Michael D. Higgins
Question:106 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when he will place the Money Advice and Budgeting Service on a statutory basis. [5256/08]
Other Questions.
Budgeting Advice.
David Stanton
Question:146 Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when he expects to publish the new legislation to place the Money Advice and Budgeting Service on a statutory basis; the number of people who approached the service in 2007; the number of cases which were dealt with and resolved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5263/08]
Emmet Stagg
Question:162 Deputy Emmet Stagg asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he is taking to tackle the problem of debt among social welfare recipients; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5257/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 106, 146 and 162 together.
The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, is the main Government funded service which provides assistance to people who are over-indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems. There are 53 independent companies nationwide with over 240 money advice staff operating the service.
In 2007, MABS provided services to almost 12,500 new clients throughout the country. In addition, some 2,600 people sought information on budgeting and money management. The MABS national telephone helpline, which was launched in October 2007, has dealt to date with approximately 1,700 calls. The number of active cases receiving ongoing support in managing their finances and resolving their debt difficulties at the end of the year was 19,200. Almost €18 million has been provided in 2008 to assist MABS in dealing with its workload.
The issues that give rise to problems of over-indebtedness for people are highly complex. Research shows that lack of information about money management can be a contributory factor in many cases. The cost and availability of credit for people on low incomes and the barriers they face in accessing mainstream and cheap forms of credit add to the difficulties people encounter in managing their finances. MABS is making a unique and expert contribution to meeting the needs of people with debt difficulties in today's society. This includes promoting greater awareness of household budgeting and shaping the strategies to ensure greater financial inclusion, especially those of service providers, such as banks and credit unions.
In line with the programme for Government, I am developing proposals to establish a new structure for the future of the MABS. I intend to bring the proposals to the Government in the coming months. My proposals will build on the best features of the MABS model of service to the public. They involve the continuation of local voluntary involvement in the MABS service, with strong national leadership to ensure a high quality, co-ordinated budgeting and advice service that represents value for money for the taxpayers' investment and is geared to meet the challenges posed by the changing face of debt in Ireland.
We all accept that MABS provides an excellent service. All of us, on a regular basis, refer constituents to it for support and assistance when they get into debt. However, it is not tolerable that the MABS service operates on the basis of 53 separate, independent companies around the country. For a long time, the Government has been promising to introduce legislation. There was a Bill in 2002 but it was scrapped. I am very concerned about what has happened since then because prior to the last general election, the MABS Bill was on the Government's programme of legislation for the autumn session, but it has vanished from the programme. What has happened to that Bill? Why has it not been given the urgency and attention it requires? I ask the Minister to give an assurance that it will be restored to the Government's legislative programme and to set out a very clear timescale for dealing with it. When will the Bill be published and when does the Minister expect it to become law?
I am happy to agree with the Deputy regarding MABS and what it achieves. We are both of one mind on that and any of the people who interact with MABS will hold the same view. I intend to put MABS on a statutory footing. I am currently conducting an efficiency review of a large number of organisations. There is a lot of overlapping and complementarity between a large number of organisations. In some respects, the remit of organisations that were established some time ago has been surpassed by a changing Ireland. MABS is very much a part of the future. I have no doubts about the service MABS delivers and its importance. It will remain a significant and important service for the foreseeable future.
Due to the efficiency review and the examination of the structures in place, I decided to hold fire on the direction I will take with MABS. However, I assure the Deputy that it will be put on a statutory basis. I am trying to work out, through examining various structures, the best structure for MABS. I do not necessarily want another organisation created. As the Deputy knows, the number of organisations has mushroomed. I want to be sure that we are getting the best value for taxpayers' money and that the best efficiencies and delivery mechanisms are in place. That is why I have stood back from specifically racing forward with setting up another statutory body, to add to all the other statutory bodies in existence. I want to examine the remit of them all to determine what exactly we should have for now and the future.
What is the timescale for that?
I am doing it at the moment. The work is ongoing. I would like to be in a position to complete it this year and have a way forward for MABS. That is the plan. It is significant work. One is dealing with an enormous number of organisations. There is clearly a massive overlap in some areas between the Department and many of the agencies.
That has been going on for years.
The Deputy has asked what I will do in my time. I will tackle it and do something about it.
Obviously, from a Fine Gael perspective, I have no difficulty with the Minister examining the number of agencies in existence and trying to make the system more efficient and cost effective. The Minister has agreed that the work of MABS is important, but there is nothing more disconcerting for an organisation, trying to do good work, than not knowing where it stands. I ask the Minister to conduct his review as quickly and efficiently as possible.
