I welcome the Minister and her officials in a special way. Apologies have been received from Deputy Mattie McGrath. The proposed timetable is that we will continue until 2 p.m., return at 3 p.m and continue until 6.30 p.m unless the debate finishes earlier. Is that agreed? Agreed. The Minister must attend a meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.
SECTION 1.
Amendment No. 1 and amendments Nos. 31 to 40, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, subsection (6), line 26, to delete "23 and 25 to 28” and substitute “23, 25 to 28 and Part 5”.
I look forward to a constructive discussion with the select committee. This section deals with the Combat Poverty Agency. The amendment to subsection (6) provides that Part 5 of the Bill which gives effect to the Government's decision announced in the budget to integrate the Combat Poverty Agency and the office for social inclusion within the Department of Social and Family Affairs will be brought into effect by way of a commencement order. This will enable a smooth transition for the employees of the agency and the office of social inclusion to the new arrangement.
Following my recent discussions with the board of the Combat Poverty Agency on the integration arrangements, it is envisaged that a six month period will be required and that the commencement order will take effect from the beginning of July 2009. Part 5 of the Bill, sections 29 to 37, is necessary to give effect to the Government's decision announced in the budget to integrate the agency and the office for social inclusion within the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Members of the committee are aware that the Government's decision was informed by the findings of a review of the agency taken on foot of a Government decision on 6 June 2007. It is not my intention that the agency will simply be absorbed into the office of social inclusion in its existing form. Rather, a new strengthened division will be created which will make the best use of the considerable expertise and experience of both bodies and seek to address the weaknesses identified in both in the review. The new division will provide a stronger voice for those affected by poverty and social inclusion issues. Furthermore, it will have an enhanced research role and more immediate access to advising the Government in influencing policies than is the case in both bodies.
The dissolution of the Combat Poverty Agency as provided for in Part 5 of the Bill is a prerequisite to the integration arrangements and the creation of the new division. The new Part 5 provides for the transfer of permanent employees of the agency who are to become civil servants. It also provides for the transfer to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs of the property and assets, any pending legal proceedings and other rights and liabilities of the agency. Pension and superannuation liabilities are to be transferred to the Minister for Finance, while provision is made for the final accounts of the agency to be drawn up for any expenses incurred as a result of the integration to be met and for the repeal of the Combat Poverty Agency Act 1986. Arrangements regarding the agency's employees will be finalised in consultation with the Department, the Department of Finance and relevant agencies, the Public Appointments Service and the Commission for Public Service Appointments, the staff and their union representatives.
Amendment No. 31 to section 29 provides that any reference in Part 5 to the "agency" means the Combat Poverty Agency. Amendment No. 32 provides that the agency shall be dissolved. The dissolution of the agency as provided for in section 30 is a prerequisite to the integration arrangements for the agency and the office for social inclusion in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the creation of the new division I have described.
Section 31, which is related to amendment No. 33, is a standard provision which provides for the transfer of all the rights and liabilities of the agency, including any contract to which the agency is party, such as contracts for research, public relations and projects and programmes which are under way on the date the legislation is commenced. It includes the rights and obligations of the agency in relation to these matters.
Regarding amendment No. 34, section 32 is also a standard provision, providing for the transfer of property leases, moneys or donations and subscriptions in relation to publications to the Minister and any liabilities that arise on account of such property. It also covers the right to sue in relation to these matters.
Amendment No. 35 deals with section 33, which is also a standard provision concerned with the winding up of the agency's accounts. It provides that the agency's final accounts shall be drawn up not later than one year after the commencement of the part. It also provides for those accounts to be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and for copies of the audited accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on same to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
Amendment No. 36 relates to a standard provision in section 34 of the Bill, providing that the Minister shall take responsibility for any legal proceedings which are pending, to which the agency is a party, immediately before the commencement of the Act.
Amendment No. 37 relates to section 35 of the Bill providing a legal basis for the appointment of the staff of the Combat Poverty Agency to the Civil Service as unestablished civil servants. On appointment as civil servants, the transferring staff will retain their employment law rights, their continuity of service and their tenure entitlements. The section provides that a person employed on a permanent basis in the Combat Poverty Agency shall, on commencement of Part 5 of the Bill, become an unestablished civil servant on that day. The Department of Finance, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, has advised that this is the most appropriate mechanism, that is, an unestablished position, for the transfer of the public service staff involved to the Civil Service. The conversion of the transferring employees to established status will be effected through agreement with the public appointments service and the Commission for Public Service Appointments on an appropriate process to enable the appointment as civil servants to be regarded as meeting the requirements of the Public Services Management, Recruitment and Appointments Act, 2004.
The appointment of staff from the Combat Poverty Agency to the Civil Service requires a special arrangement as it does not constitute a process of integration in the Civil Service in line with the usual procedures. The process to be agreed with the public appointments service and the Commission for Public Service Appointments will provide a way of making the appointments to the Civil Service compliant with the Public Services Management, Recruitment and Appointments Act, 2004. The Department has initiated consultation with the public appointments service and the Commission for Public Service Appointments and, in consultation with the agency staff and their union, is working to ensure that all procedural requirements in relation to established status are finalised in advance of 1 July 2009.
Section 35(1) (b) provides that the contracts of persons who are fixed term employees in the Combat Poverty Agency will transfer to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on commencement of this Part for the remainder of their contract term. The agency has a small number of employees on contracts and this provision will ensure those employees whose contracts are not completed at the time of the commencement of Part 5 will be transferred to the Minister for the remainder of the contract term.
Section 35(2) provides that the remuneration of the Combat Poverty Agency staff will be no less beneficial on transfer into the Civil Service on commencement of this Part. The staff, on becoming Civil Servants, will no longer be employed subject to contract, as they were in the Combat Poverty Agency. The terms and conditions of employment of civil servants are set by the Minister for Finance, pursuant to section 17 of the Civil Service Regulation Act, 1956.
The conditions of service in the Civil Service are, in general, no less advantageous than those enjoyed by persons in the Combat Poverty Agency but they are different in nature. Civil servants are bound by the terms of the Civil Service Regulation Acts and circulars applying to the Civil Service. Such circulars deal with arrangements for annual leave, special leave, sick leave, performance assessment, political activity and so forth. This section has been drafted to take this into account.
Section 35(3) is a standard provision in relation to the continued reckonability of service already accumulated by employees of the agency for a range of employee protection legislation. Section 35(4) is a standard provision to protect employees transferring from one public service body to another, in this case, the Civil Service, and to ensure their superannuation terms are no less favourable than those they enjoyed while employees of the agency.
Section 35(5) provides for the pension and superannuation liabilities of the Combat Poverty Agency in respect of former employees to be met from an appropriate subhead in the superannuation Vote, which is accounted for by the Office of the Minister for Finance. Section 35(6) provides that transferring staff will, as civil servants, carry out the duties assigned to them by the Minister. Section 35(7) underlines the fact that on being appointed to the Civil Service, the transferring employees are fully subject to the Civil Service Regulation Acts and other legislation mentioned. Section 35(8) is a standard provision providing for the necessary definitions relevant to Part 5 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 38 refers to section 36 and contains a standard provision providing that the expenses incurred by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs in implementing the legislation will, as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas. This will ensure that any administrative costs which may arise in the arrangements for the integration will be covered.
Amendment No. 39 refers to section 37 and provides for the repeal of the Combat Poverty Agency Act 1986. Amendment No. 40 provides for the Long Title of the Bill to include reference to the dissolution of the Combat Poverty Agency and the relevant legislative provisions.
I welcome the Minister and her officials. Fine Gael will be voting against these proposals. I am deeply disappointed at the way in which the amendments have been proposed today. I have made it clear previously that it would have been preferable for these amendments to be published in the initial Bill. I appreciate that in proceeding with what was announced in the budget regarding the Combat Poverty Agency the amendments had to be introduced in this legislation. However, the technical nature of these amendments and the fact that the issue of the role of the agency is not referred to in any way is regrettable. The amendments are concerned only with legal proceedings, transfer of employees, expenses, transfer of property rights and so forth and not with the work of the agency.
Fine Gael feels very strongly that the Government is making a mistake on this issue. I wish to reiterate the views of those who have worked for the agency. A review was carried out recently, to which the Minister will no doubt refer. There was a very clear feeling among those who worked in the agency that the reviewers knew what the outcome of their review would be well in advance of completing it. One of the most bizarre aspects of the review was the fact that the word "poverty" was not mentioned once in the terms of reference. The role and function of the Combat Poverty Agency cannot be simply brushed aside in that manner. The independent nature of the organisation was probably one of its main strengths.
I wonder how many of the reports published by the Combat Poverty Agency since its establishment, and particularly in the past 11 years, were launched by Ministers. In the past, the work of the agency seems to have been highly valued by Ministers but that is clearly not the case any longer.
I raised a number of issues of concern during the Second Stage debate and hope to get answers to some of the questions I posed then. I note that the head of the office for social inclusion is sitting to the left of the Minister. What type of research will be carried out by that office now? How independent will that research be? Researchers at the office for social inclusion have worked within the Department of Social and Family Affairs whereas the Combat Poverty Agency had the ability to conduct or commission independent research itself. It had the ability to react to the issues of the day and to foresee problems down the line. It is obvious that Departments do not have that same ability.
The Minister will be aware of many of the valuable initiatives of the Combat Poverty Agency, one of the most recent being their building healthy communities campaign, launched by the Taoiseach in my constituency recently. The agency was in a position to work with the HSE, local authorities and the partnership agencies on the ground. I cannot envisage the office for social inclusion having the ability or strength to do the same and to work with the community pillar as effectively as the Combat Poverty Agency has done.
