Vol. 657 No. 4
73 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the guidelines in place to advise community welfare officers on the way to act in the best interests of the tenant once the CWO receives a report from a local authority that the rented premises does not meet minimum housing standards. [24801/08]
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which includes rent supplement, is administered on behalf of the Department by the community welfare service of the Health Service Executive. The purpose of rent supplement is to provide short-term income support to eligible tenants living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. There are currently over 63,000 tenants benefiting from assistance under the rent supplement scheme.
Responsibility for setting and enforcing housing standards rests with the local authorities. The community welfare service of the HSE is not qualified to undertake this work. However, accommodation occupied by rent supplement tenants should at least meet minimum housing standards. Under legislative provisions introduced by the Department in 2006 and 2007, the HSE can decide that a rent supplement may not be payable where it has been notified by a housing authority regarding non-compliance with housing standards.
Where a notification of non-compliance with standards is received from a housing authority in respect of an existing tenant, guidelines recommend that a community welfare officer should discuss the situation with the tenant and take whatever action is necessary in the best interests of the tenant. The objective is to ensure that substandard accommodation does not come within rent supplementation. The HSE must be satisfied that accommodation funded under the rent supplement scheme is reasonably suited to the residential and other needs of the claimant. Where the HSE becomes aware of accommodation or blocks of accommodation which appears to it to be sub-standard, it notifies the local authority and it may advise prospective tenants at that premises that rent supplement will not be paid in respect of those tenancies.
A review of the Housing (Standards for Rented Houses) Regulations 1993 is being undertaken by the Minister for State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The guidelines will be reviewed in consultation with the community welfare service when the new regulations are published, with a view to supporting the implementation of any provisions that impact on the rent supplement scheme.
The Department is committed to working with and supporting the Department of the Environment Heritage and Local Government in meeting its responsibilities in relation to housing standards.
Will the Minister accept that as the scheme operates, community welfare officers are put in an invidious position, given that sometimes they have to decide between making a person homeless or allowing that person to continue living in substandard accommodation? Often these are the two choices available to a community welfare officer. The inspection of accommodation is very important and needs to be continued and supplemented as very few inspections take place at present. There is a need to drive standards up. As the system operates, that is the choice open to community welfare officers and it is a difficult position in which to put them. Will the Minister consider whether a different approach can be taken where community welfare officers would be empowered to suspend the payment pending the landlord getting his affairs in order and raising the standard of the accommodation? Alternatively, the Minister may wish to allow community welfare officers to take a case conference type approach to dealing with cases such as this so that there can be co-ordination between the community welfare officer and the other agencies involved.
One of the key issues for community welfare officers is that they have discretion. Discretion is paramount in this case as they are able to decide on the most appropriate action. However, they are asked to do so in consultation with the tenant and to ensure that whatever action is taken is in the best interest of the tenant.
What does that mean? Does it mean making them homeless?
No. The community welfare officers have the discretion to determine what is in the best interest of the tenant. The regulations which are in existence since 1993 are being reviewed. Once that happens, my Department will review the guidelines for the community welfare officers which will guide them in regard to decisions they may want to take. Given that there are 63,000 recipients of the rent supplement scheme, very few notifications have come forward in regard to substandard accommodation.
Why is that the case?
I think the standard is probably improving.
I certainly would not think the standard is improving. Threshold has said there are 4,500 bedsits in the State which are poor quality, damp and vermin-infested fire traps. That is not an improvement. Will the Minister empower community welfare officers, when a tenant gets local authority housing or moves on to RAS or whatever, to issue a notice to the landlord, through the other agencies, that he or she cannot rent that property to anyone else? I understand the predicament of community welfare officers that they do not want to make somebody homeless, but if they could prevent somebody else moving into the accommodation it would ensure the landlord could not continue to profit from substandard accommodation in which nobody should be asked to live.
I understand the HSE can notify the local authority and the tenant, or prospective tenants, that rent supplement will not be paid for any accommodation that is substandard.
It rarely happens.
It can be done.
The reason there are few notifications is that there are very few inspections. The level of inspections needs to be increased if standards in private rented accommodation are to be improved. Will the Minister accept that in many situations where a community welfare officer points out that the standard of the accommodation is inadequate, the alternative is that the person becomes homeless? It may be okay in certain parts of Dublin where a good deal of accommodation is available but in other areas that is not necessarily the case. Will the Minister accept that what is required is a far greater level of co-ordination between her Department, RAS, local authorities and the local authority housing officers? With proper expansion of RAS many of these difficulties could be overcome.
The two Departments meet regularly on the issue. Given that €392 million is being spent on a scheme I accept it needs to be fully co-ordinated between the different Departments.
74 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way the adequacy of social welfare payments has been determined; and if she will provide details of any analysis undertaken by or on behalf of her Department which relates the setting of rates to meeting the basic needs of low income households. [24768/08]
The appropriateness of benchmarking social welfare rates has been actively considered from time to time.
In 2001, the social welfare benchmarking and indexation group was established to examine the issues involved in developing a benchmark for adequacy of adult and child social welfare payments. The group published its final report in September 2001 but did not achieve a consensus position on the desirability of establishing a formal benchmark. The illustrative benchmark options examined in the report included 30% of gross average industrial earnings and 50% of average weekly household income. The group could not agree about which of these would be the better option as there were advantages and disadvantages associated with each.
The report provides a valuable resource for the assessment of the implications of adopting particular approaches to the up rating of social welfare payments and was considered by Government as part of the review of the national anti-poverty strategy in 2002. Recognising that the exact rate was a matter for Government, the strategy set a target of €150 per week, in 2002 terms, for the lowest social welfare payments to be met by 2007. This target was achieved in 2007. The National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016 includes a commitment to maintain the relative value of the lowest social welfare rate at least at €185.80, in 2007 terms, over the course of the plan, subject to available resources. This commitment is reiterated in the agreed programme for Government.
The value of the lowest rate of welfare payment was fully maintained in budget 2008 and stands at €197.80 per week following an increase of €12 per week or over 6%. In the last six budgets, the value of the lowest rate of payment has increased by a cumulative €79 per week or 67%. By any standards, the levels of increases in welfare payments generally over the period since 2002 have been exceptional and are a demonstration of our continuing commitment to all those who are less well off.
Nobody denies that welfare rates have increased fairly significantly in recent years. Will the Minister engage on this one issue? Does she accept that one cannot operate a one-size-fits-all approach in regard to social welfare payments? This is the fundamental point being made in the Vincentian Partnership research. For example, in regard to child rearing costs one cannot say it costs the same amount to rear a three year old as a 17 year old. What the Vincentian Partnership research has asked is that the Minister should consider introducing a new system of measuring the adequacy of social welfare payments which actually recognises the real costs involved for different types of families. Obviously there are significant costs when rearing teenagers in terms of clothing and food — similar to an adult in those respects — but also school costs. From her previous job, the Minister should be aware of the huge financial pressures on low income families with teenagers.
The other area is in respect of lone pensioners where the living alone allowance has not been increased for 12 years and is set at €7.70. One cannot possibly say that the overheads and expenses associated with day to day living are the same for one person as for two people. The Minister is not taking into consideration these particular costs in regard to those categories of families. Will the Minister consider taking the approach suggested in the Vincentian Partnership documents?
Different approaches are recommended by different people. There is no reason to take the Vincentian approach rather than the CORI or benchmarking approach.
They include CORI. It is an agreed grouping.
When I met with Fr. Seán Healy a couple of weeks ago he spoke about 60% of the median, which is quite different from what the Vincentian Partnership was talking about.
That is a different point on how one measures the adequacy for different family groupings.
For many years people indicated that the greatest pressures of cost were on parents with child care costs for very young children. The Government introduced the early child care allowance to target that particular group. We also recognise that there are increased costs for people going back to school, which is why parents with children going to second level get more in the back-to-school allowance than parents with primary school children. There are different ways of supporting the various groups referred to by the Deputy.
Once a year.
The research of the Vincentian Partnership has indicated that lone pensioners are not as well off as couples.
The Minister's time has expired.
The consistent poverty rate for couples has reduced to 2.2%, which is very encouraging. The decision was taken some years ago to increase the overall rates for everybody rather than just to examine the living alone allowance.
I would not use the early child care supplement as an example of a targeted approach considering millions of euro are going outside the country when it was supposed to be targeted at the cost of child care in this country.
It is beside the point how one calculates the living alone allowance or which group's figures are used. Does the Minister agree that the living costs for a pensioner living alone are approximately 73% of a couple's costs? A pensioner whose husband recently died informed me that her household costs are the same except for the fact that she buys a bit less food and only clothes for one person. She still has to pay car insurance, car tax, car repayments and her household running costs are all the exact same but now she has only one income. The lack of an increase in the living alone allowance is pushing that elderly lady into poverty. Similar examples can be found elsewhere in the country. Regardless of which figures one chooses, the reality on the ground is the same.
The Minister spoke about increasing the overall social welfare rates. The social welfare system has to target those who need help most. I urge her to give some consideration to the living alone allowance.
The Minister to reply briefly.
All of those issues will be considered in the context of the budget.
75 Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on paying the fuel allowance during the summer months to take into consideration both the nature of the summer here and the spiralling cost of fuel. [24615/08]
128 Deputy Arthur Morgan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action she will take on the fuel allowance, which in view of the substantial increase in fuel prices, is not adequate to help people avoid fuel poverty. [24613/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 75 and 128 together.
The national fuel allowance scheme assists householders on long-term social welfare or health service executive, HSE, payments to meet the cost of their heating needs during the winter season. Fuel allowance is paid for 30 weeks from end-September to end-April. The allowance represents a contribution towards a person's normal heating expenses. It is not intended to meet those costs in full. A total of 290,000 people, 170,000 with basic fuel allowance and 120,000 with smokeless fuel supplement, will benefit under the scheme at a cost of more than €170 million in 2008.
Fuel allowance is incorporated into a person's weekly social welfare payment. That reflects the objective that total weekly income, including the fuel allowance, is sufficient to meet all of a person's income needs, including heating costs. The main role of the social welfare system is to provide income supports. Government policy in recent years has focused on significantly increasing primary social welfare rates to ensure that people on social welfare can meet their basic living costs, including heating, throughout the year and to achieve an improvement in quality of life. That is a more costly approach than increasing fuel allowance, as the increase is paid for the full year and not just for the 30 weeks of the winter heating season. Social welfare rates have increased at a significantly greater rate than price inflation in recent years. Since December 2001, overall inflation has increased by over 27% while energy product prices have increased by 65%. However, increases in social welfare payments, including fuel allowance, have been between 71% and 88% in the same period.
In addition to primary payments and fuel allowance, electricity and gas allowances under the household benefits package, are payable throughout the year to more than 355,000 pensioners, people with disabilities, and carer households towards their heating, light and cooking costs at an estimated overall scheme cost of €159 million in 2008. A special heating needs facility is also available through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme to assist people in certain circumstances with specific heating needs due to infirmity or a particular medical condition.
Fuel poverty is the inability to afford adequate warmth in a home, or the inability to achieve adequate warmth because of the energy inefficiency of the home. The Department is working with all other Departments both in doing research and on various projects to see how the less well-off in society can be supported.
As Questions Nos. 75 and 128 are being taken together the time is doubled. Twelve minutes will be allowed for the question.
That is a pleasant change. There has been much talk in the media recently about the significant increase in fuel costs and its impact on business, rightly so. However, there has not been the same focus on the impact of rising fuel costs, especially on older people and families with lower incomes. Does the Minister accept that the impact of the increased fuel costs on those categories of people has been significant? If one looks at the weather today and for the past week, it is evident that the Irish summer has changed. Does the Minister accept that the poor summer weather strengthens the case for the extension of the scheme? There was no increase in the scheme in last year's budget. Does the Minister accept there is a need to increase the fuel allowance due to the significant impact on the health of older people? If additional fuel allowance is not provided then the Minister for Health and Children will have to expend more money to treat such people in hospital. Does the Minister accept in the first instance that there is a difficulty with people meeting their fuel bills? Perhaps I will ask a supplementary question following the Minister's reply.
It is obvious that the fuel prices are impacting on everybody; individuals at home, industry, community facilities and schools, and on the Irish economy, as it is on the world economy. The cost of fuel is to the forefront of the Government's discussions. I have had initial discussions with the Minister for Finance, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources on the impact of the increase in fuel costs, especially on social welfare recipients. The best way to ensure adequate heat for people is not just through a funding mechanism, we want to ensure also that houses are efficient at conserving energy. Much work is going on between the various Departments and perhaps that should be better promoted so that people are aware of what is available to them.
The Government's approach in recent years has been to increase social welfare payments generally to ensure that people have enough money to meet their basic needs every week, including heating. Increases have featured in all of today's questions. I accept that the draw on that money for heating this year is probably greater than in any other year. We increased the fuel allowance payment by one week this year and that issue can continue to be examined, as can the amount. It is a costly scheme. It would cost approximately €9 million to increase it by €1. To increase it by a week would cost €5.6 million and to give the fuel allowance all year round would cost €123 million extra. As Deputy Morgan indicated, given the weather we currently have, people might need heat even during mid-summer.
The time for the question has expired.
We must consider what is the best use for the money or whether we would be better off putting it into the general payments.
A couple of points arise from the Minister's reply. Is her Department engaging with other Departments on house building, especially local authority housing, to ensure that the best insulation systems are in place to capture the maximum heat in the home? Does the Department have a role in that regard?
Regarding the €123 million extra it would cost to provide the fuel allowance all year round, does the Minister accept that if she does not do so that a significant amount of that sum will be expended by the Department of Health and Children to treat colds, pneumonia and other ailments that will result from a lack of heat, especially among older people? I agree with the Minister that the purpose of the allowance is to ensure people can meet their heating costs. However, they are clearly not meeting their costs. Given the significant increase in fuel prices, does the Minister accept that something needs to happen urgently?
The Department is co-operating with a number of organisations, including Sustainable Energy Ireland, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on making homes warmer. We are funding one of the projects in that regard. It is an action research project which obviously will help to feed into future policy. I have already mentioned the fuel allowance which is available to people under general social welfare payments. The free units people get are not affected by the price of fuel because they get those units irrespective of the price. Some 350,000 pensioners get the household benefit and need not worry about the cost of that scheme.
The €123 million will end up being spent anyway through expenditure on health services. Why not cut out the middle person and have it dealt with through the Department of Social and Family Affairs?
The question always arises as to whether it is better to put the money into one scheme, like giving an extra week's fuel allowance payments, or to apply it to general rates across the board. All these issues need to be considered in the context of the budget, bearing in mind that there are particular pressures because of the price of fuel, which we recognise.
The 11% increase in the price of fuel in the past year impacts on everybody. However, it impacts disproportionately on people on low fixed incomes, who are the responsibility of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. It is not good enough for the Minister to say she is talking to various Departments and agencies. Something much more concrete needs to happen. As we speak, representatives of the Institute of Public Health in Ireland are appearing before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs making the case for an interdepartmental fuel poverty group as exists in Northern Ireland.
There is a need to formalise the relationship between the Departments of Social and Family Affairs, Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, as well as the other agencies involved. Would the Minister consider taking the initiative to establish such a group? At the moment there is no strategy to deal with fuel poverty and we know that problem is likely to increase incrementally over the coming years. Given that the Department of Social and Family Affairs has responsibility for people on low incomes in ensuring that their income is adequate to meet their expenses — quite patently, it is not adequate with the kinds of fuel increases we have seen recently — will the Minister consider taking that initiative in setting up such an interdepartmental group?
I already indicated to the Deputy that I have had discussions with the various Ministers about drawing together all the different initiatives taking place.
I suggested establishing a formalised group.
I do not know what "formalised" means. If it means setting up a body with a full secretariat and involves costs just to bring people together, I would not favour that.
The Minister should set up a group to formalise strategy.
The correct approach is to co-ordinate the various ongoing activities between our different Departments — the payments from my Department, energy efficiency in homes through the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and housing standards through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government — along with Sustainable Energy Ireland and other bodies.
The problem is that there is no strategy.
The strategy is to ensure that people do not suffer as a result of fuel poverty.
That is not a strategy.
The strategy is clearly failing because people are suffering as a result of fuel poverty. There are 20 Ministers of State and half of us do not know what they do or even if they know themselves. Could one of them not take the lead in this regard? The Minister does not seem to accept that everyone is only taking responsibility for the small bit that relates to his or her Department. In answer to my earlier priority question, the Minister spoke about the inefficiency of heating and the need to deal with the amount of heat escaping from houses as a result of bad insulation etc., which is true. However, because it is not in her Department, the Minister might not be aware that in the past five years only 9,000 houses were able to benefit from improvements in that regard, whereas tens of thousands of houses have such problems.
Again, because it is not in her Department, the Minister might not be aware that the vast proportion of grants paid by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are to people building new houses or those who can afford to install green energy systems such as solar panels. The people most affected by fuel poverty, the single-income households and the elderly, have not been able to avail of these grants. Will the Minister co-ordinate with the other Departments — I do not mind whether it has a secretariat — to establish a strategy before the budget to ensure the issue is addressed rather than just discussed?
I assure the Deputy it is being addressed rather than just being discussed.
There is no evidence of that at all.
76 Deputy Michael D. Higgins asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the timeframe she envisages for taking and implementing decisions on pension reform. [24787/08]
89 Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs when the Government will publish its proposals for reform of the pension system given that the consultation on the Green Paper on pensions has ended. [24617/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 76 and 89 together.
The consultation period on the pensions Green Paper was completed and the time for making submissions closed on 31 May 2008. Overall, the response to the request for submissions on the Green Paper and attendance at the regional seminars held by the Department earlier in the year has been extremely positive. The consultation period closed with a very successful conference in Dublin Castle on international pension reforms. The conference featured presentations from countries such as Australia, New Zealand and the UK which have, or are planning, major reforms as well as speakers from the OECD and the World Bank who dealt with the wider international reform agenda.
The extent to which the public engaged in the process has been particularly satisfying and will give us a clear picture of the issues and concerns people have regarding pensions now and into the future. I understand that upwards of 360 submissions have been received, many in the final days of the consultation process, with approximately 300 coming from members of the public. All the submissions received are available on the website. The submissions are being assessed and a report summarising the issues raised and suggestions for reform will be finalised by approximately the end of June. This report will be published as soon as possible thereafter.
While I understand that there is a general acceptance in the submissions that action is required on our pensions system, it appears there is no clear consensus on the extent of the reform required, or the manner in which any reforms should be delivered. Our objective must be to ensure that we have in place a pensions system which will deliver an adequate retirement income to all our people and which can, at the same time, withstand the cost pressures which will arise in the future as the composition of our population changes and the balance between those at work and those who are retired shifts dramatically.
In deciding on reforms we must be aware that good pension provision entails significant costs for society as a whole, whether it is delivered through the State system or by personal contributions to private arrangements. While the Government is faced with difficult decisions, we are determined to bring this process to a conclusion by the end of the year by announcing a framework to address the pensions agenda for the longer term. The nature of the reform decided on will dictate the period over which it will be implemented.
I have a concern over the timeframe involved. The Minister's predecessor gave a commitment that proposals would be ready to be brought to Government before the budget at the end of this year. The Minister seems to be moving away from that commitment and I ask her to clarify the position. Does the Minister accept we cannot continue with the very unfair tax-based reliefs system that very much favours the better off? We need to move away from that quickly and ensure a comprehensive pension policy to cover all people irrespective of incomes. When talking about establishing a framework for the future, would the Minister envisage proposals being brought to Government in time to be included in this year's budget?
As I said in my initial reply, it is intended to have the framework by the end of this year. Other countries, including the UK, gave a three or four-year lead-in period for the implementation of their strategy. Obviously that needs to be considered now because of the various elements involved. It will not be easy to come up with a framework because there are very divergent views in that regard. There is no consensus, particularly between the employers and the employees, as to how it should be addressed. It is accepted that there is a need to deal with the issue because of the demographic change. We are lucky in having the luxury of not being faced with this issue today because we have six workers for every person on a pension. In some years' time we will have only two workers for every person on a pension. The time is right for us to establish this framework. I cannot say what the outcome of the strategy or the implementation period will be because we have had so many submissions. However, it is the intention to bring the framework to Government by the end of this year.
While I accept this is an extremely complex area, given that the Minister will have the report this week or next week she will have several months to consider it and make proposals. Is she saying we cannot expect any proposals to go before Government in time for the budget this year?
The strategy will have to be agreed between my Department and the Department of Finance and will then have to go before Government so all I can commit to is a framework going before the Government at the end of this year. As to whether any changes will be brought about in the budget, it is unlikely because that would have to be prepared by November. We are talking about a long-term view, so it does not need to be rushed for December of this year.
The Minister's predecessor gave a commitment that the proposals would be contained in the budget this year.
Everybody would accept we are in a changing economic situation.
That makes it all the more urgent that we introduce a fairer system.
We are not necessarily talking about the pensions of today but the Pensions Board is advising people through its awareness campaigns to ensure they make provision for their pensions, and this is working successfully. We have seen an increase in the last number of years in the number of people making some extra private provision. It is not as high as we would like it to be. Obviously we wanted to hit approximately 70%, but it is increasing. All that work is going on at the same time. We must take on board the range of views that has come across in the submissions and some of the international experience, which is very different. We have the benefit of being able to see what has happened in places such as Australia and New Zealand. Given all that and the level of interest there has been, it will take a few months to tie it all together. All I can commit to is that it is still the intention to bring it to Government by the end of the year.
I agree with the Minister on the diversity of views on this matter. Virtually everybody I talk to has a different view. That is evidenced by the 360 submissions the Minister has received. The submissions are being assessed and the Minister hopes to have that report by the end of June. Will the Minister publish that report immediately or make it available to Members of this House? The Minister is not giving a clear indication on when she will have an assessment done on it and when she will make a recommendation. Can she give us any estimate on the timeframe?
All the submissions are on the web and are available to all members of the public. I intend to publish the report I am expecting over the next couple of weeks so that people can see the diverse range of views out there. Listening to other countries and reading the submissions, there are those who would like an SSIA approach, a mandatory approach or a soft mandatory approach. We have the diverging views I have already mentioned between employers and employees. What is the role of the State? What are people's expectations of their pensions? How much do people feel a private pension should be as against a State pension? What standard of living do people expect from their pensions as distinct from their working lives? All these issues must be considered seriously over the next couple of months and that is my intention.
While I appreciate that getting this right is the priority, time is of the essence. The Minister spoke about the work going on, the advertising campaign and the work of the Pensions Board. However, all that work is being stunted because of the uncertainty. People who have not taken out pensions would consider themselves to be badly advised if they took one out immediately because they do not know what changes will be made when the Government makes decisions on this issue. From that perspective, time is of the essence. If the Minister does not envisage this happening in this year's budget, does she have any idea whether there would be a Supplementary Estimate or a mini budget in the following year to do this rather than waiting a year and a half from now, which will happen if we take no action in the coming budget?
I do not accept that there is any uncertainty out there on people taking out provision for themselves.
There is, because they do not know what the Minister will do.
There is no uncertainty. People know this is a long-term view and are being advised on their personal circumstances. It is interesting to examine the pensions coverage when one sees that of people between the ages of 20 and 24 years of age, only 27% have made provisions. Our campaigns have particularly targeted them to ensure they take out pensions. They are not sitting by waiting to see what the Government does at the end of the year, next year or the year after. Any framework would have to be given time to get embedded.
The average age is 39.
It will have implications for social welfare, tax, employers and employees. I suspect it will need a lead-in time.
That is why people want to know what will happen.
They will have to wait until we produce the framework.
That is the problem; they have to wait, which is why people are not taking out pensions.
77 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if it is intended to offer assistance to families who might find themselves in difficulty with mortgage or rent repayments arising from the economic downturn; if rent or mortgage support are expected to be improved or qualification guidelines revised where the downturn in family income is expected to result in arrears of mortgage or rent with obvious consequences; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24815/08]
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, SWA, provides for a weekly or monthly supplement to be paid in respect of rent or mortgage interest to any person in the State whose means are insufficient to meet their needs. The purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term income support, in the form of a weekly or monthly payment, to eligible people living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. Similarly, mortgage interest supplement provides short-term income support to eligible people who are unable to meet their mortgage interest repayments in respect of a house which is their sole place of residence. The supplement assists with the interest portion of the mortgage repayments only.
In recent years, a significant number of people have come to rely on rent supplement for extended periods, including people on local authority housing waiting lists. On 13 June 2008 over 63,000 people were in receipt of a supplement of which almost 32,000 recipients are getting a supplement for 18 months or more. The scheme was not designed to meet long-term ongoing housing needs.
One of the measures introduced to address the issue of long-term rent supplementation is the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which gives local authorities specific responsibility for meeting the long-term housing needs of people receiving rent supplement for 18 months or more. Almost 13,000 tenants have been transferred from the rent supplement scheme to RAS since 2005.
Significant changes to the means test for rent and mortgage interest supplement were implemented in 2007. Additional provision was made specifically to facilitate people on rent supplement returning to work and those accepted as eligible for accommodation under RAS. These measures are positive steps in assisting tenants in achieving a long-term housing solution for their needs while also increasing the financial return from employment for those returning to work or moving to full-time employment.
Overall, I am satisfied that the current rent supplement and mortgage interest schemes provide an adequate short-term safety net within the overall social welfare system to ensure that people do not suffer hardship due to loss of employment. Nonetheless, I intend to keep the schemes under review to ensure that they meet the objective of catering for those who require assistance on a short-term basis while long-term housing needs are dealt with in a more appropriate manner.
Are the Minister and her Department aware of the fact that the downturn in the economy is having a negative impact on mortgage holders and those in rented accommodation? Are they aware that the regulations relate to a previous era and need to be changed to accommodate the new circumstances? Will the Minister and her Department entertain that view?
I would be interested to hear exactly what changes Deputy Durkan anticipates. I know that more people are under pressure for their rent and mortgages than in the past, but it is important that the 5,000 people gaining the mortgage interest supplement receive it only to supplement the interest rather than the capital because these people will be left with a good capital asset. I am not sure whether Deputy Durkan is suggesting the supplement should go to paying off the capital as well as the interest but, as the Deputy knows, 63,000 people benefit from the rent supplement at a cost of €392 million while just over 5,000 people benefit from the mortgage interest supplement at a cost of €14.3 million this year.
If the Minister examines the figures, she will see there has been a very significant increase in the number of people seeking assistance with mortgage repayments. In the last two or three years it has increased by 35%. That is a fair measure of the increasing problems people are facing and the need, as Deputy Durkan said, to change the scheme to facilitate the reality of what is happening. The rule is that where one member of a couple is in employment, no assistance can be given. With the increase in low income couples in recent times due to low wage jobs, very many families are in a situation where one member of the couple is working but they are still not managing to make ends meet. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other groups have identified the working poor as an important phenomenon. In that regard, I ask the Minister if she would consider the rules in respect of people who are working being debarred from receiving any kind of assistance because that is unrealistic in this day and age.
This is the kernel of the problem. There is clearly a change in circumstances. What the Minister says relates to previous circumstances when interest rates were high. Interest rates are now low but the repayments are causing problems due to the high mortgages which were awarded by financial institutions in the past few years. Many of the people involved now find they must reach a settlement with their financial institution.
The response we get with regard to rent supplement and mortgage support is exactly what the Minister has just told us. Deputy Shortall and I are asking whether the Minister would consider the new circumstances in an effort to ascertain how best a means could be devised whereby hardship could be alleviated for the people concerned, whether it be through mortgage or rent supplement.
The fact the numbers have increased even within this year shows that the scheme is responding to the need out there. Between January and May of this year alone, more than 3,300 additional people received rent supplement and in the same period more than 900 additional people received mortgage supplement.
That is due to rising unemployment.
I know that. It is obviously directly related to the increase in the live register. However, it does show that those schemes are there for people to avail of and benefit from.
That is efficient.
They are demand-led schemes. They are designed to be able to support people who fall on hard times with regard to the repayments. If the local welfare officers or others who are dealing directly with these people feel it needs to be tweaked in some way, we can certainly consider that.
78 Deputy Dinny McGinley asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress to date on appointments to the personal advocacy service; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24766/08]
144 Deputy Kathleen Lynch asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason for the ongoing delay with introducing a personal advocacy service; the month in 2008 when she expects it to be launched and fully operational; the number of additional staff requested by the Citizens Information Board for the new service; the number currently sanctioned; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24794/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 78 and 144 together.
The introduction of a personal advocacy service as provided for in the Citizens Information Act 2007 is a priority for the Department. It is proposed to establish the personal advocacy service on a phased basis. An organisational structure has been developed by the Citizens Information Board to meet the needs of the personal advocacy service, PAS. The post of director of PAS was sanctioned by the Department of Finance in 2007 and the Citizens Information Board has completed the recruitment process. It is expected that the appointment will be made shortly.
The service will be launched when the director has taken up the position, recruited the staff and is satisfied that the structures, resources and facilities are in place to allow the service to commence operation. In view of the recruitment process which will need to be undertaken for the additional posts, it is not possible at this time to give a definitive date on which the service will be launched and fully operational. The service will be subject to continuing review and additional posts, if required, will be sought as necessary depending on the level of demand for the service.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In the meantime the Citizens Information Board is continuing preparatory work in regard to the establishment of the new service and has identified accommodation to facilitate its immediate needs. On my recent visit to the Citizen Information Board, I was briefed on the steps which it has taken to get the service under way and I am confident that once the staff are in place, the service will be available to those who require it.
Have the recommendations been brought to the Minister with regard to the filling of that post? Will other positions within that service be filled at the same time and what are recommendations to the Minister in this regard?
What level of funding has been approved by the Department of Finance for the new post to be created this year? How many posts does this represent?
The total funding for advocacy services for this year is €6.1 million. There was additional funding included in that in the budget of €1.8 million for service development, which would include the advocacy service and the additional post for the PAS. The person has been identified as the appropriate choice for director of the service but sanction from the Department of Finance is necessary before the remaining posts can be filled.
Are any other posts recommended for the same time or has anyone gone from the Department?
No, to my knowledge, the only named post is that of the director, if that is what the Deputy is asking.
Of the €1.8 million that has been approved, apart from the director, how many advocacy posts are involved?
I do not know if the number of posts is specified. I will have to check for the Deputy.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
