Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Mar 2015

Vol. 870 No. 3

Priority Questions

One-Parent Family Payment Payments

Willie O'Dea

Question:

1. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her plans to postpone the proposed changes to lone parent payments; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9402/15]

I have tabled this question to ascertain whether the Minister intends to proceed with the change to the lone parent's allowance conditions which is scheduled to take effect from July.

Last Tuesday I announced in my Second Stage address on the Social Welfare Bill that I was proposing to amend the July arrangements for lone parents to ensure lone parents with a youngest child between the ages of 7 and 16 years who were providing full-time care for another person would be able to retain entitlement, or apply for entitlement, to the one-parent family payment and the half rate carer’s allowance. These arrangements are identical to the current provisions where a one-parent family payment recipient is providing full-time care for a child in respect of whom a domiciliary care allowance is in payment. I am proposing no further changes to the July measures.

Notwithstanding the strong welfare supports given to lone parents during the years, the results have been disappointing in poverty alleviation terms, with some lone parents remaining on the payment for up to 18 years or even longer if they have a number of children. We know that it is important to provide lone parents with educational training and employment supports to enable those parenting on their own to reach their full potential. This means that as their children get older, we should focus on developing their skills to help them to secure employment or set up a business.

Since the one-parent family payment reforms began, approximately 11,000 people have transitioned to alternative income support payments. In the past two years we have seen an increase in the number of applications for family income supplement from lone parents moving to employment. This is evidence of the positive impact of the reforms. Other customers who transition from the one-parent family payment to a jobseeker's allowance payment gain access to education, training and employment programmes, including the new back to work family dividend which is is worth €30 per child per week, to assist them to move into sustainable employment. This involves engaging with one of the Department's case officers who will assist lone parents to produce a personal development plan and work with them to progress it. This is a significant step as it is the first time that this group of customers will have access to an active engagement with the Department's case officers.

The Minister said earlier this week that she had spoken to a number of lone parents about these changes, but I have been in direct and indirect communication with several hundred lone parents and not one of them has spoken in favour of the reforms or changes she is proposing. I have one simple question for the Minister. In this House on 18 April 2012 she promised single parent families that she would not trigger the change to be introduced in July until such time as the country had a Scandinavian-type system of child care. As she knows as well as I do that there is no Scandinavian-style child care system in place in this country, is she intending to renege on her commitment to single parents and, if so, why?

We have introduced - this is ongoing - together with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, an after school child care service to assist lone parents taking up employment, generally on a part-time basis. This helps those who are employed, as well as those moving from the one-parent family payment to another. The service is available to children of primary school age and offers parents subsidised after school child care for 52 weeks, at a cost of €15 per week per child. This is in addition to other supports available.

I wish to speak specifically about lone parents who are in a period of change. I know what the Deputy's argument is. He wants to see lone parents staying on social welfare payments for 18 years or more-----

I do not. I asked a specific question. Is the Minister going to break her promise - yes or no?

I have looked at what has happened in other countries. Once a child reaches seven years of age - normally such a child would be in first class in primary school - we will create a transitional arrangement. The money involved for lone parents, many of whom are full-time, stay at home parents, does not change, but they are given an opportunity to become involved in education and training and, ultimately, find employment.

It is working lone parents whom the Minister is hurting most, the very ones she says she wants to incentivise. Is she telling the House that the child care provisions to which she has referred constitute a Scandinavian-type child care system? If not, she is breaking the promise she made to the House on 18 April 2012.

Last evening the Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection told the House that discussions were ongoing between his Department and the Department of Education and Skills on lone parents who had accessed or wanted to access the education system and that these discussions might result in some changes to the proposals which had been made. I ask the Minister to confirm that this is the case because there are many very worried people, not just those who want to access the education system but also lone parents already in the system who are worried that the proposed changes will force them to withdraw from the education system.

First, we are building a child care system. We are expanding and investing in it. The after-school child care service is an important addition. As the Deputy is probably aware, discussions are ongoing to determine if, as happens in many schools, school buildings can be used later in the afternoon as a location for after-school services. Some schools already run such services which are popular with parents. There are other schools, however, which do not permit them. If we can make progress in this area, it would lead to a significant expansion above and beyond the after-school child care service to which I referred. I can confirm that discussions with the Department of Education and Skills and Student Universal Support Ireland on grant applications and qualifications are ongoing.

