We are now in public session. We will hear a presentation by the End Child Poverty Coalition. I am pleased to welcome Ms June Tinsley, policy officer, Barnardos, Ms Camille Loftus, head of policy and research, One Parent Exchange and Network, OPEN, and Ms Maria Corbett, deputy chief executive, Children's Rights Alliance. I hope we have a fruitful meeting. Before we hear our guests, I remind members of the parliamentary practice that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration on any matter being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contributions. Members are also reminded that if there is a possibility of there being a conflict of interest they should make a declaration of interest, either now or at the start of their contribution. I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. While it is generally accepted that witnesses should have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. I invite Ms Tinsley to make her opening remarks and to introduce her colleagues, following which I will open the floor to members for questions.
Child Poverty: Discussion with End Child Poverty Coalition.
Ms June Tinsley
I represent Barnardos and attend today as a member of the End Child Poverty Coalition. The coalition is a partnership of seven national non-governmental organisations working together to end child poverty in Ireland. The organisations are Barnardos, the Children's Rights Alliance, the OPEN network, the National Youth Council, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Pavee Point and Focus Ireland.
The work of the coalition is carried out through three mechanisms, namely, raising public awareness to end child poverty, monitoring public policy on child poverty and developing and proposing solutions. The coalition is interested in a number of areas, including child income supports, supports to low-income families, educational disadvantage, early childhood care and education, social housing and youth homelessness. Many of those topics were outlined in our pre-budget submission, which I circulated to members electronically. I also have hard copies of the submission if members want to see it. Bearing in mind the remit of this committee, we will concentrate on just one or two of those areas today.
We welcome the opportunity to make the presentation and to present solutions which will have positive impact on the lives of children in poverty. At present one in nine children in Ireland lives in consistent poverty. We call for decisive action to address this as we believe all children deserve an equal start in life. I invite Ms Camille Loftus from the OPEN network to make a presentation. Ms Maria Corbett is also present today to field questions.
Ms Camille Loftus
Despite very strong economic growth, child poverty remains a significant problem in Ireland. The most recent poverty figures published by the Central Statistics Office show that between 2004 and 2005 there was an increase in the rate of consistent poverty for children aged under 18 of 1%, to 10.7%. Official policy is failing to tackle this important issue. The Government has even failed to meet the child poverty target it set in the national anti-poverty strategy. In the context of the availability of significant resources budget 2007 failed to take the opportunity to make a decisive impact on child poverty.
In September 2006 the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child called on the Government to strengthen its support to families to ensure children were protected against the negative impact of economic hardship on their development and for the introduction of a supplement to the existing universal child benefit payments as an additional targeted allowance to assist families who experience high levels of poverty. To effectively tackle child poverty the coalition is committed to the idea of an integrated mechanism of child income support, which would provide a smooth transition from welfare to work. A proposed mechanism is under consideration in social partnership and we believe it should be progressed at the earliest opportunity. Developing an effective payment structure is a complex matter which requires the focused and urgent attention of both the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
In the interim the coalition is focusing on actions that can be progressed now. We propose these actions in the context of the forthcoming election and advocate that they be included in the resulting programme for Government. Our proposals are also framed in the context of unprecedented increases in the universal child benefit payment in recent years. In light of these increases we have focused on supports targeted at those in greatest need. We note, however, that child benefit is not a completely universal payment. More than 2,200 children seeking asylum have been denied child benefit. Without access to compensating mechanisms these children are very vulnerable to poverty.
For many years the End Child Poverty Coalition has called for increases in child dependant allowances, or qualified child allowances as they are now called. These payments are made to all families reliant on social welfare, including carers, people with disability, lone parents and unemployed people, and so have a critical role to play in tackling child poverty. These allowances were increased for the first time since 1994 in the recent budget and, while the increases were not adequate, they represent a significant policy shift, which we welcome.
The three rates of payment, which stood at €16.80, €19.30 and €21.60 per week depending on the social welfare contingency of the parent, have now been raised to a standard rate of €22. To put this rate in context, if these allowances had been increased in line with rises in the lowest rate of adult social welfare payments since 1994, they would currently stand at €41.74, €47.95 and €52.92, respectively.
