Ciaran Lynch
Question:62 Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when he will end the cohabitation rule for lone parents; and the justification for delaying reform in this area. [32184/07]
Other Questions.
Social Welfare Code.
The Government discussion paper, "Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents", put forward proposals for the introduction of a new social assistance payment for lone parents and other low income families with young children. It also proposed a range of additional services, including the expanded availability and range of education and training opportunities, the extension of the national employment action plan, focused provision of child care and improved information services. Under the proposals, the contingency of lone parenthood would no longer exist. The one parent family payment would, therefore, be abolished. Instead, a new payment would be made to all parents — living alone or with a partner — with young children and on low incomes.
As I recently reported to the House, the development of any new scheme to support low-income parents can only be introduced when the necessary co-ordinated supports and services are put in place by other Departments and agencies. This is why the non-income recommendations in the discussion paper are being tested in Coolock and Kilkenny. These tests are focused on identifying and resolving any practical and administrative issues that may arise in advance of the scheme being introduced. They are scheduled to run until the end of the year and a report will then be made to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion. Various reports have already been delivered to the committee.
The tests to which I refer will allow for operational and logistical co-ordination between the relevant Departments and agencies to be considered and will facilitate the development of the policy and operational details of the new scheme and accompanying supports. Although the exact terms of the new scheme have not been finalised, the objective is to ensure that the necessary financial and other supports are in place to assist families towards improved employment prospects and that all disincentives to work will be kept to a minimum.
It is more than 18 months since the Department published proposals on providing supports for lone parents and it appears that little or no progress has been made in implementing these. The question relates specifically to the proposal to end the cohabitation rule. Does the Minister accept that it makes no sense for the State — as it is currently doing in respect of social welfare and tax policies — to actively encourage parents to live apart? If the answer is yes, why has he not taken action before now to end such behaviour and to enable lone parents to enjoy greater flexibility in the context of their family arrangements? Surely it makes sense for the State to remove any obstacles to parents living together. At present, there is a ridiculous situation whereby parents are far better off living apart than they are cohabiting or getting married. That is not justifiable or sustainable as a social policy. Why is the Minister taking so long to alter this ridiculous situation?
I would not necessarily state that people are far better off if they are not married and are living alone.
They are better off. The figures prove that.
I agree with the Deputy's principal point regarding the cohabitation rule. The latter was based, clearly and historically, on a purely financial consideration that took no account of the welfare of all involved in what would constitute a family unit. A child who is involved with both parents — regardless of whether they are married or single — enjoys a better upbringing and will have a better chance to become a more rounded individual. That is not to say that a child who happens to be in a one-parent family cannot achieve all of those things. However, the commonly held view among the various agencies and people to whom I have spoken is that involving fathers — most of these children are raised by their mothers — and allowing them to cohabitate without penalising mothers in the context of the benefits they receive, represents a far better way to proceed. I intend to progress this issue.
The Deputy raised several other points.
I will take further supplementary questions from Members so the Minister may expand on his reply later. I call Deputy Enright.
Many people in the agencies involved in trying to resolve difficulties in this area want to ensure that the other services will buy into this change and that it will not all take the form of a simple payment.
I am anxious to allow Deputies to contribute.
That is what we must achieve.
What level of priority has the Government afforded to this matter? The Minister's predecessor announced this change in December 2005. We have almost reached the second anniversary of that announcement. At the time, it was expected that the change would be introduced during the following year. Does the Minister accept his predecessor's assertion that the aim of the review was to help people escape the poverty trap? If the latter is the case, why are will still discussing the matter two years later while people remain within that poverty trap? Does the Minister agree that family formation will not be facilitated while this matter remains on the long finger? Will he indicate a clear date by which we can expect real changes?
If it was merely a matter of changing the cohabitation rule, we could do it tomorrow morning. However, it is not possible to proceed in that way because there are huge knock-on effects, involving many other aspects of the social welfare system, which must be taken into consideration. I want to get agreement between the various parties to the different perspectives, particularly those who come from an especially narrow perspective to represent a point of view about a particular issue.
I accept that we must change the system. I would like the process to reach a conclusion very quickly. I would be happy to introduce legislation to deal not only with cohabitation but with the wide range of issues that surround it. I hope those involved in the process and in consultation can reach agreement. There are different perspectives on various aspects of this. Nevertheless, I fundamentally agree with the substantive point made by Deputies Shortall and Enright, namely, that the existing cohabitation rule is wrong and must be abolished. The quicker we abolish it the better.
Residency Permits.
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:63 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his future plans for the application of the residency clause in respect of persons from the EU accession states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32314/07]
I have already described in my answer to Deputy Enright's question the reasons for the introduction of the habitual residence condition and the effect of the condition, so I will confine this answer to the EU aspect of Deputy Durkan's question. The habitual residence condition does not introduce any distinctions based on citizenship, nationality or any other factor, and it applies equally to all claimants for the relevant schemes.