One-Parent Family Payment Payments

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

2. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the fact that one of the consequences of her plans to lower the cut-off age for the one-parent family payment is that lone parents in full-time education will lose the maintenance portion of their Student Universal Support Ireland grant once their youngest child turns seven years old; if she has discussed this with the Department of Education and Skills; if she will suspend the planned lowering of the cut-off age for the payment in July 2015 until this issue is addressed and a system of affordable, accessible child care, something she had promised would be in place in advance of the cuts to the payment is in place. [9400/15]

This question relates to the lone parents who will be affected by the changes on 2 July. They will no longer be able to receive the maintenance portion of the SUSI grant. Has the Tánaiste held discussions on the matter and, if so, will she enlighten the Dáil about them?

As the one-parent family payment reforms have been rolled out, I have introduced some significant changes to assist people, mainly women, through the transition. First, the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangement gives lone parents with young children the flexibility to work part time or engage in full-time education. Second, access to subsidised child care is available through the after-school child care scheme and the community employment child care programme. We would prefer if it were more extensive, but it is significant and developing. As I announced on Tuesday, lone parents can retain entitlement to the one-parent family payment and receive the half-rate carer's allowance until their youngest child reaches 16 years of age. These are significant supports.

Unlike other jobseekers, persons in receipt of the transitional jobseeker's allowance can also avail of full-time education. As such, these customers can receive the maintenance portion of the SUSI grant. There has been this flexibility since the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance transitional arrangements in June 2013. Lone parent payment recipients participating in training or education programmes can move to the back to education allowance scheme when their entitlement to the lone parent payment ceases. However, I realise this can result in a financial loss if these customers are in receipt of a SUSI grant.

The eligibility rules governing the payment of the student maintenance grant are a matter for the Department of Education and Skills, as the Deputy will appreciate. However, I am mindful that the principal aim of the lone parent scheme reforms is to support customers who are in education. For that reason, as I said to Deputy Willie O'Dea, I have asked my officials to meet officials from the Department of Education and Skills to discuss the matter. I expect the discussions to conclude shortly.

I am unsure when the Tánaiste asked the officials to meet. It has been acknowledged for several months that this is potentially one of the effects of the Tánaiste's plan to change the one-parent family payments in July. Obviously, the qualification criteria for SUSI were drawn up with the current one-parent family payments in view. Will the Tánaiste confirm that the changes required will be brought forward before the conclusion of the debate on the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as appropriate? If that is not possible, will she ensure a decision on the matter will be taken as quickly as possible prior to 2 July? Lone parents are making plans for their future and may lose the payment. Whether they are already in college or planning to go, they need to work out whether they will be able to afford to do so.

As the Deputy is probably aware, in budget 2010 the previous Government amended the eligibility criteria for receipt of the student maintenance grant for individuals in receipt of either the back to education allowance or the vocational training opportunities scheme allowances. As a result of that amendment, individuals who were in receipt of the back to education allowance for all schemes or the VTOS allowances for a post-leaving certificate course, for example, became ineligible for receipt of the student maintenance grant. However, the student service charge, as well as any fee payable to third level colleges, have continued to be met by the Exchequer on their behalf. This change has applied to all new student grant holders from the 2010-11 academic year onwards.

Discussions are under way between my officials and those of the Department of Education and Skills and SUSI. Obviously, the details of student grants and maintenance support payments and so on are a matter for SUSI. We are in discussions with the authority and will come back in due course when we have concluded them. My absolute desire is to see as many lone parents as possible availing of an education. The grant supports, together with the lone parent payments, are important and represent significant financial support for lone parents, in particular, the many lone parents who are really successful when they return to education and attain qualifications.

Everyone acknowledges that those who are parenting alone would love to return to work or education, if at all possible. In this case, however, there is urgency. The decision was taken in budget 2013. Why has it taken so long for the officials of the Tánaiste's Department to respond? The Department is the reason these parents are now unable to access a maintenance grant on which they had been able to rely in continuing or starting in education and planning for their future.

