Vol. 640 No. 4
58 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he has taken to prevent improper access to confidential information within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26532/07]
My Department, because of the nature of its work, holds extensive and detailed personal information about its customers. Most employees of the Department need and have access to this information to deliver the Department's services.
The Department is aware of its obligations to its customers under the Data Protection Acts of 1988 and 2003 to ensure that information is collected appropriately, maintained securely and used only for the purpose for which it was intended. The Department takes these obligations very seriously and takes the strongest line on the misuse of customer information by any of its staff. Any breach of trust with regard to the confidentiality of information is treated as serious misconduct under the disciplinary code and comes under immediate consideration for dismissal.
In recent years the Department has strengthened security and data protection protocols. The security of systems and processes is regularly reviewed and there is password protection on all accounts. A dedicated unit has been established to oversee business information protection across the Department and has developed and communicated policies and procedures covering the use of systems and data. This unit also investigates alleged breaches that arise. Staff are regularly reminded of their obligations under data protection and security policies and the penalties applied to such misuse. In addition, the ongoing development of computer systems continues to incorporate further security and logging facilities.
The protection of personal data is a matter for the Department, and the Secretary General, as part of the risk management process, has established a high level group to review all aspects of access controls and security management.
In terms of the provision of information, how many breaches of the policy have occurred in the Department over the past five years and what prosecutions have been taken against staff members who leaked this confidential information? The Minister said the Department takes the strongest possible line in this regard. He will be aware of two specific cases mentioned in the media earlier this month. In the case of the member of staff who leaked information to his criminal brother, was a prosecution taken against that person by the Garda? Another senior official in the Department improperly accessed and passed on records of approximately 40 individuals to newspapers. That individual subsequently retired, but what action was taken against that person? Did the Department prosecute that individual? What other disciplinary actions, if any, have been taken with regard to these two individuals?
What plans does the Minister have to detect improper access in the future? I am concerned that the Department did not know about these two cases until the Garda informed it of one case and it was informed by one of the people whose name appeared in a newspaper of the other.
There have been only three cases since 2002. Given the scale of the operations of the Department, the number of customers and the number of operations carried out on a daily or weekly basis, that number is relatively small, although they are serious matters. In the first case referred to by the Deputy, the official has been dismissed. In the second case, the official resigned before disciplinary action could be taken by the Department. In another case, of a less serious nature, the officials involved were cautioned about their conduct and this was noted in their personal files.
As mentioned, the Secretary General has established a high level group within the Department to constantly review all aspects of access controls and security management. The Deputy is probably aware that, under the Data Protection Act, prosecutions fall under the remit of the Data Protection Commissioner. The action taken has been quite severe; people have lost their jobs.
Has the Data Protection Commissioner prosecuted any of the individuals involved? With regard to the third case, I assume the Minister refers to the case of the lady who won the national lottery. Some 106 officials looked up that person's file. This means 106 officials abused their position. I would not consider that breach as of a less serious nature. I am sure the Minister agrees that staff are not engaged to look up people's private information for their own amusement.
The Minister used the phrase "the strongest possible line". Does he believe that line should include prosecution of those within the Department who abuse their position? I put it to him that if people do not fear prosecution for abuse of position, there is little to stop them from continuing with this type of behaviour.
We need to keep the matter in context. There were only three cases. While I do not minimise the importance of those cases——
Some 40 individuals were named in one case.
Given the scale of operations the Department deals with, abuse of position does not take place on a large scale. I understand that the number of officials involved in accessing details of the person on file was 74, not 106. I did not say it was a less important matter, I meant it in comparison to giving somebody information for criminal activity, which was the case highlighted by the Deputy. That was the context in which I made those remarks.
There are improvements, ongoing training and awareness in the system. Every customer has a particular code and only that person can access that information. The system is under constant review, however, given the detailed range of welfare payments, which covers over 50 separate schemes. The system deals with 1.9 million applications, 6.5 million telephone calls and 68 million payments. In addition, 360,000 assignments have been conducted by the investigators and therefore there is a constant review of what is happening.
Will the Minister deal with the fact that the Department did not know about the mistakes until other people highlighted them?
I am not aware that was the case. My understanding is that the Department knew, but clearly the information came into the public domain as well.
