Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 2009

Poverty and Social Exclusion: Discussion with End Child Poverty Coalition.

I welcome the members of the End Child Poverty Coalition, including Mr. John Mark McCafferty of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Mr. Patrick Nulty of Focus Ireland and Ms Camille Loftus of OPEN.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I ask Mr. McCafferty to commence the presentation.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

The End Child Poverty Coalition welcomes this opportunity to appear before the joint committee. The coalition consists of seven national non-governmental organisations that work together to tackle child poverty. They are Barnardos, the Children's Rights Alliance, Focus Ireland, the National Youth Council of Ireland, the One Parent Exchange and Network, OPEN, Pavee Point and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

I propose to make a presentation after which I will be joined by my colleagues, Mr. Patrick Nulty of Focus Ireland and Ms Camille Loftus of OPEN, in fielding members' questions. First known as the Open Your Eyes to Child Poverty Initiative, our organisation was renamed the End Child Poverty Coalition in 2003. The aim of the coalition is to end child poverty in Ireland. Our work is underpinned by the three objectives of monitoring public policy to end child poverty, promoting policy analysis and policy and structural solutions to end child poverty and raising awareness about the persistence of child poverty.

I will comment briefly on the economic context and need to protect the most vulnerable in society in the short term because these issues are exercising the minds of Deputies, Senators and everyone else. I will provide several key statistics on child poverty and outline the experiences of some of those we represent. Members will have received case studies from the various organisations involved in the coalition. These speak for themselves and show the lived experience of child poverty. I will also briefly refer to policy concerns about services before summing up.

The End Child Poverty Coalition welcomes the facts that child poverty has reduced and policies have made inroads in its reduction. However, there is a risk that a lack of sustained investment combined with rising unemployment will increase child poverty again. This is a matter of grave concern. In this regard, the coalition acknowledges the difficulties faced by the State in terms of declining revenue and increasing demand on services and income supports. We are also aware of the process of adjustments to expenditure amounting to €2 billion this year alone. The coalition is, therefore, mindful of the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves.

At the same time, the need to protect the most vulnerable is a stated priority for Government and one which features in the framework document agreed by the social partners. Strategic decisions must be taken now which will maximise the ability of all members of society, including children, to take part in the economic recovery. In the short term, a number of concerns facing families require urgent action. These include social welfare processing times, house repossession and access to money advice and budgeting services.

Government must respond in key and immediate ways to protect families in need. It must redeploy civil servants to ensure applications for job seeker's benefit and allowance are processed urgently, that is, within days rather than weeks or months. I am also mindful of recent representations made on behalf of the community welfare service, which has been inundated by requests for benefits. While increased resources have been made available by the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the community welfare service remains the responsibility of the Health Service Executive which is precluded from increasing expenditure. This is causing a major bottleneck for families.

We also call for the introduction of measures to ensure no person loses his or her home through inability to pay for a period of two years, rather than the one year currently envisaged. The Government must also ensure a sufficient number of budget advisers is employed with the Money Advice and Budgeting Service to assist people in devising household budget plans and survival strategies. This could involve the secondment of public sector workers to MABS. The coalition has evidence of significant waiting lists in particular areas and several of the member organisations of the coalition are in contact with the Office for Social Inclusion on this issue because MABS operates under the auspices of the OSI.

The Government must ensure applications for secondary benefits such as rent supplement and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance are processed as a matter of urgency. It must prioritise a strategic review of how the social welfare system interacts with the labour market to maintain and sustain as many people in employment as possible. As part of this objective, consideration should be given to allowing, even on a temporary basis, greater flexibility in the working hours requirement to qualify for family income supplement.

I propose to briefly refer to some of the statistics on the extent and experience of child poverty, although our concern is predominately the lived experience of families and children in poverty. According to figures from the 2007 EU survey of income and living conditions carried out by the Central Statistics Office, the consistent poverty rate for children fell from 10.3% in 2006 to 7.4% in 2007. While this is a welcome development, children had higher consistent poverty rates than working age adults or older people and account for nearly 40% of all those in consistent poverty. Children continue to make up a large proportion of those who experience income poverty and deprivation and continue to be the age group most at risk of poverty, with a rate of slightly less than 20%. This compares with an at risk of poverty rate of 15% among people of working age. It is because children are at more risk of poverty than any other definable age group in the population that the coalition came together. The case studies can be found at the end of the document supplied to the joint committee.

While the coalition is very concerned about what is currently taking place, we are all concerned to ensure the Government makes a commitment to manage and reduce child poverty. For this reason, we have drawn up a set of medium-term policy objectives. One of our priorities is to ensure an increase in basic social welfare payments for families. Poor children do not exist in isolation but grow up in poor households with poor parents. Child income support alone is not sufficient to tackle child poverty and must be combined with measures that ensure an adequate income for parents. To this end, the Government should ensure the value of basic social welfare payments to poor families. For example, the one-parent family payment and jobseeker's allowance, must be at least in excess of the "at risk of poverty" threshold. While this may appear to be an erudite measure, this is the threshold used to measure poverty. The rates of payment must, therefore, tick this box and raise families and children above the "at risk" threshold. The qualified child payment, a targeted child income support for the poorest families, should be increased and thereby contribute in a more efficient manner to lifting the incomes of poor families above the "at risk of poverty" threshold.