A total of 11,000 people have made a successful transition in recent years. Yesterday we discussed the numbers availing of family income supplement, which provides a major boost for the incomes of those working either 19 hours or on a relatively low rate of payment. We are introducing the back to work family dividend. Furthermore, we have undertaken with the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to introduce the after-school care payment, especially for persons who have been unemployed, including lone parents. We have, therefore, taken several initiatives. We examine all potential and possible initiatives that could further assist lone parents, in particular. All the statistics show that if people are parenting on their own over an 18 year period, their chances and those of their children of being at risk of poverty are significantly greater than those who are in work. The best way to reduce their chances of being at risk of poverty is for them to find full-time or part-time employment.

Poverty Impact Assessment

Ruth Coppinger

Question:

3. Deputy Ruth Coppinger asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if her Department has carried out an analysis of the impact cuts in welfare payments have had on women; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9550/15]

Will the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection indicate whether her Department has undertaken a gender analysis of the impact of the cuts in social welfare payments that have taken place in recent years?

Has there been any study of the impact in particular on women, because it would seem that the axe is falling disproportionately on women, who tend to have responsibility for children?

The Department of Social Protection recently published a social impact assessment of the main tax and social welfare measures for 2015, based on the ESRI tax-welfare model, SWITCH. The analysis found there is no difference in the risk-of-poverty rate for men and women as a result of the last budget.

The ESRI, on foot of a commission from the Equality Authority, has examined the impact of policy changes on men and women over the period 2009 to 2013. The findings were published last October in a report called the Gender Impact of Tax and Benefit Changes. The report analyses the effects on disposable income due to changes to public sector pay, tax, PRSI and welfare payments.

The average loss for all households over this period was 9.6% of disposable income. Less than a fifth of the reduction in disposable income can be attributed to welfare changes, while three fifths of the reduction in disposable income can be attributed to taxation or PRSI changes and obviously the introduction of the USC. The remainder of the reduction in disposable income was caused by reductions in public sector pay. The report found that retired single people experienced a loss of 4.5% in disposable income over the period. However, social welfare changes over the period resulted in a slight increase in disposable income of 0.1%, with the same impact for men and women.

Single people without children experienced an average loss in disposable income of 9.5%. Welfare changes resulted in a 1.4% loss in disposable income for women, which was slightly lower than the 1.6% loss for men. Female lone parents experienced an overall loss of 9.1% of which welfare changes accounted for 4.4%. Households headed by couples experienced, on average, an 11.9% reduction in disposable income. Separate research conducted on behalf of the Department by Dorothy Watson of the ESRI suggests that in Ireland, income is shared fully across couple households, meaning that any loss of income and hence change in living standards is likely to be equally shared across the household. As the adults in that household would consist significantly of a man and a woman, the effects are shared equally.

This would be laughable if it was not so serious. I will outline a list of the cuts the Tánaiste has introduced that would primarily fall on women. The cuts to child benefit mainly hit women. It has been cut by €10 to €130 for the first and second child and by €18 for the third child and subsequent children so a large family will be hit even more. The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance has been cut. There have been rent allowance cuts and we know it is primarily single women who are facing homelessness. The fuel allowance has been cut from 32 to 27 weeks. Maternity pay has been cut.

Single-parent organisations and all in this House have told the Tánaiste that one-parent family cuts are hitting women. Some 90% of lone parents are women and 34% of births are to single mothers. Therefore a huge impact falls on women from these cuts which the Tánaiste has started and which she is talking about continuing. One-parent families headed by women are twice as likely to be in poverty. How can the Tánaiste possibly argue that these cuts will not further increase the feminisation of poverty, which has accelerated under this Government?

I ask the Tánaiste to keep her remarks to the social welfare cuts about which I asked rather than talking about the impact of the recent budget on couples.

The Deputy's question asked whether an analysis had been done and I have told her it is available. She can access it in the Oireachtas Library.

I asked about social welfare cuts.