59 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the Government policy in respect of school leavers access to welfare; and his targets in relation to education training and job placement for this cohort. [26625/07]
I understand the Deputy is referring specifically to jobseekers' payments. The Government has recognised for some years that it is undesirable for school leavers to receive social welfare payments immediately on leaving school. Their focus should be on accessing employment or further education in the first instance on leaving second level rather than looking towards welfare support. For this reason, second level students cannot access the jobseeker's allowance for three months after completion of the leaving certificate or after leaving education, whichever is the later. This provision does not apply to jobseeker's benefit, which is a contribution-based social insurance payment. Where the school leaver resides with a parent on social welfare, the qualified child increase continues to be paid for the three months on the parent's claim.
Recipients of jobseeker's payments are required to prove that they are available for full-time employment and genuinely seeking work. As part of this process, they must register with FÁS, which provides a wide range of training programmes for young people starting out in the workforce, such as the national traineeship programme, the local training initiative, and the apprenticeship scheme.
In addition, school leavers may also avail of Youthreach or the vocational training opportunities scheme, known as VTOS, administered by FÁS and the Department of Education and Science, for young people who have left school without qualifications. My Department, in co-operation with FÁS, encourages people to participate in work, training or education through the national employment action plan. Under this arrangement, people on the live register, including 18 and 19 year olds who are approaching three months on the live register, are referred by my Department to FÁS. My Department also administers support to people through the back to work and back to education programmes. Although the minimum age requirement for the back to education scheme is 21 years, special provision has been made to include people aged 18 to 20 years old who have been out of education for at least two years.
My Department, through initiatives such as the special projects fund and the family services project, supports, funds and is directly involved in a number of local initiatives to assist 18 and 19 year old people move from welfare to work or on to further education or training.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Examples of such activities are the Revamp project, targeted at young people with low skills or educational attainment in the Longford area and funding in respect of a training project for a group of early school leavers based in Sligo.
I am keen to ensure that young people do not develop long-term dependency on social welfare payments. My Department will continue to promote initiatives to encourage young people to participate in work, education or training.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I have a question in respect of policy. Having had full employment for a number of years, does the Minister believe it is acceptable that a considerable number of teenagers are on unemployment payments? The most recent figures from May 2007 show that 7,500 teenagers are in receipt of such payments. It is hard to understand the justification for that in a situation where we have full employment. The fact that 7,500 teenagers are drawing the dole is an indictment of the education system. It is also an indictment of the Minister's Department because there has not been adequate intervention in those cases. Many parents feel strongly that it should not be so easy for teenagers to move from school or training to the dole. What is the policy in respect of this matter? Does the Minister accept it is not generally seen as desirable that teenagers should be facilitated in this way because it can set bad habits in terms of their future careers? What policy is the Minister pursuing to ensure it will not happen?
I agree it is not desirable for young people coming out of school to look immediately to the welfare system because that is detrimental to their energy and enthusiasm for work. Of the 7,500 under 20 years of age on the welfare system, 3,800 had been referred to FÁS as of 19 October last. The relationship between the Department and FÁS is crucial to moving people onto schemes as quickly as possible and getting them into work.
There are extenuating circumstances in some cases. The situation is not as black and white as it might appear, or as we might like it to be, because some kids come from families which live on social welfare. We need to interact with those kids immediately to show them there is an alternative, and that a better quality of life is available if they work and have a sense of self-worth and feel they contribute to society.
We are trying to co-ordinate the Departments and their agencies better than we did in the past.
Is the Minister aware that of the 7,500 teenagers on the dole almost 1,000 have been unemployed for over a year? While some have been referred to FÁS there are no active interventions for young people whom the education system has failed. Has the Minister set targets for the number of school leavers and early school leavers to be facilitated by training, education or employment opportunities by FÁS? This seems to be tokenism and nobody is serious about tackling the problem.
I do not agree this is tokenism. A hell of a lot of good people work in the community to try to get these kids into the workplace. The State has significant resources in the Departments and their agencies.
Has the Minister set targets?
The Deputy may feel it is unacceptable to have 1,000 on the welfare system for over a year, but if she examined the individual cases she would know how difficult they are.
Has the Minister targets?
My target is simple. I would prefer there were no school leavers on the social welfare system but that kids came out of school and into whatever training needed to get into the workforce.
That is just a wild generalisation. Is the Minister doing anything about the problem?
I am. I have told the Deputy about the relationship between FÁS and the Department. The systems at FÁS are available to explain all of that. We have to be fair to these people too.
How many of those people have got training places? There is no point referring them unless there is some outcome. The Minister obviously does not know anything about the outcomes.