Family income supplement, FIS, is a key vehicle for encouraging families to move from welfare to work and keeping vulnerable people in work. It is a weekly payment designed to support families who are in low paid employment. To qualify for the payment the recipient must work at least 19 hours per week. Social welfare supports such as jobseeker's allowance are not a magic bullet and FIS has a key role to play in addressing child poverty. We are concerned that many families wait for long periods to receive the payment after they apply.

In light of the fact that the pattern of part-time work and irregular hours is likely to be more common as a result of the recession, the Government must consider taking certain steps. We urge it to do the following: increase the income thresholds relating to FIS; raise the payment rate; make the payment automatic to eligible families which, as other NGOs suggested to the committee, could be done through a greater integration of the tax and welfare system; and make it available to more families whose members are in low-paid work and whose hours are irregular.

We realise that not all of this can happen overnight. However, we are providing a number of key pointers with regard to the immediate situation in which we find ourselves. We have also outlined the long-term policy framework to which we are committed and which we will continue to progress.

We are also interested in access to services. We are aware that direct service provision does not, in the main, come within the remit of the committee. However, since this matter is germane to the committee's work, I intend to comment on it in the context of the areas of education, health and housing.

Two of our major concerns relate to the provision of early childhood care and education. The first few years of a child's life are the most critical in the context of learning, development and socialisation. The remedial action in which we have been investing is difficult and costly to implement and is often too late.

For children living in poverty, preschool could be the first step that sets them on a path away from such poverty. It breaks the cycle and has major potential in the context of reducing individuals' dependence down the line. The lack of affordable, flexible and quality early childhood education and care and after-school care restricts parents' employment options and denies children the opportunity to develop to the greatest degree possible. This means that some families remain locked into a cycle of poverty. Provision of the services to which I refer must be safeguarded and expanded. There is a need for a major investment in this regard.

The Government must address educational disadvantage in an effective way during the next three years by fully implementing the DEIS strategy of 2005 and the Traveller education strategy of 2006. In addition, it must increase access to medical cards as a way to close the gap between rich and poor in respect of health care. The increase in the number of people receiving social welfare payments as a result of redundancies will in any event necessitate that more individuals and families will be eligible for medical cards.

The most recent assessment of housing need carried out at the end of last year indicates that at least 59,000 households are in need of social housing, which represents an increase of over 30% since 2005. This development has taken everyone, including NGOs, by surprise. We knew matters were bad but we did not realise they were that bad. Over half of the households to which I refer are likely to be comprised of families with children. In 2005, three quarters of the families on the waiting list were one-parent families. The latter wait longer for housing than any other household type. The families of some 36,000 children were on local authority waiting lists in 2005. It is fair to assume that when a detailed breakdown is provided in respect of the 2008 assessment by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, this figure will have increased.

The coalition calls on the Government to make rent supplement more employment-friendly by bringing the means assessment into line with differential rent schemes. Rent supplement is extremely important to families for which poverty is a matter of concern at present.

We have set out the challenging economic and revenue context and what we believe to be the appropriate remedial actions that need to be taken. However, we are duty bound by those we represent to remind the committee of the ongoing needs of children and families living in poverty and the kind of solutions required in the context of income supports and access to public services. We acknowledge that substantial resources are required to protect children who are living in poverty or who are at risk of poverty and that the Exchequer is facing significant shortfalls in tax revenue at present. As a result, the coalition favours a broadening of the tax base as a means of raising revenue and preventing the type of cutbacks in essential services that will impact on the most vulnerable. The opportunity exists to design a tax system with an emphasis on a fairer, progressive and more sustainable tax regime, with a reduced reliance on indirect taxation as a means of generating revenue. It is our experience that indirect taxation really affects those on the lowest incomes and that is a matter of major concern.

The submission circulated to members contains information on a number of case studies carried out by the various members of the End Child Poverty Coalition. These studies provide a genuine indication of what it is like to be in need as a child and how we are responding to that need. I welcome any questions members may wish to pose.

I welcome our guests and thank them for the information they have provided to Members of the Houses, particularly in the context of the recent Private Members' motion on child poverty tabled by the Labour Party. It is good that the various bodies have come together to work towards meeting the needs of children. I thank Mr. McCafferty for his brief but comprehensive presentation.

What is our guests' view on the issue of deploying public servants to expedite payments to people who were never previously obliged to rely on social welfare but who have been placed in the sad position of having to do so now? The people to whom I refer never experienced poverty to this extent before. Are our guests in a position to supply figures or statistics in respect of the number of children who are likely to be affected in this regard?

Reference was made to a bar on funding for the provision of community welfare services by the HSE. Deputy Enright also referred to this matter, in quite strong terms, on a recent occasion. I have been approached by people at my clinics who have experienced long delays in respect of payments to which they are entitled. One gentleman first applied for social welfare payments last July but only received assistance from his community welfare officer in the past couple of weeks. The individual in question has a number of outstanding bills but he has received no support whatsoever.

While the Government, by asking the banks to be understanding, has gone some way towards ameliorating the position with regard to the repossession of people's homes, I am of the view that it should inform those institutions that people should be given breathing space of two years rather than one in the context of making alternative arrangements with regard to their finances. Some people have been obliged to wait 16 hours in accident and emergency departments before being treated, but the focus appears to have been placed on the lies and skullduggery that are rife within our banks. I am seriously concerned that those who do not have a voice, particularly children, will be forgotten. The case studies provided by our guests highlight a number of typical examples in that regard.