Likewise, it is likely that any research carried out by the office for social inclusion will land on the Minister's desk and go no further. I do not see the public being made aware of that, particularly if the research reveals negative aspects of Government policy or what is happening on the ground. The office for social inclusion will not maintain the same relationship with Opposition Members as the Combat Poverty Agency. Will the research be published?
Fine Gael feels strongly about dealing with the proliferation of State agencies but we do not think the Combat Poverty Agency should be abolished. We sought to determine where savings could be made. What savings will be made by subsuming this agency into the office for social inclusion given that staff contracts and rights will simply be transferred? The costs in terms of people in poverty will be far greater than the savings.
Other than the review, what consultations were carried out? The Minister referred to the advice of the Attorney General but were the agency's employees consulted? The employees include people with a wide range of backgrounds and, while I acknowledge that similar expertise is available within the Civil Service, the agency was able to actively recruit people with experience of health and social policy research, community development and local authorities. I am concerned this expertise will be lost when the relevant staff move up through the ranks. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has limited experience in working with local authorities, an area in which the Combat Poverty Agency has had a good impact.
This proposal is a mistake because it will result in the loss of an independent perspective. Fianna Fáil is in government at present but the Combat Poverty Agency could just as easily be criticising a Labour Party or a Fine Gael Minister.
I welcome the Minister and her officials. The Labour Party is completely opposed to these amendments. The sneaky and under-hand manner in which the Minister sought to deal with this issue is particularly abhorrent. She slipped this proposal into the Bill by way of amendment because she lacked the courage to include it from the outset or to introduce separate legislation to repeal the Combat Poverty Agency. That is no way to conduct business. She should at least have had the courage of whatever convictions she has — difficult though they are to understand — to state publicly her intentions.
Why is she abolishing the Combat Poverty Agency? I have asked her on several occasions to outline the savings that will possibly be made but she has replied that there will be none. If it is not being done for cost reasons, it must be politically motivated. The former Minister for Social Welfare, Frank Cluskey, assisted by the parliamentary secretary, is admired and remembered fondly for his courage in establishing the agency in the mid-1980s. The establishment of the agency represented the first genuine attempt to address poverty by using research based evidence to recommend policies that could make a difference. Whereas the approach to the poor was previously based on charity, from the 1980s a new approach was taken based on measuring poverty levels and disadvantage and addressing these issues by setting targets and timeframes. It now appears that the present Minister will go down in history as the person who abolished the agency and scrapped the evidence based approach to fighting exclusion.
I do not know why she is taking this decision at a time when we are about to see increased levels of poverty. New approaches to poverty are undoubtedly needed because different types of hardship are being experienced. The Minister will have nobody to advise her on these new approaches, however.
The key question is why this is being done. It is difficult to understand the decision other than as a determination on her part to silence an organisation which has been critical of all Ministers for Social and Family Affairs. Its role is to challenge the Government of the day and to recommend better ways of addressing social exclusion. The review body established by the Minister was clearly a fig-leaf for achieving the objective she had set out all along. Of the two options set out in the report, she chose the least popular among organisations working in the area of social exclusion. Not only did she decide to integrate the Combat Poverty Agency with the social inclusion unit of the Department, but she also abolished the functions of the agency.
The functions set out in the original legislation include giving advice and making recommendations on all aspects of economic and social planning, examining the nature, causes and extent of poverty, promoting greater public understanding of the nature of poverty, which is important because the public have to be on one's side if poverty is to be addressed, identifying possible new policies, collecting and disseminating information, fostering and assisting projects at community level and establishing and maintaining contact between various Departments and agencies. These functions are being abolished. Will the Minister assign them to other bodies or is she saying they are no longer important?
With due respect to the individuals who work in the social inclusion unit, they cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as independent, and I refer anybody who claims otherwise to the social inclusion assessment of the budget. Civil servants do excellent work but few of them have the courage to be critical of their Ministers or Government policies. The comment by the social inclusion unit on poverty proofing in the budget reveals little criticism or independence. This is an ideological decision to abolish the Combat Poverty Agency and, effectively, neuter criticism.
I want to move on to the manner in which the Minister chose to do this and the likely impact on the Combat Poverty Agency staff. From the amendments the Minister has tabled, it seems she has totally ignored legislation covering transfer of undertakings. Under these amendments, staff in the Combat Poverty Agency will be very much disadvantaged relative to the civil servants in the social inclusion unit of the Department. The plan is that they will become unestablished civil servants, which puts them at a serious disadvantage if they work alongside established civil servants. A number of the staff were originally civil servants in the Minister's Department and moved on secondment to the Combat Poverty Agency. They got very involved in the work and opted to remain in the State agency and leave the Civil Service. Through no fault of their own, they find themselves back in the Department as second class civil servants. That is unacceptable. There has been little or no consultation with the staff. The Minister has taken a high-handed approach to the agency's work and the employment rights of its staff. What the Minister is doing is unacceptable under employment law.
This is a retrograde step. The Minister will be remembered for a long time for silencing the Combat Poverty Agency. The Minister will not suffer for it in the long term but the people who will are those who depend on her and on agencies such as Combat Poverty, which has done such valuable work over the years, to make recommendations to the Minister, ensure their voice was heard and that poverty remained on the Government agenda in good and bad times, and to remind the public that poverty exists and challenge us to tackle it and not to forget the poor. This action will result in those who are disadvantaged getting a much poorer deal from our society. The Minister is making a very big mistake.
I also want to voice my opposition to the abolition of the Combat Poverty Agency. As we face into uncertainty in the country's financial position it is shocking that the Minister would even consider this move. The name "Combat Poverty" says it all. It is important that the Minister outline the cost savings that will result as the Combat Poverty Agency is subsumed into the office for social inclusion. Combat Poverty shone a light into corners where poverty was and exposed it. It brought the people experiencing poverty to bear on the Government, pointed the finger and gave unbiased advice to Government. Its representatives often gave presentations in this committee room. I ask the Minister to rethink this huge step backwards. In the interests of the people of the country, it should not happen.
It is absolutely amazing that the abolition of the Combat Poverty Agency is being brought forward as an amendment to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. An amendment is an afterthought, which indicates the Government did not know what it was doing at the time. It wanted to be rid of the Combat Poverty Agency. It did not approve of its reports and exposure of the level of poverty in society. What caused the delay in bringing forward that amendment? If it was felt the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was the legal tool in which to abolish the agency, why did it take so long to decide to bring it forward as an amendment? It seems extraordinary.
The issue of savings has been raised and I look forward to the Minister explaining to us what savings will be achieved. I do not believe it is about savings but trying to silence a body that was instrumental in influencing better public policy which dealt with all strands of society and ensured those whose voices were not being heard adequately were heard. I hope the Minister will respond to that point.
At the end of section 2 I need to briefly address an issue because if I do not, I will not be able to move an amendment on it. I have to go to the Dáil to speak on the Finance Bill. I will try to move an amendment at the end of section 2 to ensure that the Minister will hold a review to determine whether we need to set new, longer-term benchmarks to evaluate social welfare rates and how they can be measured. The current measurement structure is not sufficient. I will hold on that until I move my amendment and address it in more detail on Report Stage.
I apologise for being late to the committee. I had to go to a funeral. This is a disastrous decision. In my short time in the Dáil, I have dealt with the Combat Poverty Agency on a number of occasions through my work as a public representative and through other agencies in the community such as Family Resource Centres, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and even the Homeless Agency.
I can understand the Minister is anxious to pull back on resources and save a few bucks here there and there but the Combat Poverty Agency is the lifeline in communities for many groups. It has been a lifeline for me on the many occasions on which I have turned to it for advice or to make representations for other people. The decision to bring it into a bigger fold is disastrous. It is seen as very much in the front line in communities, particularly on the ground. Its views are not always what people want to hear, but they are very focused on the community. In the last four years I have had more dealings with the Combat Poverty Agency than I ever had in my prior few years in public life. This is a wrong decision and we are going backwards instead of forwards in trying to help people, particularly homeless people, who have difficulties even trying to cope in today's world. With the budget cutbacks in many areas, there is a greater need for an agency such as the Combat Poverty Agency out in the community.
These are the people on the coal face who know what is going on. They have made a major contribution to people out there in the community and to public representatives such as me. We could contact them for information and they were very helpful. I agree with Deputy Shortall and the other speakers that this is wrong. The Minister needs to reconsider on the grounds that people out there need the Combat Poverty Agency at their side, not engulfed in a bigger organisation behind four walls.
I thank the members for their interest and comments. The previous Minister decided in June 2007 to start a review of the role of the Combat Poverty Agency. That was not from the perspective of a cost-saving measure or current economic circumstances; it was in the context of the fact that since the establishment of the Combat Poverty Agency, a significant number of other developments had taken place. There were other fora, institutional developments, committees and partnership processes that were doing largely the same work. The review was to consider how to meet best the aims and objectives of the Combat Poverty Agency in future.
It is on foot of the recommendation of that review that we are at the present position and I have decided to accept the recommendation. It was a clear-cut recommendation from the review. Deputy Shortall is correct in stating that former Deputy Frank Cluskey did a service to policy and the State in establishing the Combat Poverty Agency in 1986, and it has done tremendous work over the past 20 years. Since then a number of other developments have taken place, particularly the national partnership process, which has its own specific community and voluntary pillar. All the strategies are there to combat poverty and facilitate social inclusion, such as the national anti-poverty strategy, and various national plans such as Towards 2016 and the national development plan have been formulated since. There is also a Cabinet committee, which I will attend today after we rise, a formal structure chaired by the Taoiseach, dealing with social inclusion.
The office of social inclusion has been established and each of the Departments has such an office, including the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Children. The social inclusion forum, which I opened this morning, is meeting today and there are 200 or 300 people there to make contributions, including those experiencing poverty. There is also the EU open method of co-ordination, various local community development programmes, pre-budget fora etc.
It was in light of such developments that the review was first established. We must build on it and see how we can draw the best from the office of social inclusion and the Combat Poverty Agency. The office of social inclusion will also be disbanded and a new unit will be set up. We will take the best of both.
The Minister has not told us anything about it. Will the new unit continue the work of the two older bodies?
The new unit will carry on what were the functions of the Combat Poverty Agency and the work of the office as it is currently. It will advise policy and ensure new initiatives are taken.
Deputies have asked about the functions of the Combat Poverty Agency and each of those functions already lies with the Minister. They are the advising and making of recommendations, initiation of measures aimed at overcoming poverty——
With whom do the functions lie? Do they lie with the Minister?
Yes, at the moment.
The function is to advise the Minister.
The functions include the initiation of measures aimed at overcoming poverty, the examination of the nature, cause and——
I apologise but we must interrupt proceedings because there is a vote in the House.
I have outlined what other processes were in place in the last 20 years and my desire to ensure the best of the office for social inclusion and the Combat Poverty Agency will be joined together to continue their advisory and research roles and all their other functions which it is not necessary to specify in legislation because they already apply to the Minister of the day and civil servants. It will be a completely new division. Discussions and negotiations are ongoing. There has been much consultation with the agency and the Department is working well with it. I met the board prior to the decision being made and have met it again since to discuss the integration process. Catherine Hazlett who is here from the Department is a member of the board. The Secretary General has attended meetings with the board, while officials have met the staff of the agency and their management team to discuss the implementation process. It was the board, in fact, which suggested the lead-in time and we agreed on a period of six months. This will facilitate examination of all issues of concern to the staff.
Why is the issue being dealt with in this legislation? It was well flagged on Second Stage and discussed at the time. Each Member who contributed spoke about this aspect of the legislation. Debate has not been stifled in any way. Given that the decision was made on foot of a review which had taken 15 months to complete, it was appropriate not to leave the agency or its staff in limbo. We wanted at least to put the process in place for them and to give it legislative backing. That is why it is being dealt with — to ensure we can continue with the agency's work of research, advice and policy initiatives.
A specific question was asked about research. The Combat Poverty Agency and the office for social inclusion have commissioned very important research in recent years. Of the last 38 studies from the agency, 28 were commissioned by it from outside bodies such as the ESRI, while ten, including three budget policy statements, were carried out in-house. In recent years the Department has also commissioned significant research which has been published. I see this as being critical. Studies from this year include The Life Cycle Perspective on Social Inclusion in Ireland: An Analysis of EU-SILC; Tackling Low Income and Deprivation: Developing Effective Policies — the previous two studies were carried out by the ESRI; A Social Portrait of People of Working Age in Ireland, by Callan, Fahey et al.; Pension Priorities: Getting the Balance Right; and Multiple Deprivation and Multiple Disadvantage in Ireland: An Analysis of EU-SILC. There is a large volume of research commissioned by the Department and the agency. I see both in-house and externally commissioned research as being very important because we need to have evidence-based research for policy making.
One of the issues we discussed with the board was the name of the new unit. It suggested the staff work through the possibilities for the title because the unit was to be completely new.
It was never anticipated when the review was started around 18 months ago that it would take only the making of savings into consideration. It was more a question of impact and how best use could be made of the role of the Combat Poverty Agency.
What does that mean?
When the review was initiated, it was decided to investigate the role of the Combat Poverty Agency. It was not initiated just to review possible cost savings. It was considered in the light of all the other strategic developments in the last 20 years. Naturally, there will be some savings in the areas of personnel, staffing accommodation, support services, leased buildings and so on, but the over-riding consideration is to make sure we have a unit that will be doubly effective, rather than having people working separately. I have mentioned the issue of consultation, but it was also my intention and that of the Department to work fully with the staff and the board in the next six months to ensure all aspects of concern to them would be taken into account.
Questions were asked about the unestablished nature of staff who were moving. It is the advice of the Department of Finance and the Attorney General that this is the most appropriate way to do it. When the staff transfer, they will have the same access to promotion, annual leave, training and development opportunities, term-time and work sharing arrangements and so on as the staff holding established positions. A number of the amendments set out provisions for remuneration to ensure nobody is disadvantaged in any way. The Department has initiated the arrangements to ensure any requirements in respect of the roles and responsibilities of staff transferring and for appointment to established positions will be in place as soon as possible. This must be in compliance with the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004. It is our intention to have all the process requirements in place before the commencement date and the Department will work with all the agencies involved to make sure this happens. I appreciate that staff will be anxious, but it is our intention to have all the requirements in place before commencement. For the purposes of the legislation, it is important that we do it this way.
To reiterate, it is my intention to use the very best of the Combat Poverty Agency and the office for social inclusion. The agency is particularly good at some things, as mentioned by Deputy Byrne, which it will continue to do. The review also mentioned some tasks that it should not be doing because responsibility had been transferred to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs where some of the community elements belong. However, I see an enhanced role for the agency with regard to research, in highlighting policy issues and making sure they are developed. One of the things at which it has been particularly good is ensuring the voice of those experiencing poverty is heard. I will certainly ensure this becomes a key part of its future role.
The Minister makes it sound as though she has met the staff and that they said this and that. The reality is that those involved in the agency did not want this to happen. They must engage in discussion because they believe the move is inevitable. I do not accept what the Minister said about the agency's independence. It is disingenuous of her to talk about the 28 studies it commissioned from outside agencies. That is factually correct, but those studies would not have been conducted if the agency had not sought them. I do not think the Minister or her predecessor would have asked for them to be conducted. They were of important issues on which we had to have information. Sometimes the HSE asks the agency to carry out research for it. Other bodies also use it.
The Minister has spoken about all the new agencies which have appeared. Nobody disagrees that there has been a proliferation of agencies, some of which need to be examined. Suggestions were thrown around, such as the pre-budget fora. These resulted in a meeting with the Minister prior to the budget to hear the views of people. The one thing that emerged that the Minister appeared to accept was one of 27 recommendations made by the National Disability Federation in terms of domiciliary care and disability allowance changes. The Minister rowed back on those. Many other submissions were made and discussed on that day but they came to nothing and therefore the Minister should not say things like that.
The Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion is welcome and I am glad it is meeting today. However, last week in the Dáil we were told that committee had not met since February. The Combat Poverty Agency is doing a job and the Minister acknowledges that. Nothing in what she said reassures me or anybody else that the existing independent nature of the agency will continue under the office for social inclusion. I do not care what the new name is. That is borderline irrelevant to the whole business. I care about what it does and about the cares of people who need the agency to be their voice. I do not accept what the Minister says as justification for the changes.
In fairness, I will allow members to contribute but very briefly.
I have a right to speak again, do I not?
I am calling the Deputy to speak.
The Chairman is not making any concession. That is the idea. Committee Stage of a Bill is covered by Standing Orders and committee members have a right to speak.
The Minister is being very disingenuous. It is unfortunate that she does not have the courage to be frank and open about what she is doing. She admitted she is not doing this to save money. She claims that the functions carried out by the Combat Poverty Agency up to now will be carried out by the new agency within her Department. I do not accept that, but that is the Minister's claim. If that is the case, clearly the only reason the Minister is doing this is to remove the independence of that agency. That is a retrograde step. If the Minister suggests for one moment that a group within her Department will have the courage to criticise what she is doing, for example, her failure to make serious inroads into the level of poverty and disadvantage, or that they will criticise the actions of any Minister, she is living in cloud cuckooland. The Minister is not living in such a place, she knows that will not happen and she should not pretend to us that it will. To support my view, I cite the response from the social inclusion unit to the budget.
The Minister spoke about allowing the Combat Poverty Agency and the social inclusion unit to consider what might be the best name. That is rubbish. Why does the Minister tell us this, which is of no consequence? The Minister is trying to divert attention from the fact that she is muzzling, destroying and finishing off an agency that has done excellent work. It may have been uncomfortable for Ministers at different times. However, it did superb work, particularly with regard to creating public awareness of the issue of poverty.
As we go through the recession, there is, more than ever, a need for people to be reminded that we still have very significant levels of poverty and that those levels are likely to increase over the coming years. The rights and needs of people who live in poverty must be kept centre-stage. If the Combat Poverty Agency is not to be present as an independent organisation, I know of no other body that will do that. It seems that the Minister's main intention is to remove this thorn from her side and silence a body that is independent and has been rightly critical of many Ministers down through the years. I shall say no more about that because we have discussed it a number of times. I merely urge the Minister to stop trying to fool us, stop digging and trying to justify what she is doing. She should at least be straight about her intention.
I shall return to the issue of the employment rights of people in the agency. I understand it was suggested to them by the Minister's senior officials that it may be possible for them to become established civil servants if they do some examination or test. That sounds very odd. Can the Minister tell us if there is a route for those people back to the Civil Service, to become established civil servants? Is she prepared to consider that? She talked about the protection of holiday entitlements and different matters. If these people go back into the Department as unestablished civil servants they will be at a serious disadvantage relative to other civil servants in that section. Is there a route whereby they may become full-time civil servants? If the Minister does not have an answer to that today, will she at least give an undertaking that she will explore this possibility?
I record my disappointment with the response of the Minister. She has clearly failed to outline the specific cost savings that will be made. That must be done. The Minister appears to be cutting a wonderful agency for the sake of cutting it and she has not outlined or justified her reasons for doing so. The independent nature of the Combat Poverty Agency is essential. The Minister has not been strong enough on this matter and I would like her to revisit it.
I will take the last question first. Savings are not the overall consideration but obviously there will be some. For example, the agency's accommodation was leased and there will be savings in that respect. There also will be savings on the employment of short-term, temporary staff, sharing personnel, payroll, and ancillary services.
How much will that be?
As the process is being developed over the next six months, priority will go to the greatest savings that can be made, but, as I said, that is not the major consideration.
Deputy Shortall asked about the staff. The process of establishing them is being worked through at present by the Public Appointments Service and the Commission for Public Service Appointments, in consultation with the Department. The aim is to try to have that process in place at the commencement and we do not envisage any difficulty with that. The key purpose is to ensure that the jobs, roles and responsibilities of the employees coming into the Civil Service are brought into compliance with the requirements under the Act for appointment to established positions. That is the intention and the long timescale will allow for that.
The point about the name is not "What's in a name?", but to show that this is not an integration or an absorption of an agency. It is to be established as an entirely new unit that will continue with policy advice and research. I outlined the research the Department has commissioned. I am the first to say how crucial it is to have evidence-based policies and to initiate research and projects that require action, not merely upon the request of a Minister. It is essential to expand and enhance the giving of a voice to people who experience poverty.
The Minister knows perfectly well that will not happen. There is no tradition of civil servants offering criticism to the Minister.
The voices of people in poverty are just as important to me as were the voices of children when I was Minister with responsibility for children. I gave a voice to children in the development of the national children's strategy, which had never been done before. I gave a voice to students on student councils, which were expanded during my time in the Department of Education and Science. It is the same now, I will stand over——
The Minister will support her own work.
I will stand over my work and I acknowledge that the Combat Poverty Agency has done very well in this. There were people this morning at the National Economic and Social Forum who were the first to come up and give me their views as people who had experienced homelessness or who were refugees. Nobody comes up and says that he or she has experienced poverty but those people were present in that context. That voice must continue to be heard. Social inclusion will continue to be a major part of Government policy. We will work with all the various bodies and organisations, all the groups that offer independent advice, to see how best we can use that advice and make sure it feeds into policies.
When did the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion last meet?
I can tell the Deputy when its next meeting is.
When did it meet last?
Its next meeting is at 2 p.m. today.
It last met in February. That shows the importance attached by the Cabinet to issues of poverty and social inclusion. It says it all.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:
""Anti-Fraud Initiatives" means those programs, measures or actions designed to eliminate fraudulent claims in respect of all payments made under the Principal Act, as amended.".
This amendment is linked to a later amendment on reporting requirements at Part 2. Its purpose is to provide clarity in terms of anti-fraud initiatives. I will not press the amendment but I believe there is substantial room for savings within the Department by ensuring that those who receive payments are those who are eligible. I do not think the Minister disagrees. She has said on a number of occasions that her Department hopes to make more savings.
However, I am concerned about the ability to meet the targets outlined in July, given that the Government has said it hopes to make more savings to pay for the proposed change in the domiciliary care allowance not being proceeded with and people being allowed to remain on disability payment. I had anticipated that the amendments would be grouped and that all the reporting requirements would be discussed at this stage.
There are only three groupings. I share Deputy Enright's concern about ensuring anti-fraud measures are in place but I do not believe this amendment is necessary because legislation is in place that allows for comprehensive control activity. Social welfare fraud is controlled in a number of different ways through prevention, detection, deterrents and debt recovery and claims are reviewed regularly and targeted. We carry out risk assessments and fraud and error surveys. We review different schemes, carry out debt claims and home visits and issue mail shots. We engage in database checking, medical reviews for illness payments and special targeted groups. There is also a system of employer inspections in respect of PRSI. At local and regional office levels there are approximately 600 staff, whose work includes some control activities.
It is essential to ensure the right people receive payment and there are substantial savings to be made on it. The Deputy is also correct in saying there is considerable pressure on the staff of some of the offices because of the increased number of claims. Some of the offices have been given additional staff to deal with those claims. The control and anti-fraud measures are equally important. While I agree with the desire to ensure fraudulent claims are stamped out this amendment is not necessary.
I will make some further points later when we come to discuss the reporting requirements. It is clear from what can be done in certain areas that if anti-fraud measures were applied to all payments more savings could be made in respect of people making claims to which they know they are not entitled. I do not want the anti-fraud initiatives to be used as a cost saving exercise against people who need payments but where there is genuine fraud in the system. The initiative would ensure that the payments made are legitimate. I will not push the amendment at this point.
Amendment No. 3 in the name of Deputy Shortall is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
I want to made a general point.
I am sorry. The amendment has been ruled out of order.
I wish to make a general point but not on the amendment. It is very unsatisfactory that members of the committee cannot discuss the merits or otherwise of budget changes. Effectively, what is provided for in Standing Orders is that any proposal we make or any amendment we propose to the Bill is ruled out of order on the grounds that it will result in a charge on the Exchequer. That forces members to go through the convoluted route of requesting that a report be produced on the effects of some of these changes. It is nonsense to expect people to go through that procedure. I ask the Minister to give consideration to how this issue might be dealt with in the future.
I have a serious concern about this section in respect of its impact on the eligibility of part-time workers to job-seekers benefit. It has serious implications given that they will lose out on more than €44 per week in job-seekers benefit. That should not be tolerated. Standing Orders do not allow us to raise our objections to that and to discuss it with the Minister. There is a problem with that. I ask the Chairman to raise with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges how we might deal with those concerns in the future.
I agree with Deputy Shortall. Last year was the first time I had to deal with the Social Welfare Bill and I did not realise that was the way it worked. It makes a mockery of what we are trying to achieve. The Minister had the opportunity to introduce her changes on Second Stage, through the publication of the Bill. We do not have that opportunity and the only way we can address issues is by tabling amendments on Committee Stage. We accept the reality that we will probably be defeated on the votes on our amendments but we would like the opportunity to put forward our perspectives properly. It is a matter that should be changed in time for the next social welfare legislation. We are all trying to make better legislation and ensure the needs of the people we are trying to serve are addressed. Such needs cannot be addressed through this system. We have submitted requests for reports and in that way we will be able to make our points on suggested changes. However, when somebody asks why a report is being requested when we are not allowed propose change it makes the whole system here look archaic.
I agree with Deputies Enright and Shortall. What we are dealing with here is a procedural issue that needs to be looked at and amended. I encourage the Minister to have a look at it and the Chairman to refer it to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges. It will not be long until the Minister is sitting at this side of the House so it is well to correct it sooner than later.
Is section 3 agreed?
I have already said I do not agree to the section on the basis that the Minister is disimproving the situation for part-time workers.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall, within 3 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.".
This comes back to the point we raised earlier on the reason the provision is worded this way. In terms of the family income supplement payment, I appreciate there was an increase of €10 in the threshold but that increase will not make a huge difference to many people. Campaigns in the past led to a much improved take-up of family income supplement, but as I stated on Second Stage there appears to be some disproportion between the numbers who apply for FIS and the numbers who receive it. There are probably many people who would be eligible for the payment but who are not aware of it or have not gone through the process of applying for it.
The figures published recently by the Conference of Religious of Ireland, CORI, show that 750,000 people are living on incomes that put them below the poverty line and, as stated by Fr. Seán Healy, 30% of all households are at risk of poverty. That highlights the problem and the importance of the family income supplement to many people in addressing it. For that reason I ask the Minister to consider further the way the FIS is operated.
The Deputy is correct, FIS is a valuable income support for employees and low earners with families. The idea is to keep the incentive for people to move from welfare to employment or to remain in employment rather than being on welfare. It has always been difficult to estimate the number of people who would qualify for FIS but in recent years there has been a significant increase in the numbers taking up the scheme. The figure now is 26,600 and we reckon it will probably increase to approximately 29,000 next year with the budget improvements.
Research has been undertaken by the ESRI, in particular into the level of take-up of FIS and the reasons people do not take it up. That research is nearing completing and it will give us valuable information on how we can target the relevant groups and ensure that people are encouraged to take it up.
The supplement is a significant help. Next year we will spend over €181 million on it, which is an indication of the number of people who need it and how valuable it is to them. I do not propose to accept the amendment but as soon as I get the results of that research we will work to improve the take-up. I apologise, the figure for next year is €211.6 million, not €181 million.
I will press the amendment because the study that was done shows that 30% of all households at risk of poverty are headed by somebody with a job. That is a real concern and it goes back to what we said about the Combat Poverty Agency. We need people to comment on these issues. That type of research is extremely important in that we can see from the statistics that these people are doing their best. They are in employment, yet they are still at risk of poverty. I know the Minister agrees that that is what makes the FIS particularly important to those people.
I welcome the fact that there will be a report on this area. That is all the more reason for the amendment to be pressed in that I would like to see that report published within three months because it could guide everybody with an interest in this area.
The failure in this legislation is that it has not examined social welfare payments in a holistic way. It is a piecemeal approach but what we need is an overall review of the best way to change matters to ensure that people are better off in employment and that we are supporting people who cannot get employment. This legislation does not achieve that.
It is my intention to publish the research and lay it before the Houses of the Oireachtas. It could valuably inform part of our discussions on parliamentary questions and so on in the coming months.
I will withdraw the amendment but may re-table it on Report Stage.
I must address an issue briefly because I propose to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage. As I am not a member of the committee I need to address it briefly to be procedurally correct. I intend to bring forward an amendment, which will probably be ruled out of order, to have the PRSI ceiling abolished because those who are enjoying the ceiling threshold currently are those who can most afford to pay that money. It would raise in the order of €295 million annually, which would alleviate the suffering of the people at the other end of the scale.
The Deputy will have to leave that until Report Stage.
I will not be able to move the amendment on Report Stage if I do not raise the matter now. I have raised it and I am happy to do so.
I intend to move a similar amendment on Report Stage dealing with thresholds. I believe that is procedurally correct.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 in the name of Deputy Shortall are out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, before section 13, to insert the following new section:
13.---The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need for foster parents to be considered a qualified parent and for fostered children to be considered a qualified child for the purposes of qualifying for the one parent family payment.".
I want to make a number of points on this section but regarding the amendments ruled out of order, I had endeavoured to raise the issue of lone parents and the fact that little or no progress has been made in respect of the supports for lone parents, particularly in terms of abolishing the cohabitation rule. It has been long recognised that there were serious problems in the manner in which one parent family payment was paid. It often acted as a disincentive to parents to live together and, in some cases, to take up employment.
The idea of the payment proposed under the Minister's predecessor's proposals was that there would be a payment targeted at children living in poverty and that that payment would be made irrespective of whether one or two parents lived in the family home or whether the parents were working. That is undeniably the right approach where assistance and support is provided for children where they are living in terms of their needs. How their parents live or whether they are working should not be a factor.
To pick up on the point made by Deputy Enright on the considerable number of people living in poverty who have a job, or the working poor, there has been no progress made on that issue. I do not know if the Minister is interested in this issue. Her two predecessors talked about it a great deal. They did not implement any measures but at least they raised it as an important area for debate. I would welcome the Minister's views on it. I am disappointed that she has made no progress in the context of the current budget. That is the reason I put down that amendment.
The other amendment that has been ruled out of order concerns the guardian's payment. It arises out of a case I dealt with in my constituency involving a family whose father had died and whose mother was incarcerated. Unfortunately, those children were not regarded as qualifying children for the purposes of the guardian's payment. There was a gap in the legislation in that respect. I was attempting to bring that to the Minister's attention and have it dealt with. I would welcome her views on that. There is need for a change in the legislation. I ask her to consider the issue and perhaps she will be minded to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage. I will return to this issue then and it would be welcome if she was prepared to bring forward an amendment.
Amendment No. 7 relates to fostering and concerns a case that arose. There was some indication from the Minister's officials that there was a willingness by the Minister to deal with this issue. She has not specifically committed to doing so in this legislation in so far as she would be enabled to do so, but I would like her to give a commitment that she will specifically deal with it.
The case brought to my attention by Deputy Wall involved a cohabiting couple who were fostering two children. The woman died and the man had to give us his employment to look after the children. He applied for the one parent family payment but was told he was not entitled to it as he could not be regarded as a qualified parent under section 172. That does not make sense. This is a glaring deficiency in the legislation. While I welcome the fact that the Minister proposes a change which would enable her to deal with such a situation, I would like her to give a commitment that she will address those circumstances.
We are actively working on the issue in regard to lone parents. I have had meetings with One Family and I will have another one next week. I launched its report on this issue and we have progressed our thinking on it, but there are still serious issues to be dealt with revolving around child care and the available child care services before we begin to put in place any new procedures for the receipt of one parent family payment. We are still actively working on it.
Will the Minister explain why that is the case?
One of the issues, which it is not appropriate to go into now, discussed in the previous suggestions and recommendations to which the Deputy referred, concerned lone parents and work. The availability of child care services, particularly community child care services, and the extension of the number of places available to lone parents is essential to enable them to participate fully. We are learning from the experience of the pilot projects introduced in Coolock and Kilkenny and how they are actively working on the ground.
What is the Minister learning from those?
As soon as those projects have been finalised, I will be able to discuss the matter further with people. The Deputy asked are we doing anything about this, to which the answer is "Yes". We are continuing to work on the proposals to support lone parents, which are all about tackling obstacles to employment for lone parents and examining the issues concerning low income families, regardless of whether they are lone parents. We are still actively working on that.
The Deputy asked about the position concerning specific people. She will be aware that payments are not made to people who are incarcerated in prison as that would open up——
Or those who foster.
I am just dealing with the first issue. As I said, that would open up a new section in this respect. The foster care parent is a——
I am not saying that the payment should be made to the person in prison but rather that the children of a person who is in prison should be regarded as qualifying children for the purposes of the guardian's payment.
There is no proposal to consider that. I understood the Deputy was talking about a lone parent family where the parent was incarcerated and I could not understand why she considered that should be done. It is something we could examine, but it would not be done for the purposes of Report Stage.
The particular case that came to my attention in my constituency involved two teenage children, the father died and the mother was incarcerated. A grandmother is looking after those two teenagers, which is not an easy task in those circumstances, yet she does not qualify for the guardian's payment because those teenagers were not regarded as qualifying children for the purposes of the guardian's payment. That is the case that I brought to the Minister's attention.
I appreciate that the Deputy brought to my attention that case——-
It seems incredible that this payment would not be available in this case.
——and the issues surrounding it, but it is unlikely that it would be considered for the purposes of an amendment to be brought forward at this stage, but I will examine the particular case.
In those circumstances, that woman cannot qualify for any payment for those children, other than a qualified child payment on her pension. She has agreed to take on the care of two teenagers in those difficult circumstances and the State does not recognise the role she is playing.
I do not know the particular case, but if that person is a foster carer and qualifies as such, she will receive a payment of more than €300 a week from the HSE, which is a generous payment. She would also qualify for child benefit payments and for the back to school education allowance. She would already qualify for those payments. It is not appropriate to make two payments to a person who is in receipt of the foster care allowance, given that it is a generous payment of more than €300 a week.
I am not suggesting for one moment that there should be two payments, but when this person applied for the guardian's payment she was disqualified from claiming it on the grounds that a parent who is incarcerated is not regarded as having abandoned or not being in a position to provide for his or her children, which does not make sense.
Perhaps that person will qualify for the foster parent allowance. There may be other ways of meeting the needs of that person.
It is much more difficult to do that.
The foster care allowance is a more generous payment.
Is the new section agreed?
There are other issues concerning fostering. The Minister has not addressed amendment No. 7 which relates to fostering.
The Deputy requests that foster parents should qualify for the one parent family payment. They already are in receipt of €312 per week for each child under the age of 12 and €339 per week per child aged 12 and over. We do not believe they need to be entitled to the one parent family payment over and above that.
The briefing I had from the Minister's officials was that as a result of the case I raised last year, she would bring in such an amendment. The position is different now if she is ruling out such a provision. The circumstances I raised involved a man who was looking after two foster children. If he had a child of his own, that child would qualify him to be eligible for the one parent family payment. He had to give up his job to look after two foster children. That fact is not recognised in legislation in so far as he does not have an income from employment, which he had previously when his wife was alive. If that man had a child of his own, he would also get a payment for the two foster children. My understanding was that the Minister was well disposed to addressing this issue; that is what I understood from the briefing I got. It is disappointing if she is saying she is not prepared to deal with this issue.
In the case raised by the Deputy, that man is also receiving €680 a week just for the two children, and if he is a full-time foster carer, he probably also gets child benefit payments for them.
The point is a foster payment was being made to the family anyway. The man was working, his wife died, he then had to give up his job and he is at the loss of the income he had from his employment. I would have thought that a person in those circumstances would have qualified for the one parent family payment. If he also had a child of his own, he would have qualified for that payment for three children, but because he does not have a biological child, he is precluded from claiming that payment. When I raised the matter, there was an acceptance that there was a gap in the legislation that would be filled.
I know where the Deputy is coming from, but as for the idea of giving a State payment of €880 a week to look after two children — I know she is saying it was in place before — I wonder what incentive there would then be for a person to work, even when those children reached an age at which the person might be able to work.
I am not going to press this amendment because there is confusion around it. I will withdraw it but I ask the Minister to reconsider it on Report Stage. I thought people were well disposed to dealing with this matter and that that was the intention. I will withdraw the amendment at this point and perhaps I will get a fuller answer on Report Stage.
While Deputy Shortall has withdrawn the amendment, there is a real difficulty at the moment in persuading people to become foster parents. The Minister should bear that in mind when she re-examines the issue. It is important to sort out these matters so that people are not discouraged from fostering. If children are not in foster families, it will cost the State much more money to care for them.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 9, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following subsections:
"(3) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the link between receipt of lone parent allowance and the commencement of employment.
(4) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the progress made to support and encourage one parent families in entering the workforce.".
I wish to make a few points about this amendment, although I appreciate the Minister has answered some of the matters in her discussion with Deputy Shortall. The Minister has had two pilot projects running and I think they have reported to her, but I am concerned that we are unaware of the outcomes since we need to discuss these matters as well. This brings me back to the importance of having an independent body such as the Combat Poverty Agency. It makes me question the Minister's sincerity when she says that information will be made available publicly by the Office for Social Inclusion. To have a detailed discussion on the issue of lone parents, we need to know how those two pilot projects worked. In tabling these amendments, I am conscious that this is the third successive Minister for Social and Family Affairs who has commented almost ad nauseam on one-parent families, yet we have not seen any changes or action as a result of all this discussion and publicity.
Some 84,000 one-parent families are dependent on State support. People are 4.5 times more likely to live in poverty if they are in a one-parent family. One-parent families in general, and mothers in particular, should have the same right as others — be they in a marital unit or not — to choose whether to work or stay at home to look after their children. I am concerned by recent comments that seem to give the impression that one-parent families will be forced into the workforce. They should be entitled to make value choices. If they choose to raise children at home, their work should be valued in the same way as a married person who makes that decision but who can avail of a spouse's income.
The Minister launched a study on one-parent families last week. Some 84% of the families who responded to that study said they were working, looking for work or engaged in educational training. There is a strong motivation involved, therefore, and we should start from the premise that such people want to join the workforce. Some 16% of those respondents said they were not taking home much more money since they started working, which illustrates the disincentive arising from the poverty trap. The two most prevalent reasons for leaving jobs were that it was not worth their while or that they could not afford quality child care. Another reason, especially in rural areas, is that people cannot physically get to the workplace without a car, which those living in poverty do not have.
I am seeking these reports because it is about time we had something concrete to go on regarding the Government's thinking on this matter. At the moment we are reacting to statements without having any coherent strategy. I believe in the concept of activation by facilitating people to enter the workforce. Before we do so, however, the recompense must cover the cost of quality child care and people must have transport to get to work. Following recent comments, I am concerned that the value of people remaining at home to raise children is being undermined. It would be a mistake to do so, however.
When I spoke previously on this section, I asked the Minister to outline her thinking in respect of lone parents. We knew where her two predecessors stood and even if they took no action, they at least discussed the matter. It is disappointing that the only comment the Minister made today was a throwaway remark that child care is an issue. That seemed to be all she said about it, but we know child care is a major issue for people accessing employment. There are many other issues involved in the mix concerning lone parents but the Minister has not addressed any of them. For example, where does she stand on the fact that the social welfare system discriminates against two-parent families and acts as a disincentive for parents to live together while raising their children? Does she accept there is a serious structural problem with the social welfare system that needs to be tackled?
From previous work that has been done on supporting lone parents, it would seem that that very problem was recognised. I fully accept it is not easy to find a solution to that but at least there was a genuine attempt in that proposal to have a family payment for all children in poverty. There is the basis of a solution in that genuine attempt, but the Minister has not indicated whether she accepts there is a serious problem. Neither has she indicated her thinking in terms of finding a solution; she lets the issue drag on. It seems that she used the pilot projects in Kilkenny and Coolock as cover for doing nothing for a long time. She has now received the reports from those projects. On Question Time in the Dáil, she made some throwaway comments that what was found in the project reports was not very encouraging. The pilot projects involved more than lone parents, however, so what has the Minister found out from them? Have the project reports affected her thinking on what she plans to do? How will she deal with this matter?
Is the Minister aware of the extent to which couples benefit by not living together officially? This applies to any scenario whether they are both on welfare, both in employment, or only one is employed. In any such scenario, couples stand to lose at least one third of their income by living together officially. It seems to be an outrageous public policy that works against parents living together and taking responsibility for raising their children. Between the social welfare and tax systems, the incentive is for such people to live apart. People have attended my constituency clinics to seek advice on what they should do, given the impact on them of living together or getting married. Looking at it from a financial viewpoint, people who are dependent on welfare or low-paid employment would be crazy to live together or get married. The Minister cannot stand over a public policy that forces parents to live apart.
The problem that exists in this regard was identified some time ago. In the mid-1990s, a predecessor of this committee commissioned Colm Rapple to carry out research in respect of this matter. That research highlighted the extent to which there are disincentives for parents to live together. However, no action was taken. The problem has been recognised and the discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, identified it as an issue to be dealt with. However, the Minister and her two immediate predecessors stalled on taking action. All they did was perform the old trick of establishing pilot projects.
What action does the Minister propose to take in respect of this matter? Her senior officials have known for umpteen years that a real problem exists for couples with extremely low incomes that cannot afford to set themselves up as two-parent families.
When I first considered this section, I tried to figure out how we might construct an amendment that would deal with many of the issues to which Deputy Enright referred. However, I could not do so. The prospect of having a report is an excellent idea and I support the amendment in that regard. I hope the Minister will take on board this proposal. I would go so far as to suggest that the Combat Poverty Agency would be an excellent choice to compile such a report.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. Given the way Committee Stage operates, I appreciate that it is a means by which the issue can be raised. The Government's discussion paper, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, remains the basis for our policy discussions in respect of this matter. It is not correct to state that nothing has been done for lone parents, particularly when one considers that the first €146.50 of those who are in receipt of lone parent payments and who are also working outside the home is disregarded. Half of the balance of anything in excess of that amount is assessed.
We are discussing cohabitation.
Lone parents also receive family income supplement if they work 19 hours per week.
The statistics and the facts relating to this matter are clear, namely, that the children of lone parents who are dependent on social welfare payments are up to 4.5 times more likely to be living in poverty. Our policy decisions must be based on lifting these children out of poverty. As matters stand, the system militates against forming long-term relationships. It also militates against people entering well-paid employment. We have discovered that people are working 19 hours but no more. This means that their incomes are lower. Payments continue to be made to lone parents until their children, subject to their being in full-time education, reach 22 years of age. This effectively means that these parents are being removed from both the workforce and stable relationships. That is not good for children, their families or society.
These remain the underlying principles of the work we are trying to do. We considered the position in other countries and discovered that they cease making payments without conditions in respect of the children of lone parents at a much younger age. In Scandinavian countries, the age is four, five or six years of age. The UK is reducing the age to ten and in the USA it is three months. The original proposal in the discussion paper to which I refer was that the age here should be seven or eight years. In my view, that is too young. We must balance the rights of children and ensure they have their parents with them, particularly in the one-parent scenario. However, we must also encourage these parents to benefit from their right to education, access to training and employment.
The projects in Kilkenny and Coolock indicate just how diverse are the groups. Those involved all had different levels of education, most of them quite low, and few were participating in training or education. That is why the facilitators and what they do in the context of activation is extremely important. A great deal of work has been done in this area in recent years. Additional facilitators have been appointed and there are more about to be appointed. These individuals will work actively with the groups to which I refer.
The overriding difficulty mentioned by everyone involved with the projects, regardless of their level of education, was the availability of affordable quality child care. Members will be aware that this matter comes under the remit of the Office of the Minister for Children, which has done significant work in respect of it in recent years.
We are currently working on the implementation of issues relating to education, training and the activation of child care support. We are particularly focused on payments and what should be the position regarding conditions attaching to such payments in the context of work. The difficulty is that, on a voluntary basis, the take-up in Coolock and Kilkenny was low. In other countries where the system operates on a voluntary basis, participation in the workforce was also very low.
These matters are under active consideration at present. I am more than conscious of the problems that exist in respect of poverty, work and long-term relationships as a result of the way the system is structured at present. I am actively working to try to take action in respect of these problems. I am building on the work done by my two immediate predecessors and that carried out in respect of the discussion paper.
It would be of assistance if members were given access to the reports relating to Coolock and Kilkenny before Report Stage. We would then not be obliged to discuss this matter in a vacuum. I am not surprised that the take-up was low. Why would people become involved if it was clear they would be no better off? People are concerned that once they reach the 19-hour threshold, their social welfare entitlements automatically change. It is needless to say the take-up would be low in such circumstances.
I am concerned that the Minister is considering the issue of child care and intends to bring forward proposals in respect of it. While we would welcome the emergence of concrete proposals, the Minister cannot make changes until she addresses the other issues that arise in respect of lone-parent families.
The position is similar with regard to cohabitation. If the difficulties relating to the latter are addressed, some of the families we are discussing would have greater options and could ensure that their employment arrangements might operate in such a way as to allow one or other parent to be available within the family home. This option does not exist at present.
This matter is being dealt with in a piecemeal fashion. The Minister stated that certain actions have been taken and she referred to particular payments, etc. I accept there have been changes but we are not taking a holistic approach. It is not possible to change what the Department of Social and Family Affairs does for one-parent families in isolation. The Office of the Minister for Children must also be involved, as must the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which, for some reason, was responsible for the construction of child care facilities throughout the country. Unless all the matters to which I refer are addressed and an integrated approach taken in respect of transport, it will not be feasible for the Department of Social and Family Affairs to change the system.
The Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion is meeting at 2 p.m. The sub-committee might represent the ideal forum at which to address this issue. Departments cannot do so in isolation but that is what is happening on a continual basis and that is why people continue to live in poverty. They are falling through the cracks as a result of the failure to deal with this matter in an holistic way.
I agree with all of the points made by Deputy Enright in respect of activation measures. However, I raised a number of matters with the Minister and her reply focused entirely on activation. What is the position with regard to the other major issue of concern in respect of lone parents, namely, cohabitation? What are the Minister's views in this regard and what action does she intend to take?
The Deputy will be aware that where there are two parents, the single payment amounts to €166. It would not be possible to provide a double payment at this stage. Let us consider this matter in the context of the overall report. We are not merely discussing lone parents, we are also referring to qualified adults and how they are affected.
That is the point. There is a disincentive for people to live together because they will be financially penalised if they do so, either as cohabiting or married couples. This is a major problem in the context of both the welfare system and the need to support families. The message it sends out about the State's attitude to fathers in particular is that they do not count, they are not important in their children's lives and they should not be living with their children or their partners. That is the message being sent from the welfare system to fathers.
It has been recognised for a long time that the way the welfare system works is a serious problem and it has a very negative impact on low income families. What is the Minister doing about that? The document, Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents, was a genuine attempt to deal with that in so far as a payment was proposed that would be paid irrespective of whether there were one or two parents in the family home. What is the Minister's intention in that regard? Is she prepared to stand over public policy that incentivises parents living apart? Does she intend to tackle the problem and, if so, how does she propose to do that?
I said in my opening comments that I would accept that paying a lone parent until the child is 22 years of age and in full-time education mitigates formulating long-term relationships, which is not in the best interests of the child, the family or society. On the conditions attached to it, we must ensure what we are doing is in the best interests of society generally.
What is in the best interests of society?
These are the issues that have been set out in the discussion paper and as I have mentioned at least three times already, the discussion paper is being implemented, certainly on the non-pay side, in working with the Minister with responsibility for children and on all the other issues, especially those relating to facilitating people to get back into education, training and work. As soon as we have finalised issues regarding the other aspects of it, I will come back to the House.
Does the Minister accept there are serious financial disincentives for low income parents to live together?
Anyone who is dependent on social welfare is always in danger of being caught in a poverty trap. Our aim in all the work we do——
I am not talking about people on welfare. In any scenario where there is low income, whether the person is welfare dependent or on a low income from employment, does the Minister accept that for a whole cohort of people on low incomes there are serious financial disincentives to parents living together?
Part of our policy is to try to ensure we do not have disincentives for people going back to work or whatever.
Does the Minister accept they exist currently in the welfare system?
As I have already mentioned, if someone can get payment by virtue of being a lone parent and they lose it by virtue of someone else living with them, that is obviously a disincentive.
Does the Minister believe it is something that must be tackled?
The document published last year on the proposals for dealing with lone parents is an active, live document currently being implemented on the non-income side and worked through on a cross-departmental basis, and that will continue to be the case.
The Minister has said she will publish proposals on this area. I believe it is on the list of proposed legislation for 2009. Is that based on the document? How do the pilot studies feed into that? Is there something else to be published? The Minister has given different answers in the Chamber——
No. I will repeat what I have said. The report published last year, which contains the proposals, remains the basis for our discussion. The findings from Coolock and Kilkenny feed into that, as indeed does other research, for example, One Family and so on.
If there is no agreement on the nature of the problems there cannot be agreement on the solutions. In fairness to the Minister's two predecessors, they were prepared to engage on the issues regarding lone parents and welfare and work, but particularly in regard to cohabitation. They engaged in those in a genuine attempt to find solutions. The Minister does not seem to recognise there is a serious problem. She is denying it. She is giving pat answers on the spot that are written down for her but she does not appear to accept this is a real issue in terms of the tax and welfare treatment of couples who might be living apart or living together as a cohabiting couple or a married couple. There are major disincentives for low income people to move in together or to get married. That cannot be good policy and it has a hugely negative impact on the children of those couples, on the perception of fathers and the way fathers view themselves if the Department is telling them they are better off staying out of the family home.
Does the Minister see these as important issues that must be tackled? I am not saying there are easy solutions but they are critical issues that must be tacked in terms of child welfare and family welfare generally. There does not seem to be any acknowledgement of those issues by the Minister today. Has she engaged with this issue at all? She does not appear to have given it any consideration.
I have already outlined for the committee that I have met the groups and that we will continue to engage. I do not know with whom the Deputy wants me to engage on these issues.
The Minister has not given us any views here today on the issue of cohabitation.
I will give my views on all of those issues——
When?
——when we come forward with our final proposals on them.
We could at least discuss them here.
It is important that we continue our completion of the Social Welfare Bill. These are important issues. They will not be solved by sniping across the table. We know the issues are serious and complex. The one thing we have learned from both Coolock and Kilkenny is that every one of those individuals has different needs and, therefore, while it must be tacked from the point of view of education, training and child care, there are rent supplement, income and cohabiting issues that are outlined in the document published last year and which form the basis of our proposals.
The Minister is not doing anything about it.
Deputy Shortall——
Chairman, it is entirely appropriate that we discuss policy issues in the context of the Social Welfare Bill.
I allowed you to continue.
No one wants to snipe. People want to engage with the Minister and determine her thinking on this issue but it appears she does not have any view on a critical area of social welfare policy.
I will chair this part of the meeting. Before lunch we dealt with amendment No. 8 to section 13. I am now dealing with section 13 which Deputy Shortall wishes to oppose.
We dealt with this in some detail before lunch. I am opposing the section principally for the failure of the Minister to bring forward concrete proposalsto tackle the many anomalies regarding payments for lone parents as I have outlined.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 9, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
14.—The Principal Act is amended in section 198 by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3D)—
"(3F) The landlord in receipt of a payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable of a tenant shall, as soon as practicable, submit to the Health Service Executive the registration details of the tenancy where registration is required by section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004"".
This issue came up earlier this year at the Committee of Public Accounts. It relates to the gaps in information exchange between the agencies involved in the private rented sector. The Committee of Public Accounts expressed concern that the systems in place seemed to be lax. There were hearings attended by representatives of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Revenue Commissioners and the PRTB. One of the recommendations of the Committee of Public Accounts was that rent supplement should not be paid on a property, unless it was registered with the PRTB. While I know all landlords have a legal obligation to register their properties, this would be a further tightening of the net. As a considerable amount of public money is being paid in rent supplement — approximately €430 million — we should have an assurance as taxpayers that all this money is being accounted for. One way to tighten up would be by requiring any landlord receiving rent supplement to register his or her property.
I support the amendment. The final paragraph of amendment No 14 in my name would have the same effect. It is important to make this change while we have the opportunity to do so. We are scrimping and saving across the board and hitting vulnerable sectors. When there is an opportunity to save money that is effectively being ignored by not being stricter in how it operates, that is a mistake. I appreciate it is difficult to obtain the figures as to how many properties are not registered, which shows the flaw in the system. However, we should be able to determine the exact number of properties rented, particularly when it is linked to rent supplement. This is a worthwhile measure that should be implemented immediately.
I also support the amendment. I am concerned with some of the language used in this section of the Bill which may well restrict access to mortgage relief. On that basis, I will be tabling an amendment on Report Stage. It is a very important subject because more than €400 million is expended annually on mortgage relief and it is important that it be covered.
Legally, it is obviously important that tenancies be registered. The Department works very closely with the Private Residential Tenancies Board to ensure payment of rent supplement to tenancies complies with all the regulations and safeguards in place under the Residential Tenancies Act. As soon as any new rent supplement is paid, we provide this information electronically for the PRTB which enables it to follow up on any landlords who might not have registered and take any follow-up action required. Obviously, it is only after the landlord has acquired a tenant that he or she is required to register. Landlords do not register a property but a tenancy. The landlord has a period of one month after commencement of the tenancy in which to register. However, the tenancy does not need to be registered before rent supplement is paid. The legal advice is that because rent supplement is the property of the tenant, not the landlord, we should not penalise the tenant by waiting to ascertain whether the landlord has registered the tenancy. It also confirms the view that it is a contract between the landlord and the tenant and that that contract is not affected by the non-registration of a tenancy. Naturally, the Department must be careful not to jeopardise the position or home of the tenant by not paying rent supplement, thereby risking that the tenant would not be able to pay the rent. There are legal obligations on landlords to comply with all aspects of the Residential Tenancies Act, a matter on which we are continuing to work with the board. However, we cannot place the recipient in a vulnerable position. Our advice is that it is for the tenant, not the landlord. We give the information to the PRTB as quickly as we can. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
It is hard to take this issue in isolation. In the next few amendments we will deal with a number of aspects of rent supplement. This is a very specific aspect on which a recommendation has been made. It is all very well to claim that in theory it happens after rent supplement is granted. However, I am not aware of any significant number of cases in which the landlord failed to register the property and rent supplement was withdrawn. I do not believe that is happening. The theory is that the details are forwarded. However, the PRTB is completely snowed under as regards the level of work with which it must cope and it is also understaffed. The follow-up is not good. Very often community welfare officers are placed in an invidious position because when there is a shortage of properties — I accept the position is gradually improving — they can be left in a position where they either have to refuse to enforce this element or refuse rent supplement which results in the tenant being turfed out of accommodation. If the Minister's policy was being pursued, that should be happening but it is not. It is unfair on the tenant and it is also unfair on community welfare officers. It would be a more streamlined system if it was verified that a property was registered before payment was made. Given the scale of the public funding involved and the recommendation made by the Committee of Public Accounts, the amendment should be taken on board.
There is an element of the chicken and the egg to what the Minister said about not wanting to penalise the tenant. For some, the reality is that in cases where the landlord is not registered there is no check on the type and quality of accommodation on offer. As a result, for some it can be very poor. While overall quality has improved in recent years, there is still a problem. It will always be the one in the property which is not registered who has the poor accommodation. In some places, particularly smaller towns — there could be similar difficulties in inner city areas and so on — tenants can be forced into poor accommodation. They receive rent supplement, but there is no check on the landlord. I am sure we all know landlords — I do not know whether they are registered — who offer accommodation which is not great. Unless there is an overall approach to this matter, quality will not improve. It is the landlord who is at fault in terms of the quality of the property and paying tax. It is the tenants who suffer in the long run, even if they are receiving rent supplement.
The Deputies are trying to protect the quality and standard of accommodation for tenants. As they said, they have improved in recent years as, particularly in recent months, more accommodation has become available. Asking that the information be given to the Health Service Executive when it is also given to the PRTB would amount to duplication. The tenant has a legal requirement to keep his or her contract to pay rent to the landlord. We cannot allow a tenant to break that contract simply by not paying him or her. Legally, the money belongs to the tenant, not the landlord, which is why we are caught in this matter. The relationship between the landlord and the board is a matter we will need to keep under review. It is probably more relevant to the board rather than the HSE. That is why I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
"14.—The Principal Act is amended in section 198 by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3D)—
"(3G) (i) The payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable by a person in respect of his or her residence shall be paid in its entirety by the Health Service Executive to the landlord.