60 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his strategy for the future of the Social Insurance Fund with reference to the recently published projections by Mercer of the future balance of the fund; the Government commitment to increase State pensions to €300 per week by 2012 and to reduce the rate of employee PRSI to 2%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26533/07]
The second actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund, which was required under section 10 of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, was published on 17 October 2007 in conjunction with the Green Paper on pensions. The focus of the review, which covers the period 2006-61, is the income of the Social Insurance Fund, including the accumulated surplus, the contributory pensions and benefits paid from the fund, including associated non-cash benefits, and other payments. The report examines matters from various aspects in the context of surpluses or deficits and projects the number of years for which the existing reserves can be used to keep contribution rates below break-even rates.
The findings of this review present a broadly similar picture to those of the previous review, published in 2002, and include that the fund will move from being in surplus to running a deficit in 2009; that on foot of the annual deficits from 2009, the accumulated surplus will be exhausted by 2016; and that the ratio of people of working age to people over pension age, or the pensioner support ratio is projected to fall from 5.6 to 1.81 over the period to 2061. In other words, today for every one person on a pension six people work but that ratio will fall to under 1:2 by 2061.
In the short term, the fund has sufficient resources to provide for the changes to the PRSI system and the increases in benefits committed to in the programme for Government. Decreasing contributions however, will both increase benefits and advance the time when Exchequer subvention will be required. Legislation provides that the Exchequer is the residual financier of the fund and Exchequer contributions to cover shortfalls in contributions were the norm for over 40 years. Any shortfall in the cost of benefits paid would, in the normal way, be addressed by Exchequer subvention. Other approaches to such an annual deficit would be a matter for the Government to consider in a future budgetary context. I am certain however, that whether in surplus or in deficit the Social Insurance Fund will continue to be the cornerstone of our social welfare system.
The Minister will be aware of his party's commitments in its election manifesto and in the programme for Government to cut the PRSI rate from 4% to 2%, costing approximately €640 million, while at the same time committing to raising the pension by €100 over the lifetime of the Government. When these proposals were made, the Government had the report to which the Minister refers in its possession.
The Minister stated that the Exchequer has covered shortfalls for the last 40 years, which I accept. Is this the Government's long-term plan for the future? Will he take any immediate steps to counter this impending deficit? He did not seem to highlight any such steps in his reply. Is the Government prepared to let the fund continue in deficit and effectively let it go bust? That is the direction it seems to be taking. Has the Government abandoned its commitment to a self-financed social insurance fund, financed through PRSI?
The best way to deal with all these matters is to keep employment very high, as we have done successfully in the last few years.
The deficit is growing.
Of course, because we have developed new policies that were unheard of five or six years ago.
How is the Government going to pay for them?
There are many different areas, such as disability and care. This has been made possible because we have such a strong economy and because we have such high employment. The debate has started — I welcome the Deputy's views on it — because I published the report and the other report along with the Green Paper on pensions. That is a very important debate that we will have to hold as a society and not just as Government and Opposition. The debate must be about the next 40 years and about the basis of pension contributions, about how private and public pensions are to be funded and about whether the onus on young people entering the workforce should be obligatory or not. These issues need to be resolved as we look forward.
Some of our other European counterparts have now entered this phase and have a serious issue with regard to pensions. We have a short window of opportunity to resolve this pensions issue. That will colour judgments on how the social insurance fund will be sourced and funded over the next few decades.
I have to repeat the questions I asked the Minister, as he has not dealt with them. Has the Government abandoned its commitment to a self-financed social insurance fund through PRSI contributions, or is it seeking to allow it continue in the future? I appreciate the Green Paper has been published, but this issue must be dealt with in the immediate term, as we only have three years before the fund goes into deficit. What steps does the Minister intend to take to counter this impending deficit or is he simply going to wait until legislation following the Green Paper?
I am not sure whether the Deputy is making a pronouncement on a new Fine Gael policy to increase the payments of individuals.
This is priority Question Time and I am asking the Minister questions.
That is what the Deputy seems to be suggesting.
I have not announced any policy. I have asked a question.
That is what the Deputy seems to be suggesting. The fund is only one aspect of how we finance all pensions.
The question deals with the fund.
I know that and I already answered the question at the start. The programme for Government sets out what we are doing. In parallel with that, there is a major debate on pensions which must be resolved. The Exchequer has always been the residual funder of the social insurance fund. It was so for 40 years.