What other agencies is the Minister examining? I presume he is referring to agencies within his own remit, but is it every agency operating under the auspices of his Department or a select few?
I do not want this discussion to go too far beyond the scope of the question posed.
There are some specific reviews taking place but what led me down this path was that I did not just want to look at one or two organisations but rather get a general sense of what is going on, in terms of the role of the Department and the role and remit of the various agencies. I wanted to examine what caused them to be set up, what they are doing and what they are supposed to be doing. I am conducting a general examination, as best I can, without delaying the process forever. I agree with Deputy Shortall in that regard. I do not want this to become an ongoing process.
I know the value of MABS, having met many people who work for that organisation, many doing so on a voluntary basis. They are doing tremendous work. Equally, I have met people who have interacted with MABS. There is nothing interfering with the process of what MABS is doing. What I want to do is develop a new statutory structure around MABS and do that in the most efficient way I can.
I cannot understand why it is taking so long. While I accept the Minister is not very long in office, one must ask what his predecessor was doing for the past five years, from the time the Bill was scrapped in 2002. Was any work done within the Department regarding MABS? It is all very well paying lip service, saying this is a great organisation which does fantastic work, but if that work is not recognised within the Department and is not given priority in terms of preparing legislation, that is a very poor reflection on the Department.
I wish to broaden the discussion vis-à-vis the other questions that have been grouped with Question No. 106. We know that in 2006, the average level of debt of clients attending MABS was approximately €6,500. Last year, that went up substantially, to €7,600, which represents an increase in indebtedness of 17%. Does the Minister believe that reflects on the level of payments provided by his Department, given that many MABS clients are in receipt of social welfare payments? Does it raise significant questions about the income support that his Department is providing? Why does the Minister think there has been such a substantial increase in the level of indebtedness?
I do not agree with the first point the Deputy made. She is correct in saying that a lot of work was done on MABS and a Bill was almost ready. I have taken the view that it should be put on hold and the Deputy can judge in the months to come whether I am correct. I want to complete this review quickly and put a new structure, statutorily based, around MABS. However, the timing is right from my perspective. My predecessors have all done tremendous work. The role of the Department has changed dramatically. It is now issuing over €17 billion of taxpayers' money every year, making it the biggest spending Department. We have a responsibility to make sure we get the best value for money out of that.
The reasons people's indebtedness has risen are many and varied. One of the key reasons has been the enormous growth in income coupled with very low interest rates, which encouraged people to borrow in various ways and at various levels in the past few years. One of the difficulties that MABS comes across consistently with people who get into trouble is their inability to understand and manage their money. Where two families live side by side, with the same income, one family may function extremely well while the family next door is in great financial difficulty. A lot of the problems relate to education levels, understanding and literacy issues. MABS has found this is the case with their clients, who are not just those in receipt of social welfare payments, I might add.
I heard of an interesting case recently where a businessman went to MABS. He had a number of employees and everything was falling down around him. He went in and put all his cards on the table and it was surprising the dramatic turnaround that occurred simply by MABS assisting him to manage what had started out as a one-person operation but which had expanded considerably. MABS facilitates people right across the social spectrum and income levels.
Family Support Services.
Martin Ferris
Question:107 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the recent findings of the Vincentian Partnership which found low income families to be facing a financial shortfall each week to meet an acceptable standard of living. [4615/08]
The Deputy is referring to the research report of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice titled, Minimum Essential Budgets for Six Households, which was published in November 2006. The partnership is updating the findings of that research to reflect improvements in social welfare and other benefits introduced in budget 2007 or during the course of the past year. A draft of that work has been furnished to my Department and is being studied by my officials. I understand that my officials have some queries that they have raised and will continue to raise with the partnership.
It is clear at this stage that the decisive steps taken by the Government on a wide range of fronts in the past two years have addressed some of the problems and challenges identified in this report and other similar studies. Such actions include the introduction of the early child care supplement, introduced after the research for this project was conducted, and its subsequent increase in budget 2008 to €1,100 per annum for each child under the age of six years, the introduction of the national child care investment programme, improvements in the means testing arrangements for jobseeker's allowance and a wide ranging reform of the assessment of spouses' earnings for that allowance, disability allowance and other payments designed to encourage people to work and increase total household income.