EU regulations provide that EEA nationals who are migrant workers, that is those who are employed or self-employed in this country, or those who are receiving the Irish jobseeker's benefit since being in employment here, are entitled to payment of family benefits. EU regulations also provide for the payment of supplementary welfare allowance, including rent supplement, to migrant workers. Former workers who continue to be treated as workers for this latter purpose include those who have been temporarily laid off because of illness or those who have become unemployed, are genuinely seeking work and have registered with FÁS.
The EU regulations permit a residence condition to be applied in the case of other assistance schemes, such as the jobseeker's allowance or the non-contributory state pension. The protections afforded are specifically for migrant workers, not for those who move between member states for other reasons, or who have failed to obtain genuine or effective work since their arrival in the host state. These regulations apply equally to nationals of all member states. Therefore, although differences will arise in the circumstances of each individual case, there is no distinction in principle in the application of the habitual residence condition between nationals of the older member states and nationals of the newer member states.
The operation of the condition was reviewed by my Department in 2006 and the report of the review was published early this year. The full content of the review may be accessed on the Department's website www.welfare.ie. It is not proposed to introduce any changes to the current policy in this regard, as the original reason for the policy is still valid.
Child Support.
Pádraic McCormack
Question:64 Deputy Pádraic McCormack asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the general public can not get through to the child benefit phone number in Donegal; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28560/07]
The child benefit office is responsible for the administration of the child benefit scheme and the early child care supplement scheme which my Department administers for the Office of the Minister for Children. There are over 570,000 customers, and 1.1 million children are currently receiving payments totalling over €2.6 billion in 2007.
The child benefit office operates a phone service using a lo-call number which allows customers to contact the office from anywhere in the country for the cost of a local call. The phone service in the child benefit office is staffed from 9.15 a.m. to 5.15 p.m. A total of six staff is dedicated to phone answering duties. With the increase in the child benefit customer base in recent years and the introduction of the early child care supplement last year, there has been an increase of 75% in the number of phone calls received in the office since 2005. The number of calls received in 2005 was 187,000, which increased to 281,000 in 2006 and is estimated to reach 330,000 this year.
To date this year, over 221,000 calls have been answered in the child benefit section, representing around 75% of all calls to the section. At non-peak times, that is, weeks in which there is no payday, the percentage of calls answered is regularly in excess of 90%. On certain days, particularly before and after the paydays for both child benefit and early child care supplement, the level of phone calls received increases significantly and this can lead to delays in calls being answered. Up to four additional staff are allocated to phone-answering duties during these peak periods to minimise the waiting times experienced.
On the day the Deputy reports difficulty in contacting the office, a total of 1,950 calls were received, almost double the normal daily volume. This surge in calls was primarily due to the fact that child benefit had been paid the previous day. Technical difficulties were also being experienced at this time and this had a negative impact on the call answering service.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
My Department's strategy is to continue to develop our customer channels, namely, phone, call-in, and online services, in order to provide a quality customer service whereby customers can choose the channel that best suits them for particular inquiries. To this end the telephony infrastructure has been upgraded over the past year to support this programme of developments and a new phone management system will be installed in my Department's Letterkenny office in 2008. My Department is also currently engaged in a tendering process to procure a text messaging facility which will be deployed in 2008. This will facilitate the acknowledgement of claims, in order to reduce the need for customers to contact us by phone, as well as providing an additional channel for forms requests. The position regarding the levels of phone calls and the ability to respond is being constantly monitored to ensure disruption to the service is kept to a minimum.
Last Monday week I spent one hour and five minutes on the phone to Donegal without getting a reply. I was put through to answering machines with Irish accents, Polish accents and other accents, but I could not get through to get information for a constituent. If I am in that position, in what position are members of the general public? This problem happens with most public services nowadays. We get answering machines but no reply nor anyone to deal with problems. I cannot understand how the public puts up with it.
I would not seek to justify what happened to the Deputy or to anyone else. It is utterly unacceptable and I have made that clear in the Department. We have tried to put extra staff in there to cope with the volumes on certain days. It appears that on the particular day the Deputy called, there were technical problems with the phone system which compounded the problem. I hope that if the Deputy tries again, he will not have a similar experience. I am sure he will test the system again and I would be interested to know how he gets on. The information available to me is that people are getting responses, although the number of calls goes through the roof on the day before and the day after payments.
The Minister stated that he has four extra staff available on some of those days. Would it not make more sense to have those people working in that section on a longer-term basis? Many of these people will be calling from payphones or mobile phones, so even with a lo-call number, waiting for an hour will be quite expensive for them. Can the Minister re-examine this to ensure there are sufficient staff to deal with very genuine queries from people?
I put down the question to alleviate the problem for the general public. It is alright for public representatives, as they have other lines to call. However, this was a particular case and I tried to call from my office in Galway. The caller first hears a 30 second answering machine outlining the various options. It is far more important for members of the public to speak to somebody on the other line than to listen to an answering machine telling them to press one or another button and getting no response at the end of all of that.
