Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 Mar 2008

Vol. 188 No. 21

Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008: Committee and Remaining Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

Amendment No. 1 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Amendment Nos. 2 to 14, inclusive, not moved.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the prospect of removing the Habitual Residence Condition from the Child Benefit payment.".

I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, back to the House and thank him for taking the time to discuss this matter, which I appreciate very much. I understand that the existing habitual residence condition means that children who are living in direct provision are not entitled to child benefit payment. While they are in receipt of €9.40, that amount is inadequate. I heard what the Minister had to say yesterday but I ask that he look at the matter on compassionate grounds. It would not cost a huge sum of money, €6 million per annum, to look after this small number of children. It would mean that children could buy over-the-counter medicines and clothes, which are not catered for when living in asylum.

I understand the Senator's sentiment in this regard. We have had extensive debate on this issue in the Dáil, at the committee and in the Seanad. My opinion is well known. We meet all our United Nations requirements under the law in regard to looking after those in the asylum seekers system. As the Senator rightly said we do not pay over cash but we look after these people by putting packages together and feeding and looking after them. The habitual residence clause is an important one and has worked very well since its introduction in Ireland. It is right that someone should be habitually resident here before he or she can access payments such as child benefit. To remove the habitual residence clause would be to say to anyone anywhere that one can come to this country and avail of our social welfare system. If people in the asylum seeker system are in need of special supports, they get them through various aspects of the social welfare system. We have had no complaints and we have had no difficulties. It is the right approach, it is fair and it is working. Therefore, I am not minded to accept the amendment. I thank the Senator for tabling it.

FLAC attended the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and expressed its views. Many people have come to me and my colleagues in the Labour Party and Fine Gael and have expressed their concerns. I do not accept what the Minister says but I know where he is coming from.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 6, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on how the Rent Supplement Scheme could be improved to—

(a) make it more responsive to beneficiaries needs,

(b) reflect rental market changes.”.

Given that we had a detailed debate on this issue yesterday, I will not go into detail except to say that changes should be introduced whereby rent supplement would be paid in advance rather than in arrears. It is wrong that tenants must wait up to six weeks for payment. If they do not get the rent supplement they sometimes end up owing six weeks' rent. This is an issue we need to review.

In the Dublin area the rental supplement is €130 while the cheapest bed-sit costs €150. I ask the Minister to review this matter. We debated the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, yesterday, the uptake of which I understand is very low. Only 1,000 out of 33,000 eligible recipients have been transferred from rent supplement to RAS since 2005. I note it has been administered by the community welfare offices and services of the Health Service Executive on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The community welfare offices have expressed concerns regarding the transfer of this scheme to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and are questioning how the move will affect its clients. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that issue.

The rent supplement scheme is an individual payment to a person who needs support within the system. The payment is not a payment to a landlord. On some occasions, we pay direct to the landlord on behalf of the client. This may be for money management reasons for people who are not capable, for whatever reason, of managing the resources themselves, and happens in a small number of cases. However, it is a payment to an individual to support that individual.

The Deputy is correct with regard to the rent supplement scheme, which is why we moved to the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, some time ago. The rent supplement scheme was supposed to be a short-term benefit to individuals to assist them on a short-term basis. Clearly, this expanded into too long-term a timeframe. Working with the local authorities, the aim is to get people off the long-term payments of rent supplement and onto the RAS. That process is taking time and it will probably take another year or two to get the numbers down and to return to a situation where the rent supplement is being used on a short-term basis. That is the purpose of the scheme.

We have had a review of the caps on the rent supplement scheme. The scheme itself is under review and it should be completed in mid-year, which seems to be acceptable to everybody. We will decide what is to be done at that stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of eligible persons and proportion thereof availing of the Family Income Supplement.".

I am aware that this scheme is not availed of as much as it could be. Despite the fact the Government wants more lone parents to return to work, the budget has not been clearly welfare-to-work-proofed. Part-time workers stand to lose €2.40 from the family income supplement payment. Such workers can claim a reduced level of one-parent family payment as their income is so low and they will benefit from the increase in this payment. However, because the increase in the family income threshold was lower than the increase in the basic social welfare payment, this is reflected in the family income supplement means test and the effect is that the family income supplement will be lower for this group in 2008 because of the budget. I would like the Minister to comment.