Education is the only means by which children can escape the poverty in which they find themselves. When canvassing in a local authority housing estate on the night before last, I met a young girl who is working towards her leaving certificate and whose older sibling is in college. The individual in question wants to study psychology at Maynooth when she completes her leaving certificate. She asked me how her family will be able to afford an entry fee of €1,500 and also inquired as to how she will progress if third level fees are reintroduced. This girl is doing really well in school and I am concerned about her and others like her.

I thank our guests for appearing before us and for highlighting a number of issues, particularly those relating to lone parents.

I welcome the fact that the End Child Poverty Coalition brings various groups together. This provides members with a more productive way to deal with the issues involved and to interact with our guests.

The first matter to which I wish to refer is the contention that the qualified child payment is a targeted support. I would like to hear the views of the delegation on the idea of having a second tier child payment for less well-off families. I know there are varied views on the best options. I asked CORI about this two weeks ago and the summation of its answer was that it does not agree with it. What are the views of the delegation?

It is one way of targeting people as it will only be paid to people on social welfare and may be another way to address the problem. There may be concerns about people who are on the minimum wage and do not receive social welfare, but are still living on a very low income and would not be able to access the benefit, whereas they may fall into a net if there was a second tier payment.

The issue of family income supplement has arisen consistently in this committee. To be fair, there was a better targeted campaign a number of years ago to try and make more people aware of it. The numbers availing of it still do not seem to be what they should be. I find when people come to me they genuinely have not heard about it until I tell them it is available. People are savvy enough about what is available.

I take on board the delegation's suggestion about linking the systems to the Revenue Commissioners and making it automatic. However, I would question the speed at which that would be delivered. What does the delegation think can be done in the interim? The same applies to farm assistance, an issue I raised recently. There are rural families who are living in extreme poverty and when one looks at the number who receive farm assistance — I gave the example of my own constituency — versus the number of farmers who are on very low income, as outlined in the CSO figures, there is definitely a real issue. If families are poor, children will be poor.

I was interested in some of the case studies, and one which hit me is that of Barnardos. It gave the example of Michael and Aoife not qualifying for unemployment benefit and having to wait to receive other benefits. What is the experience of the people in the examples when they visit community welfare officers? Looking at that example, I know if I raised it in the Dáil I would be told the couple should have gone to the community welfare officer. I met community welfare officers last week to discuss difficulties and I know they are experiencing the same delays.

Regarding the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the one point which must be made in terms of delays is that when a community welfare officer makes an interim payment while a person is waiting for unemployment assistance to be paid, they do an almost identical assessment to the one the Department is taking 12 to 16 weeks to do. Community welfare officers are doing it in five days and are dealing with very long queues.

I cannot understand why the Department system cannot be as efficient as community welfare officers, bearing in mind how much pressure they are under. They do not give out a payment unless they are sure the person is entitled to it and know they will recoup that money when the person gets unemployment assistance. I do not know if the delegation has any answers as to where the system falls down.

Is there a way we can reassure people more, through the delegation or this committee? The case studies outline people's ESB bills, gas bills and mortgages. I have never been in touch with anyone regarding an ESB or gas bill where they have not come to an arrangement with the relevant people to sort it out. Sometimes I think people are just not opening the envelopes. If the ESB hears nothing from people the service will probably be cut. People need to be told they need to communicate with such companies.

On the mortgage issue, Senator McFadden said the Government should be telling banks what to do and I agree with her completely. One difficulty is that the banks we are currently recapitalising are unfortunately not the ones who are the worst in terms of how they treat people. Such banks cannot be named here. It is a real issue and they are not the banks who have been helped in the last number of weeks.

Some of these banks went out and actively encouraged people to consolidate their loans. If one had a house loan, a credit union loan and a car loan, these companies went out and told people to put them all together and put them against one's house. A community welfare officer can only assist someone regarding the portion of a loan that deals with their house, even though they may be at risk of loosing the whole house because of the way the loans are structured. It is an issue which needs to be examined and changed. I would like to hear the views of the delegation.

Deputy Charlie O'Connor took the Chair.

My colleague, Deputy Healy-Rae, has to meet a delegation.

I thank the delegation for the presentation. It set out five points on ensuring jobseeker's allowance is paid on time and measures to deal with the inability of people to hold together any kind of payments for a mortgage or house rented from a council.

I would like to raise the issue of living conditions. I come from the inner city of Dublin and have represented the area on Dublin City Council for last ten years. Through the years I have been appalled at the substandard living conditions in some of the council complexes. I visited one recently and was taken into a flat. I have seen better dog kennels. Some of the accommodation is appalling.

There are cutbacks in the council now and Dublin South-Central has been assigned one plumber to facilitate all the council houses. If one has a leaking tap, it will probably still be the same in six months or a year's time. The issue of child poverty must centre on children having proper living conditions. If a child is not reared in a healthy, warm environment and does not have a basic standard of living with a decent roof over his or her head, that child is already living in poverty.

I have problems with the number of greedy landlords who are taking major sums of money from social welfare and providing a standard of accommodation which is appalling. I cannot understand why the Department of Social and Family Affairs does not make sure such properties are properly inspected, which they do not seem to be, before money is handed over. I have numerous photographs of properties I have visited in the private rented sector that are well below the standard of any accommodation, even that provided by Dublin City Council. One can imagine the conditions. Something must be done about the issue of rent supplement. Now that the price of rented accommodation is going down it is time for the Minister to look into the matter. People are being provided with accommodation that is below standard and the issue should be looked at immediately.

