Vol. 632 No. 6
1 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs whether he will pay all qualified adults directly; his views on reviewing State pension contributory qualification criteria to improve the eligibility chances of older women who have returned to work following many years of homecaring duties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8199/07]
A person who is in receipt of a social welfare payment may claim an increase in respect of a dependent spouse or partner. This increase, known as qualified adult allowance, QAA, is normally paid as a single amount with the primary payment to the claimant. Provision has existed for many years to split the payment and pay the spouse or partner separately if the recipient so wished, or in cases of difficult family circumstances.
In recent years the question of paying the QAA direct to the adult dependant as the norm has been raised in a number of reports, the intention being to provide the dependant with a level of economic freedom. Significant changes have been made in the social welfare code over the years to ensure that as many people as possible qualify for a social welfare payment in their own right.
In the recent budget, I announced significant improvements in the rate of payment for qualified adults on State pensions and important changes in the way these payments will be made in future. The changes will involve amending the existing arrangements to provide that, in the case of new claimants to the State pension schemes, the qualified adult increase will be paid directly to the qualified adult. Customers who wish to be paid their pension jointly will continue to be facilitated. The revised arrangements will apply to all new applicants to the State pension schemes with effect from 24 September 2007.
The position regarding payments to people of working age is less straightforward and a separate payment may not be appropriate for certain schemes. It is open to a dependent spouse or partner to claim payments such as jobseeker's allowance in his or her own right subject to satisfying means and other conditions.
The social welfare pension rights of those who take time out of the workforce for caring duties are protected by the homemaker's scheme which was introduced in 1994. The scheme allows up to 20 years — from 1994 — spent caring for children or incapacitated adults to be disregarded when a person's social insurance record is being averaged over his or her full working life for pension purposes. Provision is also made for the award of credited contributions in the year in which a person commenced or ceased to be a homemaker.
The homemaker's scheme will not of itself qualify a person for a pension. The standard qualifying conditions for State pension contributory, which require a person to enter insurance ten years before pension age, pay a minimum of 260 contributions at the appropriate rate and achieve a yearly average of at least ten contributions from the time they enter insurance until they reach pension age, must also be satisfied.
A review of the homemaker's scheme and other issues relating to social welfare pensions is taking place in the context of the forthcoming Green Paper on pensions which is expected will be finalised by the end of March 2007. A consultation process will then take place and the Government will publish a framework for future pensions policy on foot of this.
I thank the Minister for his response. He stated only new claimants will qualify automatically. Does he have plans to extend the scheme to existing claimants?
Does the Minister agree the impact of the marriage bar is now being felt and it is most unfair? Prior to 1973, women employed in the public service were forced to give up their jobs and to attend to homemaking duties. Because of that, women who are now reaching retirement age find they are without a pension in their own right. They suffer doubly if they went back to work for a short period before they retired. Does the Minister have a view on this situation? Is he aware of the number of women who were affected by the marriage bar and how many women are affected by it today and does he have any plans to make changes in this regard?
Does the Minister agree the averaging rule to which he referred is most unfair because it takes into account the years women spent in the home? Does he also agree that the work carried out by the women at that time was extremely valuable? They reared the Celtic tiger generation at home. They had no choice in the matter. Does the Minister further agree if the situation were to exist today it would be deemed to be unconstitutional?
I confirmed the commencement date for the revised arrangements would apply to new applicants from September 2007. It is not proposed at this point to include existing recipients, although I would like to do so. The Department informed me it could take some time to do that. We will commence with new applicants and I hope in time policy will develop so we can extend this facility to existing recipients also. I am pursuing the important policy objective that payments would be made to people in their own right.
The question of pensions cover for women who left employment as a result of the marriage bar has arisen on many occasions in recent years. The case is often made that they were penalised at the time they left their employment and they are being further penalised for the fact they have no pension rights. At the time, the women in question were paid a marriage gratuity and the Department of Finance has confirmed that this was considered a payment in lieu of pension rights. That is the legal position.