Other actions include changes in the upper earnings limit for the one-parent family payment, increases in the national minimum wage, an increase in the family income supplement and its extension to a greater number of families, significant increases in social welfare payments in the last two budgets, which have seen pensions increase by €30 per week since 2006 and basic social welfare rate by €32 per week in the same period — these increases have been well in excess of inflation and wage growth — and increases of more than 10% in the rates of child benefit together with a significant restructuring and enhancement of qualified child allowance.
The Government is committed to improving the standard of living of welfare dependent and low-income households significantly and to making a decisive impact on poverty and social exclusion. We have clearly demonstrated our commitment in this regard and will continue to do so.
I was disappointed by the Minister's reply, the majority of which was culled from his budget speech and which we have heard several times.
Is the Minister aware there are 290,000 people living in consistent poverty, many of whom are children? Is he aware that 770,000 people, many of whom are children, are at risk of poverty? These figures come from a State organisation, the Combat Poverty Agency. Is he ashamed that there was no fuel allowance increase in the budget? Fuel is one of the first luxuries, for want of a better term, to be cut when budgetary issues take effect in family homes. What is the Minister doing about these figures in respect of low-income families?
I do not agree with the Deputy. The report was published in 2006, is out of date and has been surpassed substantially in nearly all categories by the advancements made in a range of social welfare payments. In recent years, all of the payments have increased ahead of inflation and rightly so.
They have not.
I do not expect people to jump up and down with excitement.
The House heard from Deputy Enright about the increases in electricity and oil prices. I do not want to quote the figures again. The Government has not kept pace with those costs.
Payments made across many areas in the social welfare system have been consistently and systematically increased ahead of inflation. It is right that we have done so. The questions posed by the Deputy and many others pick out specific payments, such as the fuel allowance. However, it is my contention that it is better to give everyone something substantial instead of specifying these payments. In recent years, the increase in pension payments has been substantial and much better than increasing the fuel allowance because everyone has benefited. Some of the pensions will go towards fuel. In the previous budget, the fuel allowance increased from €14 per week to €18 per week.
It is a question of finding a balance between the different demands. When I sat with the 30 or so representative groups before the budget last year, I understood their points, but I would have needed a budget package of €4 billion or €5 billion per annum to meet all of the requirements. It comes down to choices and I assure the Deputy that my choice is to aim as many of my resources at the less well-off as I can. I did so this year and will continue to aim as many resources as I can get at budget time in that direction.
I would be happy to itemise any amount of deficiencies yielded by the budget, not least of which is the lack of an increase in the living alone allowance, which affects more older people because they comprise a high percentage of its recipients.
The Minister stated that it is a question of choices. Would he accept the choice he has made, which is the choice the Government has consistently made in the past ten years or more, has been to look after those who are financially comfortable and to abandon those in low-income categories? This is the Minister's record and is the evidence from successive budgets in which the Minister has been involved since entering the House.
The Government's greatest achievement has been in respect of our pensioners, in whom Sinn Féin has no interest.
The Minister has abandoned them.
The Minister without interruption.
In the past ten years, it may have been the greatest singular achievement of any government in Europe. I reject the Deputy's comments entirely because we have done the opposite.
The evidence shows otherwise.
We have actively and positively given financial resources to support people who deserve happy retirements.
I am getting the figures from the Government.
Why would one give some increases to the small living alone allowance category now when, by comparison, we have considerably improved the situations of all old age pensioners through our substantial increases, surpassing our target of €200 per week and moving towards €300 per week during the lifetime of this Government? Rather than discussing the issue, we will act.
What about the consistent poverty figures I quoted?
Employment Support Services.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:108 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to merge the employment support service of FÁS with his own Department to allow for better coordination of welfare to work services. [5234/08]
I have no plans to merge the employment support services of FÁS with my Department. My focus is to work with FÁS to complement its work on behalf of people on social welfare payments. A high degree of co-operation and co-ordination exists between the Department and FÁS at policy and operational levels. Both sides operate under a memorandum of understanding that is updated periodically and currently under review. Senior officials of the Department hold regular joint meetings with FÁS and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. There are also regular meetings between officials of my Department and FÁS at regional and local levels.
The Department works closely with FÁS in providing opportunities for people on social welfare to access the range of training and employment services afforded by that organisation. An important area of this co-operation is in respect of the joint national employment action plan whereby people are referred to FÁS when they have been on the live register for three months. Provision has also been made in the national development plan for a social and economic participation programme aimed at all people of working age regardless of the circumstances that led them to require income maintenance. The programme builds on the Department's existing experience and relationship with the people concerned in co-operation with other relevant service providers, such as FÁS, VECs, the HSE and other local agencies.