The delegation spoke about education. Anybody who lives in the inner city will tell us when 29% of the children are leaving school without being able to read and write, there is a serious problem which will only get worse and will add more to the poverty of children. One thing which really upset me last year was the child care subvention introduced by the Government. As a parent, I have been involved in one or two community playgroups, as a volunteer, down through the years. My understanding of community playgroups was that everyone in the community helped each other and parents also got involved. When the subvention was introduced, community playgroups and parents within them were isolated. There was a full range and mix of children using them but now there are groups where everybody is either on social welfare or is paying privately. It has completely destroyed the whole idea of what community playgroups and crèches are. The system is in tatters.

I know of two community groups who have closed down their playschools in the last six months. One was running for 25 years, did a very good job and helped children who were very vulnerable. It is appalling that groups such as the delegation have to pick up the pieces. If we are really serious about bringing children out of child poverty, we must look at education and basic education from the day they go into playschool.

Another issue I have come across through the years is that of very young people who themselves have young families. Some of them are practically children. Trying to raise a two or three year-old child when one is 18 or 19 is a very difficult situation to be in. We need to look deeply into how parenting is provided and taught through schools. If we do not look at the issue, many young people will not have basic parenting skills.

I am involved in a school and am on the parents' council. We set up our own parenting group approximately ten years ago. It was probably one of the most successful initiatives undertaken in the school. Mothers and grandmothers who had reared their families came into the school and gave basic parenting lessons to many young mothers. It was an eye-opener for people in the community. We are now in recession, but we will not talk about it because there is no point in depressing us.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other groups are very focused on communities. We need to focus on communities. We need to open our doors and work in the community with people. We can have all the statutory agencies in the world but we need people to come outside their doors and become involved with people where they live and care about their neighbours. I grew up in a council house where everybody knew everybody on the road and one's door was always open. We now live in a society where people close their door in the evening and do not want to know what is going on. If we are to have any chance of getting out of the recession it will not happen through the banks but through people power when people in their communities come back out on to the street and get involved in their communities. If we do that we will bring some sense into our communities.

Poverty is not only about resources, it is about how we treat our children in our schools, youth clubs, communities and in our homes. If we do not begin to look again at what worked 30 years ago, that is, real community involvement, in five years' time the recession will be ten times worse than it is now. I thank the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, with whom I have had dealings for many years and long before I got into politics. The only way to combat child poverty in our communities is to work through a group such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

Yesterday I received a letter from a lady who has taken early retirement and she was anxious to get involved in the local community. I telephoned her this morning and told her to report to her nearest Society of St. Vincent de Paul office and become a volunteer. If nothing else happens, at least she will understand what happens on the ground. There is much more I could say but time is of the essence. I believe child poverty will be a real issue in the future and particularly in the next five years. We need to look particularly at children and education.

I wish to be associated with what has been said. I do not want to get Deputy Byrne into trouble by saying the views she expresses are compatible with mine. I belong to a different political party but we are almost of the same generation and we are both from the inner city. I was born around these parts and lived in Crumlin and Tallaght. I did not say the Deputy was the same age as me but almost——

We have the same colour hair if nothing else.

Yes. I have said previously that I bring to politics my own experiences. I went home three times to my then young family, having lost my job. I am lucky now, although I could lose my job again. I understand the challenges and particularly want to focus on what Deputy Byrne said about voluntarism. As it so happens, a group based in Tallaght, the South Dublin Volunteer Bureau, appeared before the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment last week. It is important that we support what they said. Deputy Byrne has made the point that there is always an opportunity for people to volunteer their services to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other organisations. I have told people recently that having voluntarism on their CV helps secure job opportunities. It was certainly true in my case and I know other colleagues would agree.

I echo the point made by Senator McFadden that this is a very political time. The media is constantly debating national politics and the serious issues of the day. In the midst of all this we have to remember that groups such as the delegation have always had to compete with everything else that was going on. I have often said that at a time when big boats were doing well, one still had to remember the little boats. Certainly if the big boats were struggling, one almost definitely has to look after the little boats. Without being patronising, that is the way I would see my commitment to social inclusion. It is important to say that. Some of us have different perspectives about issues but it is important that we understand that people are under more pressure. There is a new brand of poverty at present. There are people in our communities who were never poor are now finding things difficult. It has come as a great shock to them. To some extent we have fallen from a height.

I do not disagree with Deputy Enright's point that we must continue to put pressure on the Government to make available all the resources necessary to deal with this crisis. I read an article during the week claiming that community welfare officers said they are being put under pressure and have to be properly resourced. Speaking from the Fianna Fáil benches, I get as many calls about delays with social welfare payments as anybody else. That is happening in Tallaght and the wider region and throughout Dublin.

While we are all politicians from different parties, the delegates will gather there is a certain amount of co-operation between us at this level. It is important that we support all those views. I ask the delegates to deal with the questions raised and them to sum up.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

Given that I have already given my presentation I will hand over to Ms Camille Loftus and Mr. Patrick Nulty. If any issues remain to be covered I will pick up on them. I ask Ms Camille Loftus to take up some of these issues, especially the income supports.