In general, the social insurance class paid by those affected by the marriage bar was a modified rate which now gives coverage for widows' and guardians' payments, occupational injury benefit, bereavement grant and carer's benefit only. This class of insurance reflected their occupational pension position and general contract of service at the time. Accordingly, even if the women concerned had continued in employment, contributions made at this class would not have entitled them to a contributory pension under the social welfare scheme.
In the social welfare context, the arguments in this area have focused on the question of backdating the homemaker's scheme which was introduced in 1994 and which, in line with practice in regard to new schemes and changes in insurability, operate from a current date. The issue of homemakers is being examined in the context of the Green Paper on pensions to which I referred earlier. It should be finalised by the end of this month.
2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on abolishing the means test for the carer’s allowance; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7924/07]
Carer's allowance is a social assistance payment paid to people who are providing full-time care and attention to a person in need of such care. In line with other social assistance schemes, a means test is applied to the carer's allowance so as to ensure resources are directed to those in greatest need. This means test has been eased significantly over the years. Following budget 2006, the earnings disregard for a couple was set at €580 per week, which is equivalent to gross average industrial earnings. In budget 2007, I increased this to €640 per week for a couple from April 2007.
This increase means a couple with two children will be able to earn in the region of €36,000 per year and still qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance as well as the associated free travel and household benefits. This measure exceeds the commitment in Towards 2016 to ensure those on average industrial earnings can continue to qualify for a full carer's allowance.
In addition, I have increased the rates of carer's allowance to €200 per week for those aged under 66 and to €218 per week for those aged over 66. From June 2005, the annual respite care grant was extended to all carers who are providing full-time care to a person in need of such care, regardless of their income. Those persons in receipt of other social welfare payments, excluding jobseeker's assistance and benefit, are entitled to this payment, subject to meeting the full-time care condition. From June 2007, the level of the grant will increase by €300 to €1,500 per year.
It is estimated that complete abolition of the means test for carer's allowance would cost over €140 million in a full year. There are differing views on this, with some support organisations strongly of the view that if this level of resources were available, it would be more beneficial to carers if it were invested in further increases to carer's allowance and in the type of community care services which would support them in their caring role.
The primary objective of the social welfare system is to provide income support. As a general rule, only one weekly social welfare payment is payable to an individual. Persons qualifying for two social welfare payments receive the higher payment to which they are entitled. I am aware this has been a cause of particular concern to people in receipt of a social welfare payment when they become carers.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
For that reason I was very pleased to introduce fundamental structural reforms in this area in budget 2007 under which people in receipt of certain social welfare payments, for example a widow's pension, who are providing someone with full-time care and attention will be able to retain their main payment and receive an additional payment, depending on their means, of up to a half rate carer's allowance. I have provided for these new arrangements in the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill, which is currently before the Oireachtas.
I again reiterate my commitment to working for and with carers to deliver increased benefits, supports and services for them and their families.
The Minister knows the Labour Party position. We are unequivocally committed to abolishing the means test for carers. There are thousands of people in the country with a job that has a mandatory 365 days a year contract, with no leave, holidays or bonus. Who are these people? They are carers who provide unpaid help for a family member or friend with a disability. Almost half of these carers have no paid employment and one third of them give more than 43 hours of unpaid time per week. Less than one fifth receive financial assistance from the State for their invaluable and tireless work.
The facts speak for themselves. There are only 150,000 carers in Ireland. The recent report by the National Economic and Social Forum indicates that unpaid care saves the Exchequer up to €2 billion every year. Carers are saving the State a vast amount that would arise if those people needed institutional care, without considering the capital expenditure needed to build such facilities. It is a no-brainer.
How much money is spent by the Department administering the means test? Is it not an expensive process? Savings from the abolition of the means test would be offset against the cost of a commitment the Labour Party would give to abolish the means test for carers. Abolishing the means test is a clear way of recognising the invaluable role of carers in our community and supporting them.