The vision is of a single transparent system with a primary focus on the customer and a route map starting at the first point of engagement with the Department. A disability employment project will commence this year under the European Social Fund. This will involve the Department working with FÁS and other agencies to support people with disabilities in reaching their potential. I am satisfied that the existing arrangements with FÁS, together with the supporting activation measures undertaken by the Department, ensure that the social and economic progression of those most marginalised are being adequately addressed.
I told the Minister I believe there is a strong case for merging the income support and employment support services, which is the tendency in many OECD countries. I ask that the Minister keep an open mind in this regard and consider it for the future.
Has the memorandum of understanding shared by the Department and FÁS achieved the desired outcome? The Minister stated it is under review, but when was the last time it was updated?
Regarding the Deputy's last point, I do not appear to have the date in the notes before me. In fairness to people in both Departments, FÁS has transformed itself dramatically in the past ten years. I find myself involved with FÁS a lot, particularly in the south-east region and I have met many of the people involved. The Irish economy faces competition when it comes to job creation from other economies, such as the Asian economy, specifically China, and low-wage economies, and this challenges us to examine the remit of both organisations in terms of the type of training provided. It is important to marry the type of training available to the jobs that will be available in the marketplace and this will form part of the review.
I understand the Deputy's point regarding income supports and employment supports provided by my Department — the system has been separated in Ireland but my mind is not closed to putting them together. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is focused on providing income supports in many areas. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with its agencies, such as FÁS, is the driver when it comes to providing employment. Merging the two issues would require a huge policy shift, which would be a substantial undertaking. I have no plans to do this at the moment but I would consider it if evidence from international sources suggested it could be of significant benefit.
The heart of the Deputy's point relates to getting the best from resources coming from my Department and the agencies that can help deliver results. I would have thought this depends on good, close working relationships, regardless of the name over the door.
The Minister's answers and meetings with his officials suggest he would prefer if his department could just write cheques and forget about its other responsibilities. The Minister's approach shows a lack of cohesion, as did his answer on fuel poverty. Previously he suggested the habitual residence clause was a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is no holistic view on this.
Going back to proposals on one-parent families and so on, has the Minister had discussions with FÁS regarding a greater degree of flexibility in training programmes. This may be a matter for a different Department but if the Minister wants to introduce his proposals on lone parents there is a need for greater flexibility. The hours FÁS training centres operate will not suit many parents and I wonder whether he has covered this in his discussions.
I am sure all Members of this House have many constituents who visit their clinics and express the huge difficulties faced by individuals and families seeking to move from social welfare to work. Does the Minister accept that a relatively low cost measure, such as extending the period of validity of the medical card for people moving from welfare to work, could be of benefit to the economy and is worth considering? Rent supplement is another huge issue in this regard. Measures in these areas could initially be expensive but the long-term benefit to the State of people no longer receiving welfare payments and becoming net contributors to society, rather than a burden on the economy, would be great.
On Deputy Enright's point, my Department has not been passive, rather it has been central to bringing about many changes. The Department's remit has changed substantially in recent years and it has proactively engaged with FÁS and other agencies. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has led the way rather than sit back and simply send out cheques. I spoke to many people in the Department who are engaged in getting the personnel to help change lives on a case by case basis. The more one-to-one engagement there is, the more one can facilitate people in accessing the workforce and making a valuable contribution to society. One-to-one engagement also improves the well-being of individuals.
On Deputy Morgan's point, as part of shaping the lone parent issue for the future, the Department is trying to remove the penalties people perceive in leaving welfare and joining the workforce. These perceptions have presented substantial problems but changes have been made in this area in recent years. There is still some way to go and I want to ensure that people in the poverty trap can escape it without immediately losing the supports the State provides. This will be critical if we are to move the number of people Deputy Shortall suggests is necessary from the welfare system to employment. I agree with the Deputy on this point.
Does the Minister accept that the only way there will be a client-centred approach is through institutional reform? The emphasis should be on clients, whether they have income support needs at a particular time, education needs or employment needs. These responsibilities should not be divided between various Departments. One need only see the institutional reform that has taken place at the Department for Work and Pensions in the UK to understand that we must move in that direction.
The numbers speak for themselves as three years ago almost 10,000 people were placed in employment by FÁS, while last year that figure fell to 7,000 and that is not an adequate level of performance. The only way to tackle this problem is to bring such services within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
As I said to the Deputy, I do not feel the name over the door is important but rather the outcome. In some cases I would like to see better outcomes than are evident at present, but this matter is not about the system. I have always felt that in public life the system can take precedence over facilitating the customer. I believe that the people I have met at the Department are focused on facilitating individuals in returning to work, both part time and full time, through education and by addressing literacy problems and dealing with child care issues. Many people in the Department have made a great personal commitment that has little to do with the system. If we can enhance the system by doing some of the things the Deputy suggested in the coming years, why not do so?
Social Welfare Benefits.
Bernard Allen
Question:109 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the removal of the rule that prevents recipients of lone parent supports from cohabiting with their partners; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5035/08]
Dinny McGinley
Question:110 Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the proposals to replace the lone parent’s allowance with a parental allowance; the timeframe of when same will happen; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5034/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 109 and 110 together.
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.
Lone parents are not members of a homogenous group. They are of differing ages, education and employment backgrounds, have experienced different routes to becoming a lone parent and hence have differing needs. Many of these needs are common to all parents on a low income. Under the terms of the one-parent family payment a person must be parenting alone, therefore those who cohabit or marry no longer fit the contingency of lone parenthood and are not entitled to claim the payment. This results in a disincentive to one-parent family payment recipients to form or declare long-term relationships. The consequences for the child or children involved should also be considered.
Under the proposals, the one-parent family payment would be abolished and the contingency of lone parenthood would no longer exist. Instead, a new payment would be made to all parents on low income, living alone or with a partner, with young children. Cohabitation would, therefore, no longer be an impediment to payment. As I have 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 on the ground by other Departments and agencies.
As I stated, the non-income recommendations contained in the discussion paper are being tested in two areas, namely, 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 at least the end of February, with a report then being made to the Cabinet committee on social inclusion. The tests will allow for operational and logistical co-ordination between the relevant Departments and agencies to be considered and facilitate the development of the policy and operational details of the new scheme and accompanying supports.
Although the exact terms of the new payment have not been finalised, the key to any new payment is to ensure the necessary financial and other supports are in place to assist families towards improved employment prospects and disincentives to work are kept to a minimum. While there is no definite date for the nationwide roll-out of the new payment and related supports, following the evaluation of the tests, it is my intention to move forward with the proposals. As I have stated on a number of occasions, I aim to resolve these issues this year.
The Minister stated he hopes to introduce the new payment by the end of the year. His predecessor made the same commitment in 2006. Why has the original commitment not been met?
The Minister will agree that the cohabitation rule is anti-family and deprives children of the right to have both parents present in the home. Is his timescale for removing the cohabitation rule this year a definite and firm commitment? Will all the changes regarding one-parent families be introduced together or incrementally? To return to a question the Minister failed to answer, will the new system be mandatory or voluntary?
New measures have not yet been introduced due to the substantial engagement taking place with groups representing lone parents or working in this general area. One does not always secure agreement on a way forward. We have engaged in substantial discussions with all the relevant groups to move forward. One of the recommendations arising from this engagement was that the Department would establish a pilot scheme to determine how to address issues that arise. We have acted on this recommendation and when the scheme concludes this month we will need to start taking decisions.
I want to remove the cohabitation rule because it is wrong. When one deals with substantial policy matters it affects many other areas of the social welfare code and these, too, must then be resolved. While the issue is clear when considered in isolation, it becomes much more complex when one considers the knock-on effects in other areas. Notwithstanding this, I intend to remove the cohabitation rule.
I would like the new system to be voluntary. Some of the issues to be assessed once the pilot scheme has concluded are how many people engaged in the scheme voluntarily, how many of those invited to participate in it failed to do so and what has been the response of participants. I understand those involved in the scheme have responded positively. It is important to overcome the fear of the system some people may have and concerns about prejudice. It may well be that there are prejudices on both sides.
The Minister's officials laughed when I made that point yesterday.
As the Deputy stated, there probably are prejudices.
On the payment issue, on which progress has not yet been made, is the Minister committed to introducing a parental allowance which would, as proposed, be payable irrespective of whether there are one or two parents in a family or whether the parent or parents are working? If he is so committed, what is the timescale for introducing such a payment?
That issue is central to what I am trying to do and I would like to achieve this objective before budget 2009. We do not know the identity of a large cohort of disqualified adults, so to speak, or what means they have at their disposal. We want to ensure everyone avails of their rights to the available supports. That is a significant challenge ahead.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.