Ms Camille Loftus

I thank members for their generous comments. Probably the most pressing issue for us is the rapidly growing unemployment rate and the likely impact that will have on child poverty. We already have one of the highest child poverty rates in the industrialised world, notwithstanding that we made some progress in the past year. That is largely a legacy of the very high levels of unemployment we previously experienced. The real risk is that we may have a whole new generation in poverty if we fail to address the present situation. There are two levels of poverty. On one level many of the issues have already been named such as, the speed and efficiency of the response that the system provides when people are unfortunate enough to lose their jobs. Members made the point in regard to dual processing in the SWA system and in the regular social welfare system. Clearly it is not efficient and questions have to be asked as to why these things cannot be done better. One of the most dispiriting aspects, if one has to present to the social welfare system and is hopeful about getting back to work, is that the level of apparent disorganisation and inefficiency does not inspire confidence. In fairness, one has to give some credit to the people who have been working at the coalface processing social welfare claims. I understand the officials have managed to do heroic tasks during the past month. Given that it is not possible to sustain that level of work on an ongoing basis the resource implications need to be considered.

Deputy Enright mentioned the low take-up of FIS. While I do not have up-to-date figures, until recently lone parents on the OPEN board contacted me in respect of their FIS applications which were taking up to eight months to process. When a person takes up a low paid job, one of the problems with FIS is that the limits are too low. The level of supplement provided for families in low paid employment simply is not adequate but it is a lifeline that can hold people in a job that is not adequate to support a family. It is just not possible to wait eight months to get that level of support. We had these problems long before we had the disastrous unemployment figures in recent months. Counter-level civil servants have done heroic work to try to address these problems but we cannot comfort ourselves by thinking this is sustainable in the long term without systematically reviewing the resources available to the Department.

I wish to talk broadly about what the social welfare system can do to play a role not only in dealing with the catastrophe that happens when people lose jobs, but also in deciding whether it can be more proactive in helping to keep people in jobs. As many are facing reduced hours, I argue there is much we can do. The conditions associated with receipt of social welfare payments are rigid and structured for a labour market that does not operate any more. It was structured around the idea that there was a mother and father in every household and that mum stayed at home while dad went out to work in a full-time, nine-to-five job to earn enough money to support the household. This is not the labour market with which we engage any more, yet we have a social welfare system that was designed for another time and is not adequate to respond to the constraints being placed on it now. We need to start building in much more flexibility to the system. In addition, we need to be much more proactive in engaging with employers and saying that if they are having difficulties, perhaps there is a way by which we can combine a lot of the things spoken about here. People can retain some employment income, supplemented with social welfare income, and ensure they have access to the training and education they need in order to avail of better economic conditions when they do, as we all hope, return. We need to be proactive in dealing with this matter because unless we do something about it swiftly, the numbers likely to be wholly dependent on social welfare payments by the end of the year could limit the scope for any other actions taken. I cannot overstate the urgency of taking action now to ensure the social welfare system can help people to address the difficulties they are facing.

I wish to comment on the question asked about the second tier income support payment. The point we make in our presentation is that, given that we have constrained economic resources at our disposal, we need to ensure they go to the households that need them most. We have proposed doing this via qualified child allowance increases and family income supplement simply because these are the mechanisms in place. Every member of the coalition is on record as saying they think that moving to a second tier child income support payment, allowing for seamless support for those wholly reliant on social welfare payments and movement into low-paid employment, would mark a significant improvement to the level of support provided for families. Every member of the coalition would support such a move unequivocally. However, one could not do all this in the morning, but one could put money into qualified child allowance increases and family income supplement. In addition, one could ease up on administration and make systems more flexible, while delivering resources to poor households quickly. As Deputy O'Connor said, this is a political time and we need to pay attention to the needs of those in small boats. One of the difficulties we face is that we are only willing to support those in the tiniest of boats. This makes it difficult for people to escape from deep, consistent and chronic poverty. We need to extend the level of support we provide for families a little further up the income distribution line to allow them to get on their own two feet.

On Monday evening when I was lecturing students about social policy, I spoke to them about the flex-security system towards which all European states were moving. The point is made consistently that Ireland has a flexible labour market. It is easy to hire and fire and there are low levels of employment protection. We have that flexibility in the system, but our level of social protection is among the lowest in Europe. We need to provide more protection for families in precarious, atypical and vulnerable employment who are bearing the brunt of the difficulties. It is easy to talk about the new poor and even easier to forget about those who never fully escaped from poverty during the boom years. They moved in and out of low-paid work, which made life a little easier to manage, but they never fully got on their own two feet. They were never fully in a situation where they could provide the life they sought for their families. Many countries took the opportunity provided in the boom years to significantly reform their social welfare systems. Unfortunately, however, we let it pass and did not grasp the opportunity presented by robust economic conditions. We need to understand we will have to take these measures because we have no choice but to do so. If we want to get out of the position in which we find ourselves, we must grasp the nettle in possibly the worst of economic circumstances. In the coming years we will need to focus on the needs of ordinary workers who do not earn high wages and those who manage on social welfare payments. I certainly contend they did not receive the attention they ought to have received when things were good. We just assumed that things would work out.

Mr. Nulty will address the issues of rent supplement and housing in more detail.

Before moving to Mr. Nulty, the idea of activation — facilitating people to enter the workforce — has been raised a lot lately. This brings us back to the point made by Ms Loftus that it is much more difficult to do so now when more and more people are becoming unemployed because there are fewer jobs available to encourage them to return to work. Ms Loftus's group, OPEN, has done work in this area and has concerns about the stick approach — telling people that they must work, rather than introducing conditions to make it easier for them to do so.