The family income supplement, as all sides agree, is an important contribution to getting people back to work and out of the poverty trap by assisting families who have difficulties without keeping them entirely in the social welfare system. If they go back to full-time work, they can avail of the family income supplement, which is very important. What we will try to do in the years ahead is to shift the balance in favour of people going back to work.

The Deputy is correct that the take-up in the early part of the scheme was quite low but it has increased significantly in the past year. The figure in 2001 was approximately 11,000 but the number availing of the scheme has increased to approximately 23,000. We have tried to get the information out to all who are potentially recipients and beneficiaries of the scheme.

The family income supplement scheme is important and is one in which I intend to continue, where I can, to invest resources to benefit those who are trying to get back into society and make a contribution. That will be the approach.

I wish to apologise to the Minister and the House because I was at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Health and Children and I inadvertently did not get here in time. I also apologise to Senator McFadden for walking in front of her just now, which was unintended.

I did not notice.

I will resubmit my amendments on Report Stage and I will deal with them then, if that is okay.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 6, before section 4, to insert the following new section:

"4.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of eligible persons and proportion thereof availing of the Back-to-School Clothing and Footwear Allowance, among low income families.".

As I said on Second Stage, I appreciate the amount of money that has gone into this sector but I would ask that the Minister would report on the numbers of eligible persons availing of the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance among low income families. I note particularly that lone parents who are working part-time are not entitled to claim the allowance. Therefore, working parents will not benefit from the minimal €20 increase in this payment. As I said to the Minister on Second Stage, I do not see how this offers any incentive to encourage lone parents to go back to work. Will the Minister address this point?

This scheme is very significant and benefits approximately 180,000 children, which is the type of coverage one would expect, with approximately 88,000——

But not for lone parents.

There are approximately 88,000. As the Senator knows, many different schemes which break down in many different ways are available to those who need them, who may qualify under different criteria. This year, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance has a budget of over €43.5 million, which is significant. It is beneficial to those who avail of it. We have gone from the position in budget 2007, where we gave €180 per child for those aged two to 11 years and €285 for children aged 12 to 22 years, to the position in this year's budget, where we have increased the payments by €20 to €200 and €305 respectively. This represents an increase of 67% and 61% respectively in the past two years, so there has been a significant increase in this area. I am glad 180,000 children benefit from this. It is achieving its target market.

I appreciate the amount of money that has gone into the scheme. While I will not press the amendment, I ask the Minister to specifically consider the category of lone parents to ascertain whether they, in particular those working part-time, can be accommodated.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are out or order as they are deemed to be outside the scope of the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:

"5.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, an information report detailing—

(a) number of persons expected to benefit per annum,

(b) the estimates of amounts that will be transferred out of and to be received by the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) over the next 5 and 10 years,

(c) if the legislation will apply retrospectively, if so how many persons will benefit, what are the expected amounts in terms of benefits that will be paid by the SIF, amounts that will be transferred from SIF, and the amounts the SIF will receive.”.

This issue seems complex but is quite simple. It affects a small number of people — no more than 100. The effect is that people working in Ireland who have been paying into the social insurance fund can transfer the value of their payments into the European PSEC fund if they take up a job with one of the European institutions, and that those coming back from having worked in a European institution to work here can transfer the value of the fund back again. There is freedom of movement between the two schemes so people are not disadvantaged in any way. It is a technical amendment which affects probably less than 100 people. Nevertheless, it is important to them that their pension rights are protected.

I presume there will be retrospective effects. The Minister said approximately 100 people would expect to benefit. Will the cost be paid by the social insurance fund? This provision is overdue since our accession. Why is it being fixed now and what was the trigger for this? Those who are waiting may have been waiting for 35 years. What is the estimated cost of this proposal?

These people have been paying into the fund so it is a movement of their own resources, not an added burden. It is about protecting an individual's pension. In the past this had been deemed valid for occupational pensions but it is now felt that it should be part of the social insurance fund as well, which is where we are moving it and putting it into play. This is about the individual, not the State. It relates to the rights of an individual to have access to his or her pension so that a person is not disadvantaged if he or she goes from working and paying into the insurance fund in the Irish system to a European institution or if he or she moves back again.