The ESRI has carried out an analysis of what has happened. If the Deputy thinks about this she might appreciate what I am saying. One of the most significant cohorts of women who get income support from social welfare are women who are on the State retirement pension, either contributory or non-contributory. Some 34% of all spending on social welfare goes to people who have retired and are on the State retirement contributory or non-contributory pensions, and widow's and widower's pensions.

The actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund, which was last done in 2012, showed that the fund provides much better value to female rather than to male contributors. The at-risk-of-poverty rate of the very significant group of women who are retirees and on State pension is below 2%. The reduction of their at-risk-of-poverty rate, as with lone parents, because of social welfare transfers is among the highest in the European Union, at 60%.

The social welfare system, whether at pension age for people who have retired or for people of working age such as lone parents, is a huge protector against poverty because of the transfers made from people at work to people who are on social welfare.

I do not know if the Tánaiste has read the report, Women, Austerity and Inequality, by Ursula Barry and Pauline Conroy, commissioned by the National Women’s Council of Ireland and TASC. I do not know what figures the Tánaiste is plucking out of the air but I will outline for her a few conclusions from this report. It concluded that equality was cast aside as a marginal issue in the big picture of crisis, and that lone parents, the low paid and poor were special targets for raising cash to recapitalise the banks. I do not have time to expand on this in the 30 seconds I have left, but the Tánaiste might read the report.

People know what is in their pockets. The Tánaiste broke two promises that the Labour Party made in the last general election campaign. It has imposed child benefit cuts. It promised that it would not introduce the one-parent family cut for seven-year olds unless there was a Scandinavian-style child care. The Tánaiste said that last July, but is going ahead regardless. She spoke earlier about after-school clubs. They cost money and whatever scheme the Government has set up, the clubs are available in only a very few schools. The idea that women can just leave their seven-year old children to become "latchkey kids", as it is termed, to bail out the banks is disgraceful. Those children already have only one parent in the home with them and Deputy Tuffy thinks that children can mind themselves from 1.30 p.m. until 6 p.m. The Labour Party has stooped to an incredible low in its attack on women.

The Deputy clearly has a difficulty in accepting the work that has been done by the ESRI or the actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund, which shows that women get the best value. The Deputy's question asked about an analysis regarding social welfare. I am telling her what the reports are showing. She needs to study them. They are not my reports, they are independent reports.

I take issue with the Deputy on this point. In January I was very happy on behalf of the Labour Party and on behalf of Fine Gael in this Government to be able to increase child benefit by €5 a month per child. I do not know if she has taken that into account in her calculations.

The Tánaiste took away €10 the previous year.

That is why the budget analysis that the Department commissioned shows that this budget has benefited families with children, including lone parents, because as the Deputy knows, child benefit is a universal payment that is generally paid to the mother. It is paid to people regardless of whether they are in work or out of work. I would have thought the Deputy would have welcomed the improvement in child benefit. As the economy progresses and as people go back to work, we hope to repeat the measure in this year's budget for next year.

Child Poverty

Willie O'Dea

Question:

4. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her views that the F grade for the Government in the area of child poverty in the 2015 report card of the Children's Rights Alliance is a fair assessment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9403/15]

I put down the question to ascertain what progress, if any, the Government has made on its stated commitment to reduce child poverty.

I have read with interest the Children’s Rights Alliance report card for 2015 and its recommendations for Government action to tackle child poverty. In my view, the role of social transfers, which I referred to earlier, is not given enough weight in the report. The at-risk-of-poverty rate for children has fallen for the first time in three years by nearly 1 percentage point, from 18.8% in 2011 to 17.9%. This compares with an at-risk-of-poverty rate for children in 2005, when the economy was doing extraordinarily well, of 23.1%. That improvement is outlined in the SILC report, which is based on data from the preceding year, 2013, and reflects data from the period of the greatest difficulty in the economy.

Budget 2015 increased expenditure on children by €96 million and I increased child benefit by €5 per month. Other child-specific measures included the new back-to-work family dividend and an additional €2 million on the school meals programme. The Department published the social impact assessment of budget 2015, which found that for the first time since the economic crisis, welfare and income tax policies will result in an increase in average household incomes of 0.7%. It also found that households with children - both earning and non-earning households - generally gain more than those households without children. The Government has agreed a child-specific poverty target which aims to lift 70,000 children out of poverty by 2020, equivalent to a reduction of two thirds on the 2011 rate. Following a national seminar to discuss how the target would be implemented, the Department is now finalising an implementation plan for a whole-of-Government approach to child poverty, with other Departments and following consultation with the Children’s Rights Alliance and other children’s organisations.

As I said, this Government will deliver a social as well as an economic recovery to ensure that every family, every community and every individual will benefit from the recovery that is now under way. I am very confident that as a society, we will be able to achieve the child poverty target by 2020.

The Minister mentioned the increase in child benefit. That increase was only a partial reversal of the decrease the Minister had already introduced. Is the Minister aware of the UNICEF report, Children of the Recession, published last October? It demonstrates clearly and unambiguously that there are 130,000 more children living in poverty in this country now than there were five years ago and that this is a result of deliberate choices made by Government. It points to governments in other countries which equally had to combat austerity but which made different choices, and the child poverty statistics improved in those countries as a result. Does the Minister agree that all the analysis, all the studies and all the reports point specifically to one thing, namely, the Government's policy on child poverty is an abysmal failure?

Altogether, the Department of Social Protection will spend almost €3 billion in 2015 in providing income support for families through child benefit, qualified child increases for people on social welfare, family income supplement, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and, as I said, increased resources for the schools meals programme, which is specifically aimed at children. Child income supports and other social transfers are very effective in reducing child poverty. The 2013 CSO survey of income and living conditions - the SILC - showed that social transfers reduced the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children from 45.5% to 17.9%, thereby lifting a quarter of all children out of poverty. This equates to a poverty reduction effect of 60.7% in 2013, and the SILC data is based on much of 2012 as well as 2013. That was an incredibly difficult point in the crash in banking and construction that had happened under the previous Government.

These results show Ireland as being among the best-performing member states of the EU in this regard. Commentators looking at Ireland have repeated this over and over again. I would also point out to the Deputy that these studies do not take into account of additional benefits which households on social welfare may have, such as access to a medical card or access to social housing and, therefore, to a differential rent, which may be more modest than that for people at work who are renting privately.

The UNICEF report is clear. Of the 41 countries surveyed, we come in at No. 37. That puts us behind countries that only recently became democracies and countries whose economies are far less well developed than ours.

The Minister mentioned three things in regard to social transfers, one of which was the partial alleviation in the original reduction in child benefit. Commenting on that, the Children's Rights Alliance stated:

Child Poverty gets an 'F' grade in Report Card 2015, a fall from last year’s 'E-' grade. This is due to the fact that although the Government introduced a small monthly increase in the Child Benefit payment ... this gesture does not go far enough to reverse the impact that austerity budgets have already had on children living in poverty.

The Minister mentioned two other transfers. The €22 million family dividend is only a drop in the ocean and will not apply to families who have to continue to rely on social welfare. There is also the increase of €2 million in the child meals programme. That is not going to reverse the trend towards increasing levels of child poverty in this country.

The Minister mentioned studies, reports, whole-of-government approaches and so on. The figures are consistently getting worse. Does the Government have any specific proposals that will arrest this trend?

What the UNICEF report, the OECD report and all of the other reports show is that the worst cause of poverty among children is when the adults in the household lose their job or their business. Therefore, the best outcome one can get for children is that the adults in the household in which the children reside are in a position to get work, either on a full-time or a part-time basis, depending on their care responsibilities. What we had, particularly during the period of the Celtic tiger, and I do not know why, was a steady and significant number of households - one of the highest levels in the EU - where none of the adults in the house was at work, whether it was a lone-parent family or a two-adult household. All of the statistics show that it is joblessness rather than the social welfare system which results in the biggest transfer of income support from people at work to people out of work.

As the OECD has acknowledged time and again, Ireland has the highest rate of jobless households in the European Union. We must focus on helping adults of working age living in households with children into part-time or full-time work or in setting up a business in order that they can enhance their income. Finding employment for parents is the best way to get children out of poverty.

Youth Unemployment Measures

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

5. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the rationale behind her decision to make mandatory the proposed new First Steps programme for disadvantaged young persons. [9401/15]

As presented, the new youth development internship, First Steps, is basically a reincarnation of the JobBridge scheme which is targeted specifically at disadvantaged young people. Why is First Steps a mandatory scheme unlike the much promoted and voluntary JobBridge scheme?

Under the Youth Guarantee implementation plan, the Department committed to developing a developmental internship scheme for young disadvantaged jobseekers. These young people would have faced difficulties, even during the boom period, in securing an interview, not to speak of a job. Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I represent similar parts of Dublin and he will be aware that, throughout the boom, many of the young people in our constituencies did not have access to job opportunities.

The objective of First Steps is to encourage employers to open their doors to such young people and give them an opportunity to learn and develop basic work and social skills while on a placement in a real work scenario. To this end, the Department is canvassing employers to sponsor one or more disadvantaged young persons on an internship of between six and nine months' duration. It is intended that approximately 1,500 young people will benefit from this opportunity.

First Steps differs from JobBridge in that internships will not be advertised by employers. Instead, participants will be identified by the Department and placed with a sponsoring organisation. In addition, the work experience will comprise four days per week on the job compared with five days per week under JobBridge. All participants will receive pre-employment training and will be supported by a dedicated case officer from the Department and a mentor in the sponsoring organisation.

Given the nature of the opportunity to be provided and the commitment that is being asked of employers, it is not unreasonable to ask young persons who have been assessed as being suitable for a placement to take up the placement on offer. The Department, in identifying and assessing potential participants, will take care to ensure they are suited to the placements available and will pay due regard to any reason that may be put forward by young persons as to why the placement is not appropriate in their circumstances.

The Deputy and I both know many young people who were left on the sidelines when the previous recession ended. Many young people in our constituencies became dependent on social welfare immediately after leaving school because they were not afforded opportunities. This scheme is targeted at assisting disadvantaged young persons by giving them work experience and enabling them to progress into employment.

I know many young people who have been assisted in various ways over the years by good employers and teachers, whether on the Youthreach programme or in schools, colleges and small companies. My main problem with the First Steps scheme is that it is not voluntary in contrast with JobBridge, a scheme the Government repeatedly assures us is a voluntary scheme and which is also open to young persons aged 18 years and upwards. Young people will be selected for First Steps and while they may have access to supports, should they decide to leave the scheme as a result of a problem, their social welfare payments could be stopped or cut. This is a large stick with which to beat young people who are disadvantaged and struggling with major difficulties that will not disappear simply because they participate in the First Steps scheme.

The Deputy should examine the results of the successful pilot schemes in Ballymun, from which we are learning. Young persons who participate in the First Steps scheme will have supports, including a case officer to assist and provide support in finding employment. The scheme is a wraparound service targeted at the most disadvantaged young people and those who are most distant from the workforce. Supports, training, case officers and mentoring services will be provided to participants. The scheme is an excellent opportunity for young people to join the workforce, as has been demonstrated by the pilot schemes in Ballymun.

I acknowledge the Deputy's compliment in so far as Youthreach is an excellent service. During my time as chairman of the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee, I was actively involved in Youthreach and other outreach projects.

If the Minister of State believes the argument he has made, the logical step would be to remove from the First Steps scheme the punishment element that will apply to those who, for whatever reason, must leave the programme. This type of stick should not be available in any youth project.

First Steps enjoys considerable support in the areas in which it has been trialled, especially among the wider families of participants. Those who are unemployed, as I was at one point, have a responsibility to seek employment. If a young person has a legitimate reason for not participating in the First Steps scheme, a case officer will be available to work closely with him or her. People who are unemployed need to engage with opportunities that become available. This new scheme has been introduced to help the most disadvantaged young people, a group with which Deputy Ó Snodaigh is very familiar. I expect to table questions to the Deputy in a different capacity at some point in future requesting that he expand First Steps to assist more young people in finding employment. I note also that his party leader has asked for elements of the JobBridge scheme to be expanded.

Top
Share