A post office at Park Road, Killarney, closed after Christmas. Pensioner, carer and invalidity books were taken when presented at the New Street post office and people were advised that the books would be returned the following week. Today, most of the pension books are not available and people are being sent to community welfare officers, who are not aware that all these people will be arriving. The staff at the post office have had no communication from the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
What communication has the Department of Social and Family Affairs had with the post office staff? When will the situation be clarified for social welfare recipients? Have the community welfare officers been given details of the people who will approach them for assistance? The Minister may not have the answer immediately but it is important that the Department of Social and Family Affairs deals with this in its usual humane, compassionate way.
If I announced the abolition of the means test for carers, the Labour Party would have to amend its manifesto. Deputy Penrose would be the most disappointed man in the House if I announced that move. The Deputy feels passionately about this and has managed to put the issue at centre stage in his party, on which I compliment him.
I have an open mind on the matter. Sometimes it is better to raise thresholds and disregards and one must choose between these measures while retaining the means test or introducing a universal carers allowance. At some point the means test will not be worth a candle but one must be careful when drawing the line. One must not give valuable State money through the welfare system to people who do not need it. This will happen with a universal system. I am aware that it costs four times as much to care for someone in residential care as it does in the person's home. At some stage, retaining a means test will no longer make sense.
I will ask the Department to examine the situation in Killarney and revert to the Deputy.
3 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will make a statement on the findings relating to Irish child poverty in the UNICEF report Report Card 7, Child Poverty in Perspective, An Overview of Child Well-being in Rich Countries. [8106/07]
In 2005, the rate of consistent poverty in Ireland was 7% of the population, of whom 12.2% were children. This proportion is still too high, but it must be judged in the context of what has been achieved over the past decade. Some 250,000 people, including children, have been lifted from poverty in Ireland based on the consistent poverty measure. The Government is determined to continue to work to achieve and, as resources permit, exceed this rate of progress in reducing child poverty in the years ahead. Budget 2007, in which I announced a range of measures costing over €240 million to benefit children and families, provides clear evidence in this regard.
These measures include combining these rates of child dependant allowance payments in a new single high rate qualified child allowance of €22 per week that will benefit over 340,000 children of families on welfare, increasing the rate of child benefit by €10 per week, which benefits over 560,000 families in respect of approximately 1,134,000 children, increasing the back to school clothing and footwear allowance by €60 and €95 and providing additional funding of €3 million in 2007 to extend the school meals programme.
Other budgetary measures, such as the €20 per week increase in the lowest social welfare rate to €185.80 and increases in the earnings thresholds for the one parent family payment and family income supplement, will also indirectly benefit children living in poorer households. For the longer term, the Government recently published the national action plan for social inclusion 2007-16. The approach, in the case of children, is designed to ensure effective co-ordination across all policy areas that support children and across all Departments and agencies responsible for implementing these policies for children by 2016.
For the purposes of the UNICEF report, which uses statistics relevant to the year 2000, the income threshold for the relative income poverty indicator is 50% of average household income. As it relates just to the income a household receives, it does not include other resources a household may have or have access to which keeps them out of actual poverty.
Can the Minister refrain from his apples and oranges argument? This is an international study, a comparison of relative poverty rates.
I was just getting good at it.
Any reference the Minister makes to consistent poverty has nothing to do with my question. The UN body compared 25 industrial nations and Ireland ranked 22nd. Regardless of the direction of Government policy, and the Minister's answer admits it has been painfully slow, Ireland should not be in this position after ten years of economic growth. The measures that need to be implemented are found in the countries that were most successful in this study. The rate of child poverty for Ireland, the UK and the US is 15% of the population. The Nordic equivalent, in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark, is 5%. Aside from the publication of the action plan on social inclusion the Minister should set clear targets to reduce the figure of 15% to 5% in a short time. He has not done so to date.
The study uses figures from 2000. We should keep that in mind.
It has not changed that much.