Ms Camille Loftus

I speak for lone parents, in particular. One could see that during the boom years more and more lone parents went out to work. At certain age profiles there are more lone parents in work than married women. At some levels it is easy to use activation as a stick and say, "You will do this." We saw a fall in the number living in poverty and fewer people reliant on social welfare payments, but we also saw an increase in the numbers in work who were still poor. A big factor for families, lone parent families in particular, is the cost of child care. Deputy Byrne raised the issue of the child care subvention scheme, on which we all agree. However, one must add that the number of places in the scheme is a mere drop in the ocean. If one is faced with reduced hours at work but still has to pay full child care fees, it means that even those who managed to become incorporated into the labour market in recent years are highly vulnerable and may have to withdraw because they literally cannot afford to stay in work. Many countries grasped the nettle and were even able to implement what were considered to be controversial reforms because there was a buoyant labour market and lots of jobs available. We did not take our opportunities, but it does not mean we can postpone such decisions until buoyancy returns. Unless we take action now, none of us wants to contemplate the scale of poverty this time next year or how horrendous a situation we could be find ourselves in.

Mr. Patrick Nulty

I echo my colleague's comments. I thank committee members for their warm words of encouragement in respect of the work done by all seven organisations. Our core position as a coalition is that nobody should lose his or her home as a result of the recession. It is important to put provisions in place in order that people finding it difficulty to meet their mortgage repayments will be supported and advised to renegotiate their repayments with their bank. The current one-year provision on the table on repossessions should be extended. In addition, more people should be able to access mortgage interest supplement quickly and effectively. It is important to emphasise that the private rented sector is a diverse market. Average rents in the private rental sector do not tell the whole story about the diversity of households and groups which source their accommodation through the sector. Our experience is that, for example, in the case of rent supplement, households on low incomes find that the caps on rent supplement wholly inadequate in sourcing accommodation. Rent supplement remains a very important support.

Deputy Catherine Byrne rightly referred to the poor standards to be found at the bottom end of the private rental sector. It is worth noting that new standards for the sector have recently been published. The critical issue is their enforcement. Local authorities have responsibility for enforcement and are resourced by central government to do so. It is done through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the issue is relevant to this discussion. Between 2002 and 2006, one third of all private rented accommodation units inspected did not meet standards. Enforcement is critical, particularly if we are to support low-income households in the private rental sector.

Speeding up the roll-out of the rental accommodation scheme is also critical. The scheme provides better security of tenure for households in the private rental sector and includes provision for inspection of properties to ensure they meet high standards. It is vital the scheme's roll-out is speeded up and that those who can avail of it can do so quickly.

Given the cross-section of issues, it is important to remember many households on low incomes in the private rental sector and availing of rent supplement are also on the waiting list for social housing which has increased by 30%. If 36,000 children in households were on the social housing waiting list in 2005, it is reasonable to assume the figure has increased in the three years since. The National Economic and Social Council argues that a social housing stock of 200,000 units by 2012 will be required. Current output will not meet that requirement. Therefore, we need to focus on providing social housing.

These four dimensions — enforcement of standards, the continued roll-out of the rental accommodation scheme, increased output of social housing and maintaining rent supplement payments and caps — affect families with children living in poverty. This has been the experience of Focus Ireland and the seven other organisations involved in the End Child Poverty Coalition.

Rents have fallen by varying degrees and there are 21,000 housing units empty. There needs to be a more proactive role played by the Department of Social and Family Affairs to ensure landlords do not charge rent up to the level of the cap when, in fact, rents may have come down. It has been brought to the committee's attention several times that people are forced to pay more to their landlords because of the rent supplement cap. Every member could give an example of rows of empty houses in estates in their constituencies. We need greater flexibility in the system in order that people do not pay to the level landlords demand. In many cases, private rents have come down, while the rent supplement has remained at last year's levels. It must also be borne in mind that it is not the tenant who should suffer in any changes made to the system but the payment made to the landlord.

Another factor that the committee should examine is that while many tenants register with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, there is no link between it and the Revenue Commissioners to ensure tax compliance on the part of landlords in receipt of rent supplement.

My concern with social housing is that for several years local authorities depended too much on housing stock under Part V dealing with social and affordable housing. Many of these houses will not be built for the foreseeable future. What funding will be given to local authorities to close the gap in social housing stock?

For the first time in many years there are substantial numbers of housing units available in the private rental sector. In Dublin there has been a large reduction, up to 15%, in rents charged. This is good news for many of the low-income households seeking accommodation. The standards of many new apartment buildings in Dublin are very high and many are available for €250 less than two years' ago which, again, is good news for low-income households seeking accommodation in the private rental sector.

Rent supplement plays a major part in ensuring people find good accommodation. With the reduction in rents, there must, however, be a reduction in rent supplement. We must look at new ways of doing things. When there is a reduction in the rental market, costs must come down on the social welfare side.

The insulation scheme will provide €50 million for local authorities to upgrade local authority housing. Energy loss from poorly insulated houses can add 10% to a household heating bill. The scheme will assist many caught by this.

We have an antiquated system and approach to unemployment. I welcome the delegation's views on how we can deal with this issue.

Child care services are important in allowing people to return to work. I have heard some child care services have dropped their prices, in some cases by 25%. I know of a couple who had two children in a crèche. When they informed it they could not pay the prices being charged, they were immediately reduced by 25%. We have to look for better value which is now available. I have seen the new child care facilities in my constituency and they are of a very high standard. Because people are losing their jobs costs have been driven down substantially, which is necessary because it was far too expensive to have one's child minded. It is often not worthwhile for two people in a house to work and pay for child care.

I welcome the points made by the delegates. We should look at restructuring the whole system, as it is a huge industry, worth some €20 billion. Something imaginative needs to be done.