I have experienced the same frustration myself, but it does not just apply to the public sector. It also applies to many of the private companies providing services in this country. I have given up trying to get through to some major companies in this country just to do my own personal business. It drives me absolutely nuts to be told to press one button or another by an answering machine. That is not a good service and it should not be tolerated in either the public or the private sector. It is my objective that every single member of the Department be as productive as possible and use our human resources for the maximum benefit of the public. It is a huge service Department that deals with over 1 million customers every week. There are many cases where it has been highly commended for the service it has provided. We want to resolve any problems and where we can improve the service, we will do so.
Anti-Poverty Strategy.
Kathleen Lynch
Question:65 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the percentage of the population regarded as being in consistent poverty; when he expects the targeted reductions to be met; the principal reason they have not been met; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32181/07]
Leo Varadkar
Question:131 Deputy Leo Varadkar asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the position regarding the progress on reforms outlined in the programme for Government to continue to support the office of social inclusion; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32284/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 65 and 131 together.
Information on poverty levels, deprivation and social exclusion is provided in the EU survey on income and living conditions, which is conducted on an annual basis by the Central Statistics Office. The most recent results were published on 28 November and refer to 2006. Data from the survey indicate that the overall consistent poverty rate has reduced from 8.2 % in 2003, when the survey was first introduced, to 6.5 % in 2006. This figure refers to an updated version of the consistent poverty measure, which was developed by the ESRI. The revised measure is more realistic and in keeping with living standards today than the indicators considered appropriate for the earlier national anti-poverty plans. It forms the basis for the overall poverty reduction goal in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016, which is to reduce the number of persons experiencing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016. The recent survey results show that we are on track to meet this target.
The NAP inclusion plan sets out a wide-ranging and comprehensive programme of actions over the period to 2016 to continue to reduce poverty and achieve the overall consistent poverty goal. The plan adopts a lifecycle stage approach, in line with Towards 2016, with specific, measurable goals set for each group — children, people of working age, older people and people with disabilities and their communities. The plan contains 12 high-level strategic goals in key priority areas supported by over 150 targets and actions, with a programme of action to meet them during the period 2007-16. It has a particular focus on the effective delivery and implementation of quality public services for each stage of the lifecycle. The targets cover the broad spectrum of services including education, health and long-term care, housing, income support, employment supports, early childhood development and care, transport, and sport and culture. The first annual social inclusion report, launched last month, shows that progress is being made and that social inclusion targets are on track for 2006-07.
The continued reduction and eventual elimination of poverty remains a top priority for the Government and the programme for Government prioritises the objectives of the NAP inclusion plan. To this end, the Government continues to support the office for social inclusion which has a key co-ordinating role in the social inclusion agenda. The office, which is located within my Department, has overall responsibility for the development, monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the NAP inclusion plan and on the social inclusion chapter of the national development plan. This includes co-ordinating the social inclusion process across Departments, agencies, regional and local Government and implementing key support functions, including the use of poverty impact assessments by Government Departments, local authorities and statutory agencies in the development of policies and programmes. The office is currently working with Government Departments on implementing revised guidelines for poverty impact assessment. The office also has a co-ordinating role in supporting research on poverty and its causes and on the development of a data strategy to better support measurement of the outcomes being achieved under the two plans.
My aim, in working with Government to deliver the NAP inclusion programme over the coming years, is to build on the significant and visible progress already made in reducing poverty and material deprivation and to deliver real improvements in living standards and well-being for the most vulnerable in our society.
The survey to which the Minister refers shows that consistent poverty has remained static at approximately 7% for the past two years. What does the Minister think are the principal reasons that little or no progress has been made in reducing that rate? Does he accept the real scandal is that 96,000 children live in poverty and that little or no progress has been made on reducing that number? Will the Minister guarantee that in tomorrow's budget and his work over the coming year he will target that unacceptable level of child poverty and put the same attention and focus into tackling that problem as he put into tackling poverty among pensioners? I give him credit for tackling that problem successfully and reducing the rate. The key poverty issue must now be children. Can the Minister guarantee he will give that his full attention in the coming year?
I am not in a position to disclose tomorrow's budget. One child in consistent poverty is one too many, let alone 96,000. Deputy Shortall raised an important point and it gets to the nub of the matter. The issue for many agencies and voluntary organisations is not just about money from my Department. There is a range of issues on how the agencies operate and how we can get unemployed people from families that have been consistently unemployed and single and lone parents into the workforce. Many voluntary agencies are talking about this matter. As I said in my response, that is being worked through to target the resources, including human resources in my Department working with the agencies to interact on a one-to-one basis with these people, which is a huge undertaking. We aim to explain how these people are there and how we can get them to move on, particularly into some form of employment. This offers them the best way out of poverty and can have a significant impact on how they see the world and their lives, how they live their lives and the quality of their and their children's lives. Over the past number of years, the Government has put significant, targeted resources into working with all concerned to achieve that. We will continue to build on that in tomorrow's budget.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.