With respect to the Deputy, it has changed. It is almost seven years since these figures were produced and Ireland has changed dramatically in that time. While the Deputy is right to say the study places us as 22 out of 24 in regard to material well-being it puts us eighth in terms of educational well-being, seventh in family and peer relationships, fourth in behaviours and risks for children and fifth out of 21 for subjective well-being. In almost all the other measures in the study our children come out close to the top which brings us back to the question of how we measure poverty.
In the recent budget we put €240 million into a range of measures, a decision the House supported because it was necessary. For the first time since 1994 we put an extra €60 million into child dependant allowances with the result that the child benefit increase of €10 a month across the board was not the same for the one third of children on the bottom rung of that ladder. They got an extra €22 per month. That is the first time since 1994 that a clear preference was shown and funds were put into helping poor children, rather than making an across the board increase in child benefit which would perhaps have been politically more attractive but would not have been the right thing to do.
The increases in the family income supplement and in the one parent family payments have added up to a solid assault on child poverty. I am determined to keep up that pressure and eliminate child poverty.
4 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the efforts his Department is making to assist older people and pensioners to remain in and return to the workforce, in view of his commitment to improving the employment prospects of older people; the reasons pensioners cannot avail of the back to education allowance, BTEA, scheme and older people are not included in FÁS training strategies; his views on extending the employer PRSI exemption scheme to include people over the age of 55 returning to work; the reasons for the poor take up among non-contributory State pensioners of the earnings disregard from insurable employment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8200/07]
Consistent with the vision for all people of working age as set out in the Government's recently published national action plan for social inclusion 2007-16 and bearing in mind the 2010 EU level target participation rate for older workers of 50%, which was agreed by the European Council under the Lisbon strategy, unemployed people aged 55 to 64 years have been included within the scope of the national employment action plan since July 2006. Those who are approaching three months on the live register are referred to FÁS for interview and access to the full range of supports available under the plan.
The back to education allowance, BTEA, is a second chance education opportunities scheme designed to encourage and facilitate people on certain social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications and, therefore, their prospects of returning to the active workforce. This is essentially a social welfare replacement income which is paid at a standard weekly rate instead of the relevant qualifying social welfare payment. The eligibility criteria for participation in the scheme are considered reasonable and targeted to ensure that resources reach those most in need of support. If a person is in receipt of BTEA prior to reaching pension age, the annual cost of education allowance, which is €400, may continue in payment beyond pension age during the remainder of the course of study.
Since 2003, the employer PRSI exemption scheme has been aligned directly with the back to work allowance scheme. The scheme exempts employers from their share of the PRSI contribution in respect of recipients of the back to work allowance for the first two years of employment. Back to work allowance is payable to long-term unemployed people over 55 years who are returning to work and consequently the PRSI exemption scheme also applies to this age group.
FÁS training programmes are open to people who are over 65 years of age. They are not a target or priority group but they are eligible to apply and be considered for participation. In addition, FÁS evening courses are available to people over 65 years, as are courses provided through FÁS eCollege. To encourage and facilitate those who wish to continue in employment after pension age, the new enhanced State pension, non-contributory, for those over 66 years which I introduced at the end of September 2006, featured an employment earnings disregard incentive of €100 per week. I was happy to enhance this incentive to €200 per week in Budget 2007.
How successful was this income disregard for older non contributory pensioners? Is it true that just 398, or 0.4% of non-contributory pensioners availed of the scheme? What efforts are being made to promote the scheme? Does FÁS operate a quota system for people over the age of 55 on their training and CE schemes? If so, is that discriminatory? Could the Minister examine that please and do something about it? Is it also true that only people of working age are included in the national employment action plan and has the Minister any plans to change that? What supports is he putting in place to facilitate older people and those over 66 years of age who wish to remain at work?
Labour force participation by people aged 65 years or over is in the region of 7.2%, and it is expected to reduce to 6.2% by 2010. In the 1950s it was 37%. I do not have figures for those who claimed the €100 income disregard which became €200 in the recent budget but the number is small. There has not been an enormous response but the disregard is valuable. We have asked the Citizens Information Board to promote it more. As with the family income supplement, too few people are aware of it after years of the opposite being the case.
If one is on a non-contributory pension one can earn €200 per week in employment without affecting one's non-contributory pension. I wish to promote that widely so that more people take it up. Many people are probably afraid to earn some additional income for fear that it would interfere with their pensions. The limit is €200. We will promote it through the Citizens Information Board. We included people aged over 55 years in the national employment action plan which was appropriate because people over the age of 55 might need new training, education and opportunities to start second careers. Including them in the plan is sensible. Prior to that they were almost written off which is not the correct way to proceed. We recently reduced the time for which one is unemployed before being referred to the national employment action plan from six months to three months to keep the pressure on that plan.
5 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will restore child benefit as a universal payment to all children. [8153/07]
Child benefit can be paid in respect of every child under the age of 16 years, who is ordinarily resident in the State. Payment can be extended to the nineteenth birthday if the child is in education, or incapable of self-support. The benefit is paid to the qualified person with whom the child resides and since 1 May 2004, the qualified person must satisfy the habitual residence condition.
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 ten new EU member states, without the transitional limitations that were imposed at that time by most of the other member states. The effect of the condition is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere is not paid social welfare payments on arrival in Ireland. EU regulations provide that EEA nationals who are migrant workers who are, that is, who have been employed or self-employed since coming to this country, or receiving Irish jobseeker's benefit, are entitled to payment of family benefits in respect of their families who reside in another member state. In these circumstances the family members are treated as if they are habitually resident in Ireland for the purpose of child benefit.
For the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 January 2007, the number of child benefit claims that required particular examination of the habitual residence condition was 16,092. Of these, only 1,557, less than 10% were disallowed. Those who are refused child benefit are mainly persons whose claim to asylum has not yet been decided, who do not have a work permit or who have only a minimal attachment to the workforce in Ireland.
I am satisfied that the habitual residence condition is achieving its intended purpose, allowing access to our social welfare schemes to persons who are genuinely and lawfully making Ireland their habitual residence, while preventing unwarranted access by persons who have little or no connection with the State.
Does the Minister accept that child benefit is a key mechanism for ending child poverty? Would he also accept that children who are now prevented from receiving child benefit due to the habitual residence condition are most in need of it, given that their parents are not permitted to work while awaiting a decision on their residency application? Does the Minister acknowledge that our immigration policy is taking precedence over anti-poverty measures, with children being driven into greater poverty due to child benefit no longer being a universal payment?
How does the Minister respond to the charge that, while all children are equal, this Government considers some more equal than others with this blatant discrimination? Does the Minister accept that the Government's immigration policy is in contravention of the Minister's stated policy objective of eliminating child poverty? If a child is hungry, we should address that hunger. However, whether it was due to media concerns that Ireland would be swamped by people from other European countries or for other reasons, we introduced the habitual residence condition with regard to people who should be entitled to this benefit. How many people does it affect? Does the Minister accept that families who have been denied this payment are struggling to afford warm clothes and nutritious food for their children?
I have met various organisations about this issue. The Department, the Government and I wish to take a humane and caring approach to it. As the Deputy correctly points out, children are innocent parties in these decisions to move from country to country. We will keep a close eye on it. Ireland was one of only three states to open its borders in 2004; most other member states did not do that. We have led the way in welcoming and integrating immigrants, and I hope that sensible approach will continue.
Is it not half a welcome?
Only 10% of the claims were disallowed. The number of child benefit claims that required examination of the habitual residence condition was 16,000 between May 2004 and January 2007. The 10% that were disallowed were disallowed for good reasons. There was little or no connection with the State.
There is a safety net through social welfare officers, community welfare officers and the social welfare system. There is support available for hardship cases. We have a caring system in which we try to assist children in particular. The numbers I have quoted show that most non-national families are eligible for and receiving child benefit.