It had previously been thought that Article 11 of annexe VIII of the staff regulations applied only to occupational and personal pension rights. However, following successful legal proceedings brought by the Commission against a number of member states, including most recently Spain, resulting in a judgment of the European Court of Justice in July 1997, it is accepted now that the provisions of Article 11 also apply to State pensions.

Will the European Commission pay the relevant amount into the social insurance fund?

It will just transfer the portion back or vice versa.

That is good if that is the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 7, before section 6, to insert the following new section:

"6.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on supports available to individuals in receipt of Illness Benefit.".

Section 6 provides that a person transferring back to illness benefit will be entitled to a full personal rate of illness benefit where he or she has the required number of contributions in the relevant tax year. Is the purpose of the section to protect persons who have become disqualified from receiving invalidity benefit or is it to ensure persons who are so disqualified can easily begin claiming illness benefits?

Illness benefit is an income support payment for people of working age who are unable to work owing to illness and who satisfy certain social insurance conditions. Those who are in receipt of the personal rate of illness benefit may also be entitled to increases for dependent adults and qualified children. In addition, they may qualify for some secondary benefits such as smokeless fuel allowances, assistance under the supplementary welfare allowance and the medical card.

In recent years my Department has begun to change its focus from being concerned primarily with the passive payment of benefits to a situation where we also focus on ensuring social welfare recipients of working age are given opportunities and supports to participate in the labour market. It is a way of ensuring people are not disadvantaged and are supported back into the labour market.

For this reason, a number of supports are available for those on illness benefit and the other disability related payments, such as disability allowance and invalidity pension, to encourage participation in education, training and employment. These include the back to work allowance, which provides a financial cushion for those returning to work, and the back to education allowance, which provides second chance education for people. It is geared towards ensuring that people who want to go back to education or work are not disadvantaged and that they can move from one scheme to another.

How much will the improvement cost per annum and how many cases are expected to benefit per year?

I am told it is a very minimal cost. It is 63 cases.

That is very good. I welcome the measure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 7, before section 8, to insert the following new section:

"8.—The Minister for Social and Family Affairs shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the progress to date in replacing the One Parent Family Payment with the new parental allowance for all low income families.".

I welcome the sentiment behind the scheme. Is this the scheme for which €6.5 million has been allocated for a dedicated liaison officer and to put facilitators in place to deal with each lone parent individually to get him or her back to work?

Yes. We have two pilot schemes running at the moment in Kilkenny and Coolock.

I welcome the measure but given that there are so many lone parents, how is it proposed that 30 facilitators will be able to deal with so many lone parents case by case? I welcome the Minister's approach and what he is trying to achieve but does he believe €6.5 million is sufficient to deal with the existing need?

There are significant human resources throughout the system and the country in the offices that deal with these people daily. Senator McFadden is correct. I welcome her support. Cross-party support is evident for this scheme which we are trying to finalise.

As Senator McFadden is aware, there are different views among stakeholders as to how we achieve our aim. We are trying to use the experience of the pilot projects in Kilkenny and Coolock to see how best to proceed. It is not just a question of straight financial support because other issues arise. I refer to education in particular. Many lone parents left school early and do not have the educational requirements necessary to get back into the workforce. Child care is another issue that arises. Some lone parents are more interested in training than education. There is a mixture of needs.

The aim is to get as many lone parents as possible into the system in the next year or two to try to get them back into the workforce. Many of them are coming in voluntarily. There was a general impression that the receipt of a letter in the post meant people would lose something. The experience of people in Kilkenny and Coolock has been very positive. We are not trying to take anything away from people. We want to enhance the quality of people's lives by allowing them and helping them to do part-time work and, ultimately, full-time work. Accordingly, we are trying to target the supports that are needed to achieve that.

I have grave concerns about the logistics of the operation of the scheme from the point of view of there being so many lone parents. The Minister referred to dealing with people case by case. I am concerned that people may not be looked after in a proper manner.