In most cases of which I am aware, if people want to send a child to a child care facility for two or three days because they want to work part time, they still have to pay for five days. There is no incentive if one has to pay the full rate in such circumstances. That issue needs to be addressed.

I have also come across that problem.

Ms Camille Loftus

I wish to make a quick point on child care, which is an area in flux. Representatives of the National Women's Council have said in the past few weeks that, according to the feedback they have received, new regulatory requirements have pushed up prices in some cases. I suspect the picture is mixed in that there is flexibility in some cases and a lower requirement for capital investment in more established facilities. One of the problems is that we have very little up-to-date information on the cost of child care. We rely on what we hear from parents. Detailed data can be provided by the Central Statistics Office for inflation but the most recent data it has published on child care relate to 2005, which is back in the Dark Ages for the purposes of this discussion. We need much better and more robust information.

I will make another point on the negotiation of costs. I know of people in private rented accommodation who have asked their landlords for a cut in rent. The capacity for lone parents to move is much more limited than for others who live in rented accommodation. If children are in a local school or child care is being provided for them, the parent's bargaining position is weakened and those on tight budgets are reluctant to endanger the roof over their heads. There is value to be got but it is important not to put too much of an onus on those who are vulnerable. We need institutional measures to get better value from landlords. It is not realistic to expect people struggling to get by to do it themselves.

Does Ms Loftus agree that as a landlord is getting guaranteed money every month we, as taxpayers, are entitled to get the best value? We should be in a position to tell the landlord that, as rents have dropped by 15%, he or she must follow.

Ms Camille Loftus

It is an opportune time to do what Mr. Nulty suggested. We should increase the range of accommodation available under the rental accommodation scheme because the State is in a much better position to bargain with landlords and strike long-term deals to secure efficient rates. There are opportunities in the current crisis on which we should capitalise. We should vastly increase the accommodation available without catching people in unemployment traps.

The rent supplement scheme is supposed to be a short-term scheme, although in reality we know it is very different. It would be ideal to get people into the scheme and the supplement should not need to be at current levels. The barrier to achieving this is the fact that a person participating in the scheme, in better quality accommodation, is not considered by the council to be in urgent need of local authority housing. People tell me that is the main reason they do not opt for the scheme. It is easier to stay in accommodation of a lower standard because such tenants want the environmental health officer to see the damp on the walls because that helps their chances of getting a house.

Ms Camille Loftus

Ms McBrearty argued that bonus points should be given to people in RAS accommodation in the assessment of housing need. Overall, moving them into the scheme would make more sense of our housing allocations. Rather than punish them they should be incentivised to act in a way that would help them.

It is a two-way debate. The description of 2005 as the Dark Ages is certainly the phrase of the day.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

I will try to respond briefly to the points which have not adequately been dealt with by my colleagues. The social and family affairs budget is used to meet shortfalls in other parts of the system, especially the dearth of social housing since the sell-off in 1989. It also applies to waste as the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has given up on bringing about a fair system. Until today, energy costs have been rising at alarming rates and many of us on this side have had to pick up the pieces, while the Department of Social and Family Affairs shoulders the responsibility for providing the necessary benefits. There should be a shift from the HSE to the Department of Social and Family Affairs in respect of the community welfare service. That would be logical, as it involves money from the Department. In addition, community welfare officers are hidebound by the HSE.

Does it not mean they are more independent by being attached to the HSE? Community welfare officers are concerned that under the social welfare system, the ultimate appeals officer is the same person who may have refused the payment in the first place. Mr. McCafferty's suggestion may be more efficient but does the social welfare end of the service not need to become more efficient?

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

I understand the concerns but staff would operate within one system and information sharing would be facilitated. If the money belongs to the Department of Social and Family Affairs, it can be more effectively managed within its own budget. That is separate from the interaction we advocate with the tax system and other agencies. Some of us involved in social partnership were involved in promoting the second tier payment but after a number of years it seems it is not the flavour of the month anymore. Family income supplement and qualified child allowances, although small, have increased. If a second tier payment is not to be introduced, we should ramp up existing payments. Deputy Enright is right in regard to reassuring the general public and people in need. As civil society organisations, as the End Child Poverty Coalition and as politicians, we have a role in reassuring people at this time in very broad ways, in terms of injecting some level of hope into the current situation but also in terms of how we work with other organisations, for example, utility companies such as the ESB and Bord Gáis. The SVP does business with these organisations and can make arrangements on behalf of its clients. However, there are big structural questions to be asked about the fate that befalls people who are on low incomes and facing arrears but are not being assisted by us if they are not being served by public representatives, for example, if they do not come to Saturday morning clinics. That is of concern.

Repossession of houses also has implications. The first a tenant may hear about the mortgage problems of their landlord is when the house is being repossessed. It is not only the landlord or owner who suffers but individuals, families and children, who may be evicted from their homes by virtue of the fact that the house is being repossessed by a lender. That is also an issue that faces some of the people we assist.

I agree with Deputy Byrne's comments in regard to the SVP. We received a letter yesterday from a conference in Cork which was apoplectic because of conditions in the private rented sector. The flat in question was very small. I take on board what Senator Butler said regarding improved units in recent years. It is aggravating, however, that we are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Dublin City Council has set out more generous planning guidelines for apartments but the vast majority of apartments were built before those guidelines were issued, from 1996 through to 2006. Now, when the construction boom is over, humane regulations are brought in. I do not understand that. We are living with the legacy of that. This is not a legacy of Dickensian style conditions or apartments built in the Georgian era. These are apartments built five or ten years ago. There is the issue of value for money vis-à-vis the rent supplement but there is also the issue of conditions. I am aware it is not within the remit of this committee, but it impinges on the people it serves and it is one of the issues that was raised today.