Is that what will happen in the future?
We do not have a magical way to increase that fund, unless the Deputy wants to increase everybody's contributions.
I have not asked that.
The balance will be struck between what is in the fund, when the deficit will run out and what the Exchequer responsibility will be in making the commitments that are there. Let us be clear that all pensions are secure for the next number of years.
61 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his policy on tackling child poverty; his views on the need to provide greater access to affordable non-cash services such as child care, health care and housing; and the steps he is taking in this regard. [26626/07]
The reduction and eventual elimination of child poverty is a national priority and is at the core of the strategic process to combat poverty and social exclusion as set out in Towards 2016, the national action plan for social inclusion, NAPinclusion, and the social inclusion commitments in the NDP.
One of the 12 high-level goals set out in the NAPinclusion focuses on achieving significant real increases in income supports for children, while three others address education initiatives. In addition, the detailed action targets cover services such as health, education, income support, early childhood development and care, as well as sport and leisure and participation programmes, to ensure that children reach their true potential and parents are supported in providing care for them.
Children growing up in low-income or jobless households are the most vulnerable to poverty. A high proportion of such households are composed of larger families with three or more children, as well as those headed by lone parents. The responsibilities involved in providing proper care for children can create obstacles for parents in taking up employment that provides a decent income for their families. The NAPinclusion addresses this by providing for a case management approach that will encompass, in an integrated manner, appropriate income support, child care services and education and training to enable parents to overcome these obstacles. National and international evidence shows that employment participation is the main route out of poverty.
The social welfare commitments in the programme for Government prioritise the objectives of the NAPinclusion. They include improvements in support for lone parents as well as in the carer's allowance, child benefit, back to school clothing and footwear allowance and the school meals programme. Child care provision, preschool facilities, family services and housing provision to meet the diverse needs of the population are further key Government commitments to better support families.
Significant progress has been made in reducing child poverty and material deprivation. The latest EU survey on income and living conditions, EU-SILC, shows, for example, that in the period 2003 to 2005, the proportion of children in consistent poverty has reduced from 12.2% in 2003 to 10.2% in 2005. I am confident the Government can maintain and build on that progress in the next ten years as a key part of achieving the overall goal in the NAPinclusion to reduce consistent poverty to between 4% and 2% by 2012 with the aim of eliminating it by 2016.
It is generally accepted that one in nine children suffers from consistent poverty? Does the Minister accept this figure? Does he accept that a far wider cohort of children suffers from additional elements of poverty in so far as they are denied access to quality public services? I refer to those who struggle to survive on low incomes but who are unable to gain access to health services or, for example, to the 1,000 children in the Dublin area who are homeless and whose families cannot gain access to decent quality housing accommodation. There are two elements to child poverty, namely, income poverty and poverty that comes about through the denial of access to services.
As for income policy, the Government has neglected the subject of qualified children's payments for a number of years. I refer to the approximately 340,000 children of adults who are entirely dependent on social welfare. What is the Minister's policy to improve their income? Is he committed to the earlier promise to bring the rate of qualified child payment up to €30 this year? This is being demanded by a number of campaigning groups. Is he committed to an earlier proposal to consider combining family income supplement and qualified child payment, as was promised under Sustaining Progress? It appears that little progress has been made in this regard.
I do not accept that little progress has been made. In recent years, the investment in child benefit and direct funding to children in families has been phenomenal and bears no relation to the position in previous years. In the discussions with the social partners, those involved with the relevant agencies wanted much of the available resources to be targeted specifically at families in need that have children and which, due to their overall circumstances, are in danger of encountering serious difficulties regarding access to facilities. This is the reason my reply to the Deputy specifically referred to the need for a relationship in respect of the health services and housing. The Deputy is correct in stating there is a mixture of methods involved in dealing with this issue. At one level there is direct income support, which comes from my Department and which has improved hugely over the last number of years. Obviously I am anxious to do more, but I must work within the limits of what will be available at budget time in order to enhance the payments and change the basis on which they are set. There has been a major improvement over the last number of years.
I do not think anyone would deny that there have been improvements in general children's payments, but I asked the Minister a question about those children who are the poorest of the poor — the 340,000 children who are dependent on the qualified child payment. The sum total of this payment is €22 per week. The parents of these children are entirely dependent on social welfare income. What is the Minister's intention in respect of that meagre payment? There is a clamour to have this payment increased to at least €30 this year in order to lift these children, a third of a million, out of poverty. Is the Minister committed to this action?
