare, those from the Traveller community, those leaving school early, homeless people, those with a disability, elderly people and lone parents are more likely to be poor than wealthy. I attended a recent launch at which the Minister claimed all the reports are complete and it is now time for action, on which we all agree. The Minister spoke about 65,000 children living in consistent poverty in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The Government agreed that by 2007 it would eradicate consistent poverty or reduce the consistent poverty rate to 2% and make a decisive impact on the eradication of relative poverty. Is it on course to achieve this commitment?
Ireland has the highest level of relative poverty in the European Union and child poverty rates are among the highest in the OECD. Does the Minister accept that in 2004 almost one in five of the population was living in relative poverty and approximately 7% of the population was living in consistent poverty? The benefits of economic growth are not trickling down and our performance in wealth distribution has been shameful. Using consistent poverty measures, the Combat Poverty Agency estimates that 150,000 children suffer deprivation. The figures and methods used to calculate consistent poverty are to be changed. Will this involve playing with the figures?
The most recent European Union survey on income and living conditions, which was published in December 2005, found that 19.4% of the population was living in relative poverty. Barnardos has indicated that one in seven children live in poverty. It is shameful that any child should live in poverty in such a rich country. Moreover, one in three children from disadvantaged areas has problems with reading and writing. I am concerned that a large cohort of people has been excluded from society. One in three children in disadvantaged areas leaves school without a qualification such as the leaving certificate and only one in 100 children from disadvantaged backgrounds are given an opportunity to engage in out-of-school activities, despite their proven development benefits.
A wide range of reports and analyses have been produced and policies have been introduced to address child poverty. Is the Government on target to eradicate poverty and remove 65,000 children from consistent poverty? When will this goal be achieved? Will it be in our lifetime or will another generation be stuck in poverty as the figures and research available would suggest? Resources are still not being pumped into disadvantaged areas and children are still leaving school early. Given that education is one of the keys to eliminating poverty, why is the necessary investment not coming on stream?
With more than 1 million children living in this country, one must approach the figure of 65,000 with caution. A series of debates is taking place on how to measure poverty. The ESRI produced a list of eight basic deprivation indicators, including not having a roast or its equivalent once a week; not having a meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day; having to go without heating due to lack of money at some point in the year; not having a substantial meal on one day in the previous two weeks; and experiencing debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses.
While these indicators point to deprivation, in certain circumstances some of the measures more closely describe lifestyle than deprivation. When we talk about relative poverty we are really talking about lifestyle as opposed to poverty as we know it. My target is to eradicate consistent poverty, which affects 65,000 people, as quickly as I can. I cannot give a timeframe within which this goal will be achieved, except to repeat a figure I gave in answer to an earlier question. In a ten year period 250,000 people, including 100,000 children, were lifted out of poverty. This shows the pace at which progress has been made. We need to dramatically accelerate progress and are doing so through substantial increases in social welfare payments. In the past five or six years, expenditure on direct social welfare benefits has increased from €7 billion to €13 billion, the bulk of which is directed towards helping the vulnerable and those on means tested schemes. A substantial portion of these moneys is paid to low income families through family income supplement and other schemes. I will continue to work on the second tier concept and hope to have a version ready soon which will target available funds at children in consistent poverty.