I cannot disagree in regard to reinvestment and community refocusing. That is what our organisations are in the business of doing. It is in stark terms that we are now called upon to provide resources, guidance and reassurance.

I did not cover the issue of people in trouble with their mortgages. A stay of approximately a year is proposed but I believe that must be advanced, and there must be a link between the banks and the local authorities. This would be a good move. A reduction in interest rates to reduce the payments for the client would be a start. If after a year the client was still in difficulty local authorities could consider taking over the house and renting it to the client. Eviction is a terrible thing for a family. I do not believe a family ever gets over it. There is now an opportunity for all involved to find a better way of dealing with difficulties. If the local authority is involved it could take over the house and rent it to the family or find alternative accommodation for the family. Either way it is important that the family has somewhere to go when they must leave the accommodation they had already bought. Given that we have invested a lot of money in the bank, and I say we invested money because the taxpayer will get a return on it, it is important to have a more socially-minded banking system when it comes to dealing with people who get into difficulties with mortgages.

I would rather see a difficult situation dealt with earlier so that people do not find themselves facing eviction. We could be talking about people who have been paying off a mortgage for eight or ten years and then find the local authority has bought the house and they are back to square one where they never thought they would be. We must operate in the hope, which people themselves have, that they will get back to work and be able to repay their mortgage again. A couple came to me a few weeks ago who were in that situation. The wife had been refused disability allowance although she suffers from serious depression because the doctor did not think to ask her about that but merely checked her blood pressure. Her husband has lost his job. They went to renegotiate with the bank. The bank offered them a three-year interest only deal but they took only one year because they want to keep their house and to be able to pay their mortgage again. They hope they will be able to do that. That is the road we need to go down and do everything possible to keep people in their houses. It will cost the State more to go down any other route.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

I will respond to those comments and some of the other issues. In the initial presentation we stated that we believe a two-year moratorium would be preferable to a one-year moratorium. It is in everyone's interest that people retain their homes. The SVP has also produced guidelines for its members in assisting people. Much of the guidelines are to do with advice and reassurance. They advise ongoing communication with the lender and MABS. The role of MABS is essential. We refer people to MABS to have an income and expenditure statement carried out. That is the right way to go. Certain things can be delayed but, even with reduced revenue, increased investment in MABS is crucial. It would be great if the committee could champion that approach.

We talked about regulation of the rental sector which is a recent initiative. We welcome such regulation which applies to both the private rented sector and the social rented sector. Some of us in the End Child Poverty Coalition, as social landlords, are subject to that. It is an important initiative and something we welcome.

The insulation scheme is welcome but it is not enough. It does not cover people in the private rented sector who comprise some of the most vulnerable and poorest people. What does one do with that group, given that we are loath to give State money to landlords to feather their nests, although we give State money through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme? Some of the most at-risk and poorest households, including lone parents, are in houses that are poorly insulated and thermally inefficient. It is a big issue, but what does one do — ask for answers on postcards?

The money allocated to the insulation scheme is quite substantial, with an allocation of €50 million for the local authorities, €50 million for schools and €50 million for middle income earners who want to insulate their houses. That is just a start, however provision has not been made for insulating windows with double and-or treble glazing. This is a most important element of an insulation scheme because if one does not exclude the draughts from windows, one does not have a well-insulated home. I will raise this issue in the Seanad and I hope that provision for double glazing will be incorporated into the scheme.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

We welcome this initiative. The insulation scheme makes perfect sense. It is labour intensive, so it is good for the economy, good for people who may have lost their jobs in the construction sector and it will save individuals, families and the State money in the long run.

The allocation of €150 million for the insulation scheme will generate 7,000 jobs.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

The scheme is very much a positive, but there are a group of tenants who are not being served. That is a difficult nut to crack. The regulations must be enforced in the rented sector and this is where the regulation of that sector is absolutely critical. The enforcement of the regulation in rented dwellings by the local authorities is a soft target and this sector would suffer if cuts of €2 billion are to be made. If there is a strong regulatory environment, then we can tackle the thermal inefficiency of private rented dwellings that are affecting families and children in poverty.

We have talked about the immediate issues facing families and children in poverty, the effects of the downturn and the pressure on Government revenue. These are valid points. We need to increase allocations for social and family affairs, the administration of payments and MABS. However, we are here also to highlight the six key policy points that we are advocating for the medium term in terms of family income supplement and lifting families and children out of poverty in relation to access to public services, the medical card, social housing, Traveller accommodation, tackling educational disadvantage and breaking the cycle in terms of investing in preschool education and not leaving it to the market. I accept that prices have come down for private child care. When I went through preschool education, my parents had to pay a little for it, but when my sister was at that stage in 1979, preschool education was free. That is 30 years ago. There is a way to go in investing in education.

Those dark ages.

Mr. John Mark McCafferty

We are making the point about the necessity for investment in income support as well as in services and in families. We can make the investment at community level but we also do it by advocating on behalf of children in poverty. We thank the joint committee for its time.

On behalf of the Chairman, Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae, I thank the delegation for its presentation. It has been a worthwhile discussion and I hope that they agree. I propose that we make this presentation and a transcript of the proceedings available to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs so that she will be aware of the concerns that have been expressed. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The Joint committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 4 March 2009.
Top
Share