I am committed to more than that. I am committed to a huge range of improvements, particularly for the less well off in society, including direct support for children.
Could the Minister be more specific on that?
The Deputy is trying to force me to give a figure in advance of the budget, which she knows I cannot and will not do. She will have to wait for the budget to see what the figure will be when the process is completed.
62 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will explain the Government’s failure to achieve its initial target to reduce consistent child poverty to 2% by 2007, as stated in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy; the reason this target was revised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26534/07]
The National Anti-Poverty Strategy target set in 2002 was to reduce the numbers of those who are consistently poor, including children, to 2% by 2007 and, if possible, to eliminate consistent poverty as then defined. Survey information produced by the ESRI showed that the level of consistent poverty had steadily fallen from 8.3% in 1994 to 4.1% in 2001. The Government considered that achieving the 2% target over the following five-year period was realistic and attainable and that it might even be possible to eliminate consistent poverty.
The consistent poverty measure was developed by the Economic and Social Research Institute in 1987. It identified people as being in consistent poverty if their income was below 60% of median income and they were also deprived of one or more goods or services considered essential for a basic standard of living. The data for measuring consistent poverty up to 2001 were drawn from the Living in Ireland Survey. From 2003, however, this survey was replaced by the EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC, administered by the Central Statistics Office. The discontinuity between the two survey methods means it is not possible to compare trends in consistent poverty using these two different measures. Consequently, although EU-SILC data has shown higher rates of consistent poverty since 2003, continuing low levels of unemployment and the substantial amount of resources devoted to social welfare and other social services support the view that the downward trend in consistent poverty would have continued and that the target would have been reached by 2007 had the Living in Ireland Survey method continued in use.
Moreover, data from the first three years of EU-SILC indicate that the overall consistent poverty rate has fallen from 8.8% in 2003 to 7% in 2005 while, as I mentioned, consistent poverty among children fell from 12.2% to 10.2% over the same period. The targets set for reducing consistent poverty are now based on the latest EU-SILC figures and particularly on the progress achieved in the period 2003-05.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In addition, an updated set of indicators devised by the ESRI, which are in keeping with living standards today rather than those of 1987, are being used to measure consistent poverty. On the basis of this method of measurement and the policies and resources being put in place under the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016, NAPinclusion, the overall goal now is to reduce the number of persons, including children, experiencing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016.
The continued reduction and eventual elimination of child poverty remains a top priority for the Government and the programme for Government prioritises the objectives of NAPinclusion in this regard. In working to deliver the Government programme over the coming months, my plan is to build on the significant progress that has been made in reducing poverty in the past ten years and to deliver real improvements in living standards and wellbeing for the most vulnerable in our society, especially our children.
I am sure it will be a great relief to the 111,129 children in poverty to know that they are not really in poverty at all but that the data merely changed. From a more realistic point of view, can the Minister tell us whether an independent framework will be put in place to measure progress on the new targets set out in NAPinclusion in order to ensure that they are achieved within the given timeframe?
Although this may be under the remit of the Minister for Health and Children, is there a group within the Cabinet which deals with child poverty in a holistic way, so that all of the areas of Government that must be included in order to address this issue, including education, housing and social welfare, may work together in a coherent way rather than leaving the individual Departments to do their own thing? That is part of the strategy, but how can we independently ensure it is achieved?
Does the Minister agree with the comments of the End Child Poverty Coalition which described Ireland as having one of the worst records on child poverty in Europe, or what are his views on it?
Has the Minister given consideration to encouraging greater uptake of the FIS and ensuring that people are fully aware of it, and is there any possibility of using the data available to automatically let people know they are eligible for FIS without having to formally make an application?
On the last point, the Department of Social and Family Affairs is probably the best at informing people and produces a range of information packs and works carefully with its customers.
I appreciate that.
That is acknowledged generally throughout society. In terms of trying to get to individual families and deal with them, the Department does that daily. The National Action Plan for Social Inclusion, 2007 — 2016, set out to do that. I gave Deputy Shortall the figures. The object of the plan is to reduce consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating it altogether by 2016. It is a major priority with the programme for Government and across all strands of the Departments and it is reasonable to suggest there is much better co-operation between the Departments in trying to ensure the different services are provided or correlated properly to the maximum advantage of the individual families and children who find themselves in the difficulties we are discussing here.