Currently, 40 facilitators are in place and another 30 will be added this year to make a total of 70. This is a gradual process. I will not pretend to the Senator that we can do it all overnight. It is clear there are many people who will not be able to do some of the things at a particular point in time. It is necessary to look at the cohort and see how one can facilitate the movement of those who are in a position to go into the workplace. That is what we will do. It is a learning-by-doing experience. That is what Kilkenny and Coolock are showing us.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are related and can be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 8, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

"9.—The Minister shall, within one month of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the progress of the National Carers Strategy.".

We spoke yesterday about the fact that we will have the strategy report by mid-summer. I wish to ensure it will contain a comprehensive list of the services and supports that are provided for carers to support them and their well-being, and an adequate and fair system for the remuneration of carers in addition to education and training which are very important for carers. We must focus on quality of life issues for carers. We must ensure we introduce policies that will support carers to achieve a work-life balance.

Another area of concern is that access should be provided to up-to-date and accurate information about carers' rights. I wish to ensure these issues will be considered in the strategy. I welcome what the Minister said yesterday regarding young carers, namely, that he is working in conjunction with the Minister of State with responsibility for children and that he is due to issue a report on how best to support children. I thank the Minister.

I appreciate what the Senator said. All colleagues have welcomed the fact that the carers' strategy is under way. We want to get it completed. It is also very much focused on the Towards 2016 agreement and the social partnership process. The Taoiseach's Department is chairing it and it is already sitting and examining the issues. The issues the Senator mentioned, and many more, are considered in the totality of the carers' strategy. My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children with special responsibility for children, Deputy Brendan Smith, is examining the issue as it relates to children caring for elderly people and we will facilitate him in that process. We are working on the overall national carers' strategy and we all look forward to seeing that in the middle of the year.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 25 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 in the name of Senator McFadden is out of order as it is deemed to be outside the scope of the Bill.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

My proposed amendment No. 26 states: "The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the possibility of the introduction of a cost of disability payment for people with disabilities." That is self-explanatory. I ask that the Minister to please lay such a report before the House.

I cannot put the laying of a report before the House into legislation, however I accept the sentiment. As the Senator knows, the domiciliary care allowance and other changes have been made between my Department and the Department of Health and Children, where we are taking them on board. Yesterday I told the Senator we will take on the customers on an "as is" basis and see how we develop it as we go forward so nobody is disadvantaged in the move. That seems to be satisfactory.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 16 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Are we taking Report Stage now?

In reference to what our colleague on the Labour benches stated, that she wishes to resubmit her amendments on Report Stage, I wonder if we should take Report Stage at another time. Committee Stage was scheduled for today, not Report Stage. Taking into consideration what our colleague on the Labour benches stated——

My hands are tied on the Order of Business. The Order of Business agreed that we would take Committee and Remaining Stages.

On the Order of Business we were told it would be Committee Stage and not Remaining Stages.

It was agreed on the Order of Business to take Committee and Remaining Stages.

It is becoming a regular occurrence that we take Committee and Remaining Stages. I do not consider it in order to take Remaining Stages when Bills such as this are presented to the House. I am making this point in specific reference to the Labour Party's proposed amendments, however it regularly arises that the Order Paper provides for us to take Committee and Remaining Stages. This practice has been recently introduced. We usually have Committee Stage followed by Report Stage at another time.

The Labour Party amendments tabled for Committee Stage cannot be resubmitted on Report Stage because they were not discussed on Committee Stage. The Order of Business for today agreed to our taking Committee and Remaining Stages; my hands are tied.

Bill received for final consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the officials from the Department for their support and explanations. I also thank the Minister and my colleagues on the other side of the House for their time.

I thank the Senators on all sides of the House for their contributions to the Social Welfare Bill. We have had a very worthwhile discussion on the two Bills, one before Christmas and this second Bill. I sincerely hope some of the changes we have spoken on, particularly on lone parents, will form some of the basis of the legislative changes we will be able to make next year and that we will complete a number of the reports expected from the Bill. I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach, my officials and all colleagues on all sides of the House for their very worthwhile contributions.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance and co-operation.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share