The End Child Poverty Coalition stresses that child dependant allowances are more effective and efficient in tackling child poverty than child benefit. We believe that resources should be targeted at this area of child income support in coming years. Although the budgets in 2006 and 2007 made some progress in making work pay, much scope for further improvement remains. Eliminating poverty and unemployment traps in the transition from welfare to work, for example, has a vital role to play in tackling child poverty.
The family income supplement, FIS, is the key mechanism in the social welfare system to support families in low-paid work. It has, however, suffered from very low take-up rates. In recognition of the higher poverty risk for families with three or more children, significant increases in the eligibility thresholds for larger families have been made in the last two budgets, and these are welcomed by the coalition. However, the increases for smaller families have been relatively minor, and such families are much more common. For example, two thirds of one-parent families, which have the highest poverty risk of all households, have only one child. We feel that more generous flat-rate increases are warranted in future budgets.
In addition, we feel there is significant scope for a more proactive administration of FIS to ensure all low-paid families receive the State support to which they are entitled. For example, last year the Department undertook an information campaign relating to FIS which, by the Department's reckoning, resulted in a significant increase in take-up. The coalition believes this campaign should be continued and given a higher profile.
The Department could also be more proactive in assessing possible entitlements in its client base. The onus is on claimants to find out about the scheme and complete an application form. For example, as the Department is alerted to an increase in family income, particularly from employment, it could routinely examine entitlement to FIS and alert families to entitlements. It could request supporting documentation as appropriate.
The back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance is related. The recent budget introduced significant and welcome increases in the rate of payment, but the allowance still falls far short of meeting the cost of sending children back to school. Poverty and unemployment traps remain, especially for lone parents. A couple can remain entitled to the allowance with approximately €485 per week in earnings but a lone parent loses the entitlement with even minimal earnings.
The coalition recommends that the FIS income threshold be used to determine eligibility for the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. Using the same income threshold would ensure all low-income families would be entitled to this valuable support. There is scope for improved administration in this area as the Department could automatically pay this annual allowance to recipients of basic social welfare payments and family income supplement.
We welcome the increased allocation to the school meals scheme in the budget, although it is moderate. The scheme should be more widely available and all children in schools under the DEIS strategy should be entitled to receive school meals. Funding for the scheme should also reflect the capital investment required to deliver quality meals. To ensure all children have access to the books and equipment they need for school, we are calling for the roll-out of a national book rental scheme.
We ask that Members prioritise these proposals as one in every nine children in Ireland remains so poor as to be deprived of the basic necessities of life. That is a damning indictment of the one of the richest countries in the world.
I welcome Ms Tinsley, Ms Loftus and Ms Corbett before us and thank them for the presentation. It was mentioned that one child in nine lives in consistent poverty, but how many in children in total are in this category? Will the witnesses provide some pen pictures on what it means to live in consistent poverty and what they find out when working with families and children in such poverty? Barnardos does much work in this area, for instance, so perhaps some examples could be given without divulging identities. What are the ages of the children involved?
Ms Loftus mentioned that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child spoke of the failure to ensure that children are protected against the negative impact of economic hardship on their development. What does this mean? How does poverty impact negatively on the development of children? People would like to know exactly what happens in this regard.
The Minister and I have had a number of debates on how one measures poverty and I know that Ms Loftus speaks about consistent poverty. Other groups have spoken to this committee about relative income poverty and I would like to know if this is something that should concern us. I say this with regard to the concerns felt by many about rising levels of debt in Ireland, the amounts of money people are borrowing, especially from money lenders, the rates of interest they are paying and the intimidation they are subjected to. We have recently seen some very good exposés on television outlining the problem and it relates to poverty and child poverty so perhaps the witnesses could comment on it.
Today's presentation was confined to matters relevant to this committee but other areas that impact on child development and are related to poverty were also mentioned in the introduction, including housing, health, education and so on. These issues are all linked and I note that a very interesting comment is made in the introduction to the OPEN network's document, Out of the Traps, where it is stated that work does not always prove to be a route out of poverty. The Government tells us that work is the way out of poverty and that people will be fine once they get jobs. Could the witnesses comment on what are known as "the working poor"? In Out of the Traps a number of interesting and detailed tables are given outlining how people move from welfare to work yet may lose out, financially and otherwise, along the way.
It was mentioned that 2,200 children seeking asylum have been denied child benefit and are experiencing consistent poverty. Is this figure included in the overall number? There has been much talk recently about the integration of immigrants into Irish society. What is the impact on these children of gaining asylum here? I note that a number of these children are already in centres. How much time do they spend seeking asylum?
The administration of the various schemes, including the family income supplement, the qualified child allowance and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, was spoken of and this might be something for the Chairman of the committee to consider. The idea that these payments could be amalgamated and targeted has been around for some time and this may have been implied in the presentation given by the witnesses. Has any research been done on linking these payments to the tax system? This has been done in other countries where the payments are automatic. Revenue and the Department of Social and Family Affairs would link together and payment would issue automatically when someone below a certain income threshold is identified. Is this possible?
Having the same means test income thresholds for FIS and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, whereby a person entitled to one would automatically qualify for the other, was mentioned. What are the impediments to this happening? I agree with the witnesses in this regard and cannot see why it should not happen.
People have come to me in October claiming they did not know about the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. Given the system as it stands, I have suggested more than once that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, extend the closing date for receipt of applications for this allowance to Christmas at the earliest. Would it be a good idea to give people who may not know about this allowance the opportunity to apply for it later, or are there problems that I am failing to see?
Ms Tinsley
I will answer what I can, Ms Loftus will speak about levels of debt and the working poor, while Ms Corbett will speak about relative and consistent poverty and the habitual residency clauses.
The Deputy asked what one in nine equates to in overall figures. Based on the 2006 census, it amounts to 111,129 children. As the Deputy mentioned, Barnardos works directly with children who are experiencing poverty on a day-to-day basis. We have seen practical examples of this such as children living in homes that are damp or overcrowded, and children living in substandard private rented accommodation for extended periods while being on the waiting list for social housing. I interviewed a family who lived on a road that was zoned for demolition. All the neighbouring houses were boarded up and the knock-on consequences for the child related to safety and an appropriate place to play.
We have evidence of children going to school hungry. Barnardos is involved with several school meals projects and breakfast clubs. This leads on to our call for the provision of school meals to be rolled out more thoroughly. The impact of back to school costs which families must face can be a noose around their necks at times owing to the level of debt they can get into. We have found that children who are ill-prepared at the outset will automatically start slipping behind if they do not have the proper equipment or support. This can also be a problem if there is not adequate space in the home or support from parents who may not have attended secondary schools. This is a challenge to promoting education within the home and children can sometimes be vulnerable to dropping out of school.
We have evidence of children who have been on public waiting lists for assessments or operations for long periods and this can impact on their development. For example, a seven year old child was diagnosed as having a hole in his eardrum and was promised an operation at age 11. I met him when he was 14 and he had still not been treated. As a result, the hole in his eardrum had grown and this impacted on his development. This is a practical example of how not being able to afford either a private consultant or private treatment can impact on a child's development.
The knock-on consequences of children living in poverty have been well documented globally. These include dropping out of school, unemployment, involvement in anti-social behaviour, crime, drugs, etc.
Ms Maria Corbett
I intend to talk about the poverty figures, the UN committee and the issue of children seeking asylum.
Ms Tinsley has already stated that the number of children in the EU-SILK survey figures, the most recent official figures available on child poverty, stands at more than 110,000. The official statistics are currently gathered for children under the age of 15. We have requested a special run to extend it to include children under the age of 18. It is a small point, but the figures should include those up to 17 years of age. The Government's commitments under the national anti-poverty strategy are defined as being for children aged under 18 years. It is a minor issue but important nonetheless, and it would be useful if we were all working off the same figures. These are the official figures, so that is good. We can circulate this note to the committee if that is useful, because this data is not otherwise available.
The figures have increase by almost 13,000 children in the period 2004-05. That is to take into account the new statistics, namely, the percentages as provided in the new census figures. I appreciate that Ms Tinsley has given the committee real examples based on her work at Barnardos. However, persistent poverty takes into account the income of a family and also a list of deprivation indicators. One such indicator is debt brought about through the problems arising from ordinary living expenses. Gas and other bills may be tipping the family over. Other examples include not being able to afford new clothes or having to resort to wearing second hand clothing. These are quite practical issues.
Ms Loftus may speak more about relative poverty, but the figure is still approximately the same, namely, equivalent to about one child in four. However, the number of children in that category, as captured in the figures, has increased over the two years. I know that there are statistical points that may be argued about, but I can forward them to the committee.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child this year examined Ireland's progress on children's rights. From an international perspective everyone is familiar with the booming economy in Ireland, how it is doing, etc. When the group of international experts from the UN looked at Ireland to determine the poverty ratio and the levels of inadequacy in terms of services and supports, they made their comments in that context. The Deputy asked whether in some areas the impact on children might be felt in educational disadvantage, health and housing, as Ms Tinsley has indicated, This was also picked up by the UN committee which made quite detailed comments. These are available and we can send them to the committee as regards an entire host of areas.
I would like to address the issue of children from asylum-seeking families. I know there is not much time, but the children in those families live within the direct provision system, whereby €19.10 is provided per week for an adult and €9.60 for a child. Their accommodation and food are provided, but apart from this they have very little cash. If there is a problem with the food in the hostel and they wish to buy supplementary foodstuffs, or a child wants something else, such families have to provide for such contingencies from these small cash payments. In effect it means that any item they need has to be sought through the community welfare officer. The discretion will lie with the State official to determine whether the family has access to whatever is required. This can cause real problems for such families.
No research has been done since the introduction of the habitual residency condition on living conditions in these hostels. That is something I am concerned about because before the introduction of the system, when they received child benefit, there were concerns about how these families were managing. Given that they have so little cash, I am quite concerned about what is happening.
In terms of integration it means that children cannot go to birthday parties because they do not have the cash to buy a present. There are obviously difficulties in living in an institution in that people cannot be invited in. As far as I know, such children are not covered by the official statistics because they are living in an institution as opposed to a private house. I can double-check this, but that is my understanding of the position.
In terms of the habitual residency condition, we argue that child benefit is not a social assistance payment and it should never have been introduced under that scheme. This was a political decision, which could be reversed, so that child benefit could be reinstated as a universal payment to all children. Since it was introduced on 1 May 2004, it has impacted on no more than approximately 2,000 children. The numbers are quite small, so the Exchequer savings are minimal. However, it sends a message to the effect that while some children are included in the Government's strategy on poverty, others are not. This has repercussions for the reality of the children affected and also for the way we address children. It is important to address them in an inclusive manner. I apologise if I have taken up too much of the committee's time and will hand over to Ms Loftus.
How long do the children reside on average in the centres?
Ms Corbett
I do not know off the top of my head, but I can get figures. Waiting times have been reduced, but it would not be uncommon for children to spend a number of years in a centre.
Ms Loftus
I will make a couple of points to answer the remaining questions and round off the poverty measurement debate. We think the debate is a red herring, as relative and consistent poverty measurements are relative. In all industrialised societies poverty is measured relative to the standards acceptable in that society. Ms Tinsley and Ms Corbett explained the consistent poverty measurement. It is also worth stating there is no definitive measurement of poverty, as it is not possible to come up with one. We can read the extensive and rather dull literature on poverty measurement to find that there is no agreed measurement.
We have a series of indicators that we use to try to paint a picture. We know that one in four children is living on a very low income and that one in nine children is living in a household where the income is so low that they do without the things we take for granted. It is a consensual measurement. People are asked whether certain things are necessities; if they have them and, if not, is it because they cannot afford them. These necessities include being able to heat one's house, having a substantial meal, or what anyone would recognise as deprivation. The long-term implications are serious. Deputy Stanton has mentioned that debt arising from normal living expenses is one of the indicators and is experienced at a very high rate by lone parents.
The issue has received attention recently. OPEN has done some research on it. It relates to financial exclusion. The Combat Poverty Agency produced research before Christmas which showed that approximately 11% of the population did not have access to banking facilities such as a post office account, access to credit or financial management facilities, which we take for granted as they are tools we use to manage our money. We have access to credit at a lower rate than many of the people about whom we are talking. When a big payment needs to be made on school uniforms and so on, such families pay extraordinarily high rates of interest on their borrowings. The level of financial literacy is such — it is not just the poor who are guilty — that people do not understand the rates of interest they are paying, but they are far in excess of credit card interest rates. We need to focus on financial exclusion more.
The Deputy also mentioned the working poor, an issue close to my heart. It is undoubtedly true that finding decent, sustainable employment is a critical factor in moving families away from poverty. That is not the same as saying that finding a job will take someone away from poverty. Much of the focus on the job losses announced last night was on the quality of the jobs lost. There is a critique that we have been too focused on the number of jobs and have not focused enough on the quality of jobs lost. This problem is embedded in the issue of the working poor. Many of those who obtain work are not securing permanent jobs. They are in temporary positions where they are not guaranteed a number of hours work per week and where there is little predictability on income.
When the rate of unemployment was high in the 1990s, there was much attention on the transition from welfare to work to make sure it was smooth. Once growth picked up and the rate of unemployment began to fall, there was a collective sigh of relief and we felt we did not have to worry about the provision of jobs anymore. However, the levels of employment have not changed in recent years and we are back in unemployment traps. There is no policy rationale behind these issues which are generally the legacy of a system put in place for other reasons. There is no particular reason couples can claim back to school clothing and footwear allowances when they are working but lone parents cannot. There is nothing within the policy system that states this is how we want policy to work — it is just a legacy. Why has it not been changed? I am not sure any of us could answer that question.
The Deputy also referred to the issue of consolidating some of the payments made. We have referred to what is known in the technical jargon in our sector as the second tier payment, the kind of consolidated integrated payment which could more effectively deliver payments to low income families. I agree it could be possible to use the tax system in this regard, although the Deputy has caught me slightly on the hop on the issue. There is an extremely effective system in New Zealand which reaches 98% of the families entitled to receive payments, with a minimum rate of overpayments. Clearly, consolidation is achieveable but, as with any administrative system, there is a substantial momentum against change.
Many moons ago when discussions were taking place on introducing tax credits, my organisation used to refer to the tax credits working group as having 101 reasons we could not have such credits. The Revenue Commissioners did not believe it could be done but tax credits were introduced the same year as the euro changeover took place. We are capable of doing these things but the political will is needed. We need leadership and people to say this is what must happen. Once there is the will, we all know these changes can happen.
There is enormous scope in standardising income allowances and the automatic administration of payments. I will not go into the details but even in terms of information campaigns, we know what has happened in Britain in recent years.
The Deputy has asked for concrete examples of what is meant by consistent poverty. One of the issues I wanted to raise was that of housing and accommodation, as 38% of those on the housing list are lone parents, 13,000 of whom are in rent supplement accommodation. Recently we undertook a survey in conjunction with Threshold. One of the issues that emerged was that the quality of accommodation was very poor and damp frequently presented a problem. Of the children included in the survey, some 45% suffered from asthma, bronchitis and frequently from colds, which has a knock-on impact in costs for the health system and absences from school. However, the most poignant case I encountered — it is an issue on which OPEN hopes to work in coming years — did not concern economic impacts and hard economic indicators. Our development officer recently worked with a group and was told by a mother that she really wanted to be able to take her child to see the sea, as he had never seen it. On a small island such as ours that a child has never been on a beach or played on the sand seems appalling. That is part of what consistent poverty can mean.
I welcome the delegation and thank its members for their presentation. I was somewhat surprised and disappointed to hear Ms Loftus state that Budget 2007 did not go far enough, given that the increases in child benefit to combat child poverty in 2005, 2006 and 2007 were unprecedented in the history of the State, as agreed even by Fr. Seán Healy from CORI.
I was interested to hear from the delegation how it measured poverty. The incidence of illnesses such as bronchitis and asthma is on the increase among children, in particular those under seven years of age, regardless of where they live. My own children and nieces and nephews are with the doctor every other week with respiratory problems. Perhaps the figure of 45% to which Ms Loftus referred is increasing.
Ms Tinsley spoke about a child who had been diagnosed with an ear condition at seven years of age and promised an operation at 11 but at 14 had received no treatment. This is alarming. Did the child not qualify for treatment under the National Treatment Purchase Fund?
The delegates have made the point that child benefit does not cover all children in the State because it is not allocated to the children of asylum seekers. There was a debate recently about the fact that the benefit is available to parents from all EU countries working in the State. Is there a precedent in any other European country, whereby all asylum seekers, regardless of nationality, are covered for child benefit? It might be useful to examine whether any other states go further than Ireland in this regard.
I, too, welcome the delegates and thank them for their interesting contribution. The point was made that family income supplement, FIS, was a key mechanism in efforts to tackle child poverty but that there was a low take-up. Is this primarily because of a lack of information on the scheme? What do the delegates believe should be done to improve the take-up? It is a progressive scheme which should, theoretically, be removing families on low incomes from the poverty trap.
I was interested in Deputy Stanton's query about the definition of poverty used to compile the statistics that were referenced. I listened to the explanations in this regard but I am no wiser as to what criteria gave rise to the figure of one in nine, or 11%, which seems high. Given that our unemployment rate, at 4.5%, is half that in Germany, France and several other EU states, one might assume there would not be that extent of poverty. This apparent anomaly may well bring us back to the question of the definition used.
Has any analysis been undertaken of the categories of children who come within the definition of poverty? We must identify the categories because the difficulties involved may need to be addressed in different ways. The delegates referred specifically to asylum seekers and lone parent families. In regard to those on low incomes, I assumed the minimum wage would have a major impact, particularly on those in full-time as opposed to part-time employment, in reducing the incidence of poverty. I was surprised to learn recently that in another rich country, Japan, the minimum wage was only slightly more than half that in Ireland. I understood the minimum wage was pitched at a level that would avoid setting people, particularly those in full-time employment, into poverty. Are the delegates aware of breaches of the minimum wage legislation?
The difficulties experienced by parents who do not have the skills to manage the resources available to them, which, although not abundant, should be adequate to meet their needs have not been mentioned. This lack of skills is not the fault of the parents in question, who may well have been reared by parents with similar difficulties. It is a key function of the education system to break this cycle of disadvantage. Retaining children in school should be one of the highest priorities in tackling the cycle of poverty.
A distinction must be made between accommodation in Dublin and other cities and that in provincial towns and rural areas. In some provincial towns, including my home town, the housing list is quite short. Moreover, a large proportion of people on the list are in rented accommodation and avail of the rent subsidy. Such people are often reluctant to move to local authority housing because they are highly satisfied with the quality of the private accommodation. My point is there is a danger of generalisation in this regard and if one generalises, the solutions may not specifically target the requisite areas.
Ms Loftus
I thank the members. I will begin and my colleagues will join me thereafter. I will respond first to Senator Feeney's highly important point on the argument in respect of child benefit and child dependant allowances. As child benefit goes to everyone, regardless of whether one is rich or poor, it is a highly expensive payment to increase. We have acknowledged that the increases in recent years have been unprecedented and highly significant. The problem is that such increases tend to soak up a great deal of public funds and are spread relatively thinly. As exactly the same amount of child benefit goes to people at the top and bottom ends of the income distribution table, it does not affect the relative balance between the two.
Does Ms Loftus suggest it should be means tested or taken away from those whom she states do not need it?
Ms Loftus
Our pre-budget submission proposed a slightly lower increase in child benefit. An increase in child benefit that was €1 or €2 lower would have enabled a significantly larger increase in the child dependant allowance. This is simply because far fewer people receive it. I refer to the balance between them. I do not suggest that one should get rid of child benefit, which is a subject that we do not have time to discuss. While I will happily discuss means testing child benefit with members at some other point, this constitutes a different set of issues. Our point is that while a large amount of resources are involved, they are spread very thinly and consequently have relatively little impact on poverty. Although child benefit makes a good contribution towards child welfare, it has relatively little impact on poverty.
In respect of the issue concerning poverty measurement-----
Did the last budget not take a step in the direction to which Ms Loftus refers?
Ms Loftus
Yes, it did.
While it may have been a small step, the fact it was taken is highly significant. Am I correct in saying this was the first time this was done?
Ms Loftus
It was the first time since 1994 and was welcomed by the End Child Poverty Coalition, which views it as a highly important development and a recognition of the need for such targeting. Our exercise, which considered what the rates in question would have been had that policy not been implemented, provides an indication of the existing scope in this respect.
I will briefly run through the definition of consistent poverty. A number of indicators of deprivation are used and I will try to avoid sending the members to sleep in this regard. Two measurements are combined. First, one must be below the poverty line, that is, 60% of median income, which is the income that occurs most frequently.
Is it the average income?
Ms Loftus
To be technical, this refers to median income, rather than to average income.
It refers to median income, which is different.
Ms Loftus
It is a slightly different figure. One must be below that figure and one must have suffered enforced deprivation of at least one of eight indicators. The word "enforced" means it was not a lifestyle choice.
Can Ms Loftus provide an amount in respect of the figure of 60%?
Ms Loftus
In respect of its level?
Yes.
Ms Loftus
In 2005, the Central Statistics Office put this at €185.51 for a single individual. In respect of a lone-parent family with one child, I have used the consumer price index to increase this amount to a rate that comes to €256.48 at present.
I note that a valid point was raised in respect of money management. However, even when all the increases of recent years are taken into account, the social welfare rate for lone-parent families remains below this level.
When one is below this level, one is deemed officially to be at risk of poverty. This is the definition used by the Government and the European Union. A person who is at risk of poverty and is suffering enforced deprivation is unable to afford to purchase one of the following items: a substantial meal on at least one day in the past two weeks; two pairs of strong shoes; a roast or its equivalent once a week; a meal with meat, chicken, fish or a vegetarian alternative once a week; new rather than second-hand clothes; or a warm, waterproof coat. Alternatively, one was obliged to go without heating at some point in the past year or one has experienced debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses. If a person cannot afford to do one of these eight things, he or she is in consistent poverty. To be clear, this is not our estimation; it is the estimation of the Central Statistics Office of the figures involved.
Senator Jim Walsh also asked which groups of children are most likely to be in consistent poverty. Children from lone-parent families have the highest rate, while children from families of three or more or from Traveller families also suffer a very high rate. Although we do not have hard data to show it, we can say anecdotally that children from families seeking asylum will also suffer a high rate of poverty.
What is the reason for this? We now move on to the family income supplement and the minimum wage. Clearly, FIS should have enormous potential. It is a very progressive payment, which the Department of Social and Family Affairs reckons is between 30% to 40%. Consultants engaged by the Department are investigating why the take-up rate is so low. My view is that many people are concerned that it involves fraud — one cannot be working and claiming social welfare at the same time.
On a purely anecdotal basis derived from my experience of working with communities like these, I think there is some merit in considering the idea of administering the payment through the tax system. When many people get work, they are very happy to be free of the social welfare system and do not wish to have anything further to do with it. Conceptually, they want to be free of the system. I can give the committee a PhD research paper produced in New Zealand on this matter because the system used there is very interesting. The system in New Zealand gets the payment out to practically everybody it is supposed to reach. The tax system makes an estimation. The Government in New Zealand has carried out testing to see if substantial overpayments are being made and has found that this is not the case. New Zealand has a similar-size population to Ireland so it seems to be something at which we could look.
I also wish to refer to rent allowance and local authority housing. Senator Jim Walsh's point is extremely valid. It is clearly not a consistent picture across the country and some of the people who are on the local authority list are also on rent supplement. However, it is becoming very obvious in terms of the administration-----
Must one give them rent supplement?
Ms Loftus
Yes and no. The OPEN network carried out some research with Threshold on the new rental accommodation scheme, which we recently presented in the Combat Poverty Agency. We spoke with local authority officers who are implementing the scheme and officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. One thing that is becoming clear is that under the process they have used so far, community welfare officers have passed their files dealing with people in receipt of rent supplement for a certain number of years over to local authorities and asked the local authorities to examine these people's entitlement.
One issue that emerged from this relates to some people who have been in receipt of rent supplement for a number of years. I remember one case where a person who had been in receipt of it for 11 years changed address, had either failed to communicate it to the local authority or that communication had got lost somewhere along the line, and had dropped off the list. Therefore, this person had been in need of social housing for the past 11 years. She has been living in a private rented flat and claiming rent supplement but has not been on the local authority list at the same time.
The officials implementing the scheme are beginning to realise that a number of things are popping up in terms of its implementation. We hope the rental accommodation scheme has the scope to address the issue referred to by Senator Jim Walsh, namely, that sometimes people living in private rented accommodation have a good relationship with their landlords and want to stay there. The rental accommodation scheme should be able to allow them to do this.
Ms Corbett
It is unfortunate that Senator Feeney is no longer here, but I will comment briefly on her question about asylum-seeking children and children from asylum-seeking families. The picture across Europe is quite varied as to whether countries have universal or targeted payments and how they organise their provisions for asylum seekers. What happened in Ireland was quite unique whereby families were receiving the payment which was withheld from any new incoming families. In cash terms, the loss of child benefit impacted on between 40% and 70% of the family's weekly income. Whether a single parent with two children or two parents with three children, the impact of the loss of the payment varied depending on the make-up of the family.
Of three or four families living in the same accommodation centre, two may get child benefit while the others do not, depending on when they entered the country. Our difficulty with this is that no compensation measure was put in place to support families and no research or investigation has been carried out to determine how people are coping.
If one's cash payment is small enough, one is entitled to a medical card and basic medicines, but if one needs an over-the-counter medicine for a child and does not have the cash or the time to visit a community welfare officer, what can one do? It is an unknown area. The payment is made in respect of a small number of children, but we would like it to be restored as a universal payment. It is a political decision and would tie in well with policies on integration, such as integrating children in local schools and pre-schools.
Some 90% of asylum seekers do not qualify for refugee status.
Ms Corbett
This is about the quality of life children experience while living here, regardless of whether they are citizens or whether they will be deported. They should have a right not to live in poverty. We are not concerned about the outcome of their cases. If we are providing services to people living here, we should ensure that they have an adequate income.
Ms Tinsley
A question was asked about the low take-up of FIS. While Ms Loftus outlined a number of areas, the other matter that springs to mind is the process applicants must go through, namely, they must go to their employers to verify that the details are right. This can be a stumbling block for people, particularly if they are taking up low-paid jobs and are reluctant to engage. This can be a deterrent in the take-up of FIS.
On the question of why those on the national minimum wage are still experiencing poverty, it is true that Ireland has a high minimum wage, which is reflective of our high cost of living. People on the minimum wage benefit most if they work full time, 40 hours per week, but for those engaged in part-time, casual or seasonal employment, their patterns of employment make it more difficult to break the cycle of poverty.
An issue close to the heart of the End Child Poverty Coalition is that of the cost of child care, which can be a stumbling block to people taking up employment.
We have had a valuable meeting and I thank everyone who attended. It is obvious from the discussion that progress has been made, but that we still have a little way to go. If our guests agree, the committee will send copies of their presentation and the meeting's discussion to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I suggest that we continue in private session for the remainder of the meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.