(ii) The tenant shall pay to the Health Service Executive the portion of the rent for which they are liable."".
This is a further amendment in relation to rent supplement. Government policy in recent times has been to move towards the rental accommodation scheme, which has been a welcome development. Tenants in the private rented sector enjoy greater security of tenure under that scheme, under which the State, through the local authorities, plays a role in ensuring standards are upheld. Most importantly, from the point of view of social welfare recipients, a differential rent system applies under it. It is obvious that many of the problems associated with poverty traps, in which people in receipt of social welfare payments, particularly lone parents, often find themselves when in private rented accommodation, are dealt with in this manner. While the scheme is very popular, unfortunately, not enough properties are available under it. Local authorities do not have sufficient resources to bring more properties into it. Their involvement in the private rented sector, as a go-between, is the ideal way to go.
Under the rental accommodation scheme, rent is paid directly to landlords. The contract agreed between local authorities and landlords involves the payment of a fixed rent over a four-year period. Tenants also pay a share of the rent. That works well.
Issues have been raised about the operation of the rent supplement scheme, separate from the rental accommodation scheme. Some tenants are expected to make top-up payments, in addition to their official contributions. The HSE is not always informed of such payments. Three payments are involved in such cases — the actual rent the HSE pays to landlords, the unofficial top-up payment and the official tenant contribution to rent. This is entirely unsatisfactory and many are encountering difficulties as a result. A blind eye has been turned to the continuation of this illegal system. We need bring an end to this approach. It would make much more sense for the rent supplement scheme to operate in the same way as the rental accommodation scheme. For that reason, I suggest those in receipt of rent supplement should be able to avail of the arrangements that apply under the rental accommodation scheme. The HSE should pay rent directly to the landlord. The tenant should then pay the HSE the portion of the rent for which he or she is liable.
This brings us back to an issue I mentioned. Each rent supplement payment is made to the tenant, of whom it is the property. A tenant can nominate an agent to receive the payment, like all other social welfare payments, on his or her behalf. Approximately 13,000 of the 70,000 who receive the supplement have chosen to have payments made directly to landlords. Such arrangements are made at the request of tenants, rather than at the request of landlords. I suppose that covers one end of it. The Deputy has argued that any balance should be paid to the HSE rather than the landlord. Landlords should not be charging additional moneys. All available forms of evidence, including statistics produced by www.daft.ie, suggest rents are decreasing in all parts of the country. The limits set should be adequate to enable people to find accommodation. Their rent payments should be covered in full by the funds they receive under the rent supplement scheme. They should not have to make a further contribution themselves.
It is often the case that people in the private rented sector who receive rent supplement payments are not especially mobile. They may have children who are going to the local school, for example. While there may be a surplus of accommodation in the Dublin area — city centre apartments, for example — two or three-bedroom houses are not necessarily widely available in places such as Coolock and Finglas. People might not have many options when they need to switch to other accommodation. If one is in a house that suits one's family because it is close to local schools and family members, one will want to stay there. Many in such circumstances are caught in such a bind when their landlords require them to make top-up payments. Threshold has made it clear that this is a widespread problem. The Minister has pointed out that rent supplements are made to tenants. Her predecessor used to make the same point frequently. It may have operated like that up to now, but it does not need to continue to operate like this. Under the rental accommodation scheme, moneys are not paid to tenants — contracts are agreed between local authorities and landlords. That is a satisfactory system. People do not necessarily enjoy a huge choice. They may not have many options if they need to move around.
The amendment will also help the State to close the net in respect of tax. It is hard to track landlords for tax purposes if the bulk of the €430 million of public money paid under the rent supplement scheme goes into the hands of tenants before it is passed on to landlords. The fact that two stages are involved makes it difficult to track landlords. When the Revenue Commissioners tried to match personal public service numbers with their records a couple of years ago, they found that matches could be made in just half of all cases. This proposal should be considered for tax compliance reasons. As I said, it would also provide greater security for tenants and help to remove them from poverty traps.
I am advised that the Revenue Commissioners were quickly able to increase the proportion of cases in which matches were made to 83%. If there is greater co-operation and better processes are in place, the people in question can be tracked.
Some 17% of landlords have not been tracked.
That was immediately after the period to which the Deputy referred.
I appreciate that a huge effort was made.
That is important. What underpins the provision of supplementary welfare payments such as rent supplement is the need to meet the requirements of individuals and their families in certain circumstances, regardless of their location. It is important, for that reason, that rent supplement payments continue to be targeted at individuals. No Department should be involved in funding landlords. That might be the consequence of what we are doing, but at least we are doing it while ensuring individuals are housed. I accept what the Deputy has said about the importance of the extension of the rental accommodation scheme. We need to ensure more and more people are transferred to it. To date, almost 8,300 — 3,270 in the voluntary co-operative sector and 5,000 in the private rented sector — have been transferred from the rent supplement scheme to the rental accommodation scheme. Social housing options have been afforded to a further 7,500. There is great potential for moving people from social welfare payments. By dealing with an individual recipient, rather than the landlord, we are more likely to meet the needs of individuals, which is what we are trying to do.
Their needs are not being met if they are being required to make top-up payments and they do not have security of tenancy.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 9, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
"14.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on allowing rent supplement claimants on the waiting list for the Rental Accommodation Scheme switch to the terms of the differential rent of their local authority.".
This amendment also relates to the rent supplement scheme. I ask the Minister to devote some time in the coming months to considering reforms in this area, of which many aspects are crying out for reform. I have pointed out that the rental accommodation scheme is popular but not enough properties are available under it. Greater funding needs to be provided for local authorities. In the meantime, I do not see why people who remain outside the rental accommodation scheme cannot avail of the same terms as those included in it. In other words, they should be able to pay differential rent which I suggest the Minister might consider introducing. When a person approaches a community welfare officer looking for rent supplement payments, he or she should be assessed and treated as if he or she were availing of the rental accommodation scheme. In that way, many of the benefits of the rental accommodation scheme such as the elimination of poverty traps would be open to everybody in the private rented sector.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. I agree with the Deputy that we need to keep the whole system under review, as an enormous amount of money is involved.
A number of issues have been raised, including by the Deputy. These include anti-social behaviour, the rights of neighbours and, for example, whether we can handle these issues in the same way as councils are or are not able to handle them. Others included transferring people to the rental accommodation scheme and top-up payments. I intend to examine these matters seriously. As I indicated, more than €430 million will be expended on the programme next year. While it meets the accommodation needs of approximately 70,000, a number of issues arise for the individuals in question and the communities in which they live. I would genuinely welcome the comments and suggestions of members who may have local experience.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, before section 14, to insert the following new section:
"14.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of relaxing the qualifying criteria for mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement so that these benefits can be claimed irrespective of the number of hours the partner of the claimant may be working (currently a couple can't qualify if one is on welfare but the other is working more than 30 hours per week, irrespective of means and outgoings).".
This amendment concerns the criteria for mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement payments. Members will be familiar with the severe budget cut introduced under which the contribution required for these payments was increased by €5 per week. As a result, those with an increase of €6.50 in their social welfare payment in the budget will have €5 of this amount clawed back by the same Department which provided the increase. Those who find themselves in this position will have a net increase of €1.50 in social welfare payments, which in real terms is a cut, given the increase in the cost of living. One of the most abhorrent features of the budget is that it will hit the poorest.
Another aspect of the qualifying criteria for mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement is that if the partner of an applicant works 30 hours or more per week, he or she is automatically excluded from receiving assistance under the schemes. A large number will discover these restrictions in the coming months as more and more people are made unemployed and have difficulty making mortgage repayments. The figure selected appears to be entirely arbitrary in that the size of one's mortgage or the decline in income resulting from losing one's job are of no consequence if one's partner works 30 hours per week. In that case one will not qualify for assistance. In addition, the criteria do not take account of the partner's earnings. This measure is unfair and will result in even greater hardship. I see no basis or justification for this arbitrary figure of 30 hours per week and propose that it be removed.
I support the amendment, the thrust of which is included in amendment No. 27. I will deal with the issue of rent supplement when we discuss amendment No. 14. It is difficult to find a more topical issue than mortgage interest supplement because a large number are having difficulty in this respect. According to a survey published earlier this week, mortgage assistance has surged by more than 70%. Last week the money advice and budgeting service indicated that the number contacting the service had increased by 57% in the first half of this year compared to the same period last year. The service has also noted a corresponding increase in the rate of refusals. The system is not helping those we had hoped it was designed to assist.
One of the free legal advice centres did an interesting study of this issue. My colleagues will have noted that the reason cited for refusing to pay mortgage interest supplement is often the provision that the amount payable "shall not exceed such amount as the Executive considers reasonable to meet the residential needs of the claimant". The applicant is then informed that in his or her case reasonable accommodation could be obtained for less than a given figure, for example, €600 per month. If applicants living in a house they have purchased were assisted to get over the hump, as it were, for a short period, they would be able to remain in their home. The alternative is that their houses are repossessed and they turn to the State to obtain rent supplement or secure local authority housing. In any case, the State will pay, although the cheapest option would probably be to assist the applicant by helping to pay the mortgage for a short period in the hope the applicant will be in a position to pay at a later date.
The rate of refusal of applications for mortgage interest supplement is a matter of considerable concern. