Vol. 650 No. 3
74 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the recent research paper by the National Economic and Social Council, Ireland’s Child Income Supports: The Case for a New Form of Targeting, which was recently published, stating that child benefit is hugely inefficient; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12122/08]
Financial supports are transferred directly to parents through child income supports, the provision of which is based on the premise that it is appropriate that the State shares with parents the costs of rearing and maintaining children. The broad objectives are to bring about an improvement in the relative overall position of families with children compared with single persons or childless couples and to alleviate child poverty. The principal child-centred income support is child benefit, payable in respect of children up to the age of 16 years and to age 19 in the case of children who are in full-time education or suffering from a long-term disability. Payment is not affected by parental means or employment status.
The Department's other main child income supports are the increase for a qualified child, IQC, which is paid in addition to social welfare payments to age 18 and extended, in most schemes, to age 22 where the child is in full-time education and family income supplement, which is paid to low-income employees working a specified minimum number of hours per fortnight and who have at least one qualified child. In addition, the early child care supplement, paid by my Department on behalf of the Office of the Minister for Children in respect of all children under six years of age who receive child benefit, makes a significant contribution to recipient families.
For a number of years, Government policy has been to invest additional resources in child benefit. This policy focus was driven, in part, by the recognition that the loss of IQC payments by social welfare recipients on taking up employment could act as a disincentive to availing of work opportunities. In terms of tackling work disincentives, the shift towards child benefit has been significant. For example, in 1994 child benefit represented 29% of the total child income support payment for a four-child family and is now 64%. In other words, a family will now only lose 36% of its child income support when a welfare recipient loses entitlement to a primary social welfare payment.
Under the terms of an earlier social partnership agreement, the National Economic and Social Council was asked to examine the feasibility of merging the family income supplement with IQC, with a view to creating a single second-tier child income support. This commitment to examine such a change was subsequently embodied in the current social partnership agreement Towards 2016. Dr. John Sweeney was commissioned by NESC to examine the issues and develop proposals for a second-tier child income support scheme. His research paper on this issue was received towards the end of 2007.
In considering the future direction of child income support policy, it is important to keep in mind the multiple objectives behind the provision of such support and to maintain the correct balance between child benefit and more selective measures.
Dr. Sweeney's research paper, which is an important contribution to the debate, is being examined at present.
A great deal of history is being made today and many comments are being made on the success or otherwise of the Governments led by the Taoiseach. However, not many plaudits will be given in the area of child poverty. A number of the Government parties failed originally to meet their commitment to eliminate child poverty by 2007. The Minister addressed my question at the end of his reply and stated the report is currently being studied. When is a decision on this issue likely to be made? What is his view on the notion of introducing a second tier child support? Is he seriously considering this? Has he examined the commentary by many of the social partners, including well respected groups such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul? Unfortunately, the society is making a presentation to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs as we are taking Question Time, which is another example of how badly reform is needed in the operation of the House. However, groups such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Barnardos believe a second tier payment is necessary. Will there be a decision on this in the near future?
I fundamentally disagree with the Deputy's opening remarks. No Governments in the history of the State have done more for children than those led by the Taoiseach over the past ten years. The figures prove that. Many of the bodies representing children also subscribe to that view. For example, child benefit payments in 2000 were €43.81 for each of the first two children and €58.41 for the third and subsequent children while the equivalent payments today are €166 and €203, which represent increases of 280% and 248% respectively. That is one area of targeted income we put forward in a multiplicity of an effort to make sure children remain in good stead and the Government is seen to support parents and children, particularly those who are less well off in society.
While Dr. Sweeney published a report on a second tier child payment, there is fundamental disagreement within the NESC on this approach. There are many different views. For instance, the family income supplement is targeted at children and people working in low paid jobs to encourage people back to work while, at the same time, giving them a direct payment to support their children. It is a better and more direct way of assisting families and directly assisting children. While I have an open mind on the issue, the reality is representative groups fundamentally disagree on this approach. It is my intention to continue to use resources in a very targeted way to assist children in need.
The failing is that the Minister is examining what he is giving people rather than what they can do with it. A total of 20% of children in Ireland are at risk of poverty and one in nine is in consistent poverty. The Minister has not given a specific reply on whether this payment will be introduced. However, proposals have also been made to tax child benefit recipients to pay for the second tier support if it is introduced. Can the Minister rule that out?
The Deputy stated 20% of children are at risk of poverty. The measurement in that instance contributes nothing to the debate and I do not accept that 20% of children are at risk of or are in poverty and nobody else does either. When the specific measures and targets in place are examined, there are very different outcomes. Under the measurement used previously when we dealt with child poverty, we would have achieved the target we set out but the target was changed and we used a different measurement. Even under this, the percentage of children at risk is well down in single figures. The Government and myself will continue to drive down the figures and to end the situation of children of any hue, age or social background being in consistent poverty over the next number of years.
How does the Minister intend to do that?
The figures over the past few years indicate we are well on target to achieve it.
75 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the reform needed to the rent supplement scheme following a recent television programme (details supplied) in sub-standard accommodation occupied by recipients of rent supplement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12462/08]
Responsibility for setting and enforcing housing standards rests with local authorities. Under legislation introduced in October 2006 the HSE, which administers the supplementary welfare allowance scheme on the Department's behalf, may refuse rent supplement where it has been notified by a housing authority that the accommodation concerned does not comply with standards.
Where a notification is received from a housing authority in respect of an existing tenant the community welfare officer would discuss the situation with the tenant and take whatever action it decides is necessary in the best interests of the tenant. These arrangements are aimed at improving the standards of accommodation which rent supplement tenants occupy and supporting the local authority in meeting their responsibilities with regard to housing standards.
The most recent information available from the HSE is that any notifications of substandard accommodation received from local authorities have resulted in rent supplement being terminated or the refusal of rent supplement where it was not already in payment. Where the HSE becomes aware of accommodation or blocks of accommodation which appear to it to be substandard, it notifies the local authority and it may advise prospective tenants at such premises that rent supplement will not be paid in respect of those tenancies.
In addition, details of rent supplemented tenancies that are of more than 18 months' duration are notified to local authorities every quarter. This information is primarily for the purpose of identifying rent supplement tenants for transfer to the rental accommodation scheme, RAS. As part of this process local authorities inspect the accommodation concerned before accepting them on to the RAS and this information sharing assists in enforcing housing standards.
Given the extent of information sharing and the arrangements in place to refuse rent supplement where accommodation does not comply with standards, I have no plans to make further changes in the rent supplement scheme at this time.
The information from the Minister that he has no plans to do anything about this is disappointing. Did the Minister see the recent "Prime Time" programme which depicted the appalling condition of much of the private rented sector housing stock? If the Minister did not see it on the night, did he make any arrangements to view it afterwards? It was hair-raising. It showed large numbers of private rented sector units being let out at extremely high rents, particularly in Dublin city, which were rat infested and had serious problems with dampness and overcrowding. They also had poor quality cooking and bathroom conditions. Their conditions were appalling and one would not put a dog into them.
Most people renting this type of accommodation, which is at the lowest end of the market, are in receipt of rent supplement. The Minister cannot wash his hands of responsibility in this area. He is responsible for paying out €420 million of taxpayers' money annually to landlords, many of whom operate these types of housing units and are unscrupulous people who obviously do not care about standards. What is the Minister doing to ensure people in receipt of rent supplement are able to access decent quality accommodation? What action is he taking against unscrupulous landlords who are creaming it at the expense of the most vulnerable people in our society?
As the Deputy well knows, responsibility for setting and enforcing housing standards rests with local authorities. I hope her commitment in this House is the same as that of her colleagues in local authorities throughout the country where the responsibility lies for housing standards. Housing standards are not the responsibility of my Department. What my Department is responsible for are people who find themselves in difficult circumstances and supporting them directly with substantial financial resources to allow them to source accommodation for themselves.
As a matter of interest, with regard to the figures, up to October 2007 the HSE received only 18 notifications of substandard accommodation and has acted on all of them. Of these notifications, 12 were in respect of existing tenancies and all rent supplement claims were terminated. Six were in respect of tenancies which did not involve rent supplement. I am happy to inform the House that we acted fully on all notifications and payments were terminated.
I accept the points made by the Deputy on some of the accommodation made available. I urge the local authorities with direct responsibility, resources and staff to deal with this issue to do so forthwith. I hope all councillors on local authorities will raise these issues at full council meetings with the manager or director responsible for housing to ensure the quality and standard of accommodation available to people, particularly those in receipt of rent supplement, is good.
Will the Minister accept there is a communication problem between his Department and local authorities in this regard?
The Minister stated in his initial reply that where poor standards are brought to the attention of a community welfare officer, the matter may be discussed with the tenant and whatever action necessary will be taken. The Minister is aware there is a dearth of accommodation available for people on rent supplement and that very often they are forced to put up with what they have or be homeless. It is not good enough for the Minister to preside over a situation whereby large amounts of public money are being spent on accommodation while he opts out of the issue in respect of the standard of that accommodation.
On how many occasions have community welfare officers brought to the attention of local authorities accommodation which was of a poor standard? Will the Minister consider issuing guidelines to community welfare officers in respect of the standards of accommodation and what action they can take when appalling standards are brought to their attention?
I am sure the Deputy heard the point I made earlier that all rent supplement tenancies of more than 18 months duration are notified quarterly to the local authorities and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
I am speaking about poor quality accommodation.
I have also stated that the 18 notifications to which the Deputy referred were received and acted upon and that in all cases, rent supplement was terminated. I agree we must ensure none of our clients has to reside in sub-standard accommodation. The Deputy is confused. My role, through the Department, is to support and assist individuals throughout the country in finding suitable accommodation. This is done on a daily and weekly basis. The relationship between my Department and the client is specifically to support him or her in finding accommodation.
The Minister signs the cheques irrespective of standards.
We support all clients who fulfil the required criteria in sourcing accommodation in this country.
Did the Minister see the programme?
Deputy Shortall is trying to disavow the Labour Party of its responsibility at local government level. They are quick to come into this House to blame me or any other member of the Government——
Did the Minister see the programme concerned?
The Deputy should allow me to answer the question.
The Minister should conclude his reply as we have run out of time.
As the Deputy well knows, housing standards and the enforcement of housing standards is specifically, in law, a matter for the local authorities. I do not have the resources at central Government level.
The Minister continues to pay irrespective of standards.
Local authorities should do their job and the Deputy's colleagues should ensure they do it.
76 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress made to date on the development of a national carers strategy which was supposed to be published by the end of 2007; when this will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12461/08]
The development of a national carers strategy is a key Government commitment in the national partnership agreement, Towards 2016, and the programme for Government.
The focus of the strategy is on supporting informal and family carers in the community. While social welfare supports for carers are a key issue in the strategy, other issues such as access to respite and other services, education, training and employment are also important. Co-operation between relevant Departments and agencies is essential if the provision of services, supports and entitlements for carers is to be fully addressed. For this reason, an inter-departmental working group has been established to develop the strategy.
My Department provides the secretariat to the working group which is chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach. The group also includes representatives from the Departments of Finance, Health and Children and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, FÁS and the Health Service Executive. Developing the strategy involves consultation with other Departments and Government bodies not represented on the working group. Yesterday, my Department hosted a consultation meeting with several organisations including the Equality Authority, Combat Poverty Agency, Citizens Information Board, Pobal, the Family Support Agency, NESC, the National Council on Ageing and Older People, the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Further meetings will be held with other organisations in the near future.
A request for submissions from the public was published in regional newspapers during the week beginning 3 March 2008 and in the national daily papers on Friday, 7 March; it is also on the front page of my Department's website. Representative groups and the social partners have been advised of this process. The closing date for submissions is Friday, 18 April 2008 and, to date, 35 submissions have been received.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
A meeting was held on 23 January 2008, in line with my Department's commitment in Towards 2016 to hosting an annual consultation meeting of carer representative groups and relevant Departments and agencies. Representatives of 12 groups and nine Departments and other government agencies attended. The theme was the national carers strategy and groups were given an opportunity to comment on the draft terms of reference and to raise other issues considered relevant in the context of the strategy.
Key issues raised at the meeting were recognition for carers and their work, accessing suitable health services, income support, pensions and access to training and employment. Another meeting with carer groups will be held when the results of the consultation process are available. The commitment to the development of a national carers strategy includes a commitment to appropriate consultation with the social partners. An update on the strategy was provided to the social partners plenary session in February. It is intended that the first consultation meeting with the social partners will be held in April.
The Minister is probably aware of and does not need me to point out that every week 161,000 carers are doing 3.5 million hours of work and saving the State more than €2 billion per annum. As the Minister stated in his response, I appreciate that widespread consultation is taking place within Departments and State agencies. However, my concern relates to consultation with the groups representing the carers themselves and this is a key part of the process. As a result of discussions with various people and as confirmed in the Minister's response, I am aware there is no representative from the carers group on the interdepartmental panel which is steering the strategy. Will the Minister say what level of consultation will be conducted with the relevant stakeholders? I appreciate the involvement of the State agencies but I am referring to groups such as the Carers Association, which is the representative body of the people dealing with this area first-hand.
The Minister will recall that this time last year public meetings were held around the country in every constituency prior to the election. Both the Minister and I saw for ourselves how representative the association is of its membership, considering the number of people who turned out to speak at those meetings. It is important that the process allows them to be much more involved. There is genuine concern that there has not been sufficient and appropriate consultation up to now and that a document will be presented as a fait accompli without consultation prior to the document. I ask the Minister to address this issue.
As the Deputy said, there has been a very substantial public engagement on this issue and all the groups informed us that there was no need to repeat that process. There is direct engagement with all of the stakeholders on the development of this process and particularly with those representing the carers, such as the National Carers Association. Those representatives have also made substantial submissions which will be considered and discussed with them as we come to a conclusion. I presume the Deputy notes from my reply that substantial engagement is now taking place on this issue and it is one of my priorities to reach agreement on the national carers strategy and to have it published and made public. This is a priority not just for the Government, but also figures as a priority for the social partners in Towards 2016. It is an area to which the Government has given significant commitment over the past number of years, particularly in terms of direct resources to those who are caring for people in whatever circumstances they find themselves. We have made direct financial State assistance much more flexible and accessible for people. We have also become much more flexible in terms of allowing people to do some work as well as being deemed full-time carers.
I agree with the Deputy on the importance of completing this process and it is my intention that it will be completed this year. I have indicated that the closing date for submissions is April this year and at that stage I hope we can finalise the report and complete any further discussions with any of the representative groups that need to be completed. I assure the Deputy that I want to it to be an inclusive process.
I will allow a brief supplementary question from Deputy Enright.
That is not really what I want a commitment on. The National Carers Association will make a submission but it wants a guarantee there will be feedback on that submission and that it is not just taken on board and the document published. If the Minister's Department has difficulties with anything in the submission the association hopes there will be discussion about it rather than an item being either ruled in or out and the document published. The association wants real and active engagement and consultation. I ask the Minister to give a commitment that this is what will happen.
Obviously it is my intention and that of my officials to have as inclusive a process as possible. When one comes to the end of a process, it is clear one is not able to accommodate every single wish of every submission and decisions will need to be made, but they will be made on the basis of what people have said, how the system is working and what is needed for the future development of a national carers strategy.
I was asked about young carers. My colleague, the Minister of State with responsibilty for children, will specifically examine a strategy in the context of young carers, surrounding whom I accept there are also specific issues. We also look forward to its completion.
77 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps he is taking to address the growing phenomenon of the working poor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12463/08]
There is a constant balance to be maintained in ensuring that social welfare programmes are developed in ways that are sufficiently responsive to various contingencies, while simultaneously providing opportunities to assist people to become less welfare dependent. In this context, a number of measures have been introduced in recent years to remove disincentives to taking up employment and to assist in the transition from welfare to work.
These include the easing of means tests through income disregards, a more gradual withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase and the introduction of employment support schemes such as the back to work programme. In addition, enhanced disregards of earnings were introduced in 2007 for the rent allowance scheme which complement the rental accommodation scheme that was introduced in 2004.
As recently as last September, I introduced reforms which improved the methods by which a person's earnings from employment, or the earnings of a partner, are assessed to facilitate persons in increasing their levels of employment and income. These changes are designed in particular to be progressive for women, who currently make up the majority of qualified adults in the social welfare system, rewarding increased labour market participation and encouraging qualified adults to move beyond long-term part-time employment. They also benefit many other part-time workers, but particularly those with children. In addition to jobseeker's allowance, the new arrangements also apply to the disability allowance, farm assist and pre-retirement allowance schemes.
A number of further measures are also in place to encourage increased participation in employment. For instance, the part-time job incentive scheme is available to those who were previously on a jobseeker's payment for 15 months or more and who are now working under 24 hours per week while seeking full-time employment. This payment is not means-tested. Farm assist is a weekly means-tested payment for low income farmers, including those who may have off-farm employment or self-employment. Recipients of various social welfare schemes may also qualify for a transitional payment under the back to work programme, which provides for a phased level of income support over a number of years when taking up employment or self-employment. This payment is not means-tested, with more relaxed qualification criteria for people aged 50 or older.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Family income supplement provides support for people in low-income employment with children, even where they have not previously been in receipt of a social welfare payment, preserving the incentive to remain in employment.
It is important to ensure that work pays and a number of policy instruments crossing a range of Departments are used as a way of alleviating poverty among people in low wage employment. In addition to those already mentioned, these include changes to the taxation system, the introduction of the national minimum wage, provision of training and access to lifelong learning opportunities and assistance with job search.
The Minister has frequently said that a job is the best way out of poverty for people and in most cases that is true. However, does he accept there is a cohort of people in employment who find it extremely difficult to survive? I am not only referring to the early stages when transitional arrangements are required. In many ways the welfare system operates on an all or nothing basis. Given that many people are on a low level of income, especially those employed on the minimum wage who have children, that cohort find it difficult to survive. I am referring in particular to families who need to pay rent in the private sector, which might be quite high, and people who have child care costs. Those who are in employment and living in consistent poverty number some 30,000. This is not a temporary phenomenon. The money they earn every week from their employment is not sufficient to pay their overheads. Does the Minister accept the existence of this cohort of people? The CSO put that figure at 1.6% of the working population, which accounts for approximately 30,000 people. They live in consistent poverty. What steps is the Minister taking to lift those people out of poverty and to provide supports for them on an ongoing basis to enable them to keep their heads above water?
The group the Deputy identified of people at work but living in consistent poverty had fallen to 1.6% of the working population in 2006——
To 1.7%.
——from 1.7% previously. They are real people and their circumstances concern me and the Government. As I stated in my reply, there are a multiplicity of issues we try to achieve to lift those people out of poverty. There are a number of obvious areas, one being the family income support scheme, which supports those families, members of which are at work but who are still at risk of poverty, directly based on the number of children. Those supports have increased. The number in receipt of family income supplement, FIS, has almost doubled from 12,000 to 23,000 and I expect that figure to reach 30,000 this year. We are on course to reach the full cohort of people who require these types of supports. Likewise, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance is of significant benefit to low-income families in need of support.
It is important that we entirely eliminate consistent poverty, which stands at 1.6%. The best way to do this is to enhance employment and educational opportunities in terms of the career paths available to people. In addition, we must make it much easier for people to move from the social welfare system into employment. In particular, we must be careful not to penalise those at the lower end of the income scale by removing all their social welfare benefits. The welfare system has become far more flexible and amenable in this regard. We will continue to target resources in this area so as to improve the situation for the 1.6% of the population living in consistent poverty.
Does the Minister accept there is a serious difficulty with the tax system in that people on the minimum wage, being out of the tax net, do not benefit from the tax improvements generally arising for most people out of the annual budget? The way to tackle this is to introduce a system of refundable tax credits. What is the position of the Minister and his Department in regard to the working group on refundable tax credits?
This is the dilemma that arises. We have probably been the most successful country in Europe in removing workers on low incomes from the tax net. One of the consequences of this is that benefits arising to workers based on the tax system will not benefit those who are not liable to pay tax. In compensation for that, however, we have greatly improved the benefits available to such persons in recent years.
However, those benefits are of limited value where the persons concerned are in employment.
It is the Government's intention to continue to ensure that workers do not enter the taxation system until they achieve a good level of income. This is a laudable and important target and one towards which we have made significant strides in recent years. I understand approximately 750,000 members of the workforce are outside the tax net.
Yes. These workers derive no benefit from taxation changes in the budget.
They receive direct benefit in that they are not paying tax in the first place. This is the correct approach. We must allow such workers to retain as much as possible of their income while simultaneously seeking to improve other benefits.
Does the Minister have a view on refundable tax credits?
I do not intend to discuss it with the Deputy. It is a matter for the Department of Finance. I will express my views in discussions with that Department on the issue.
This is Question Time.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs has a role to play on this issue. Does the Minister have a view on refundable tax credits?
Of course.
Will he share it?
It is a secret view.
It is not a secret view.
Deputies may raise this issue via another parliamentary question. The time for Priority Questions has expired.
Question No. 78 taken in Written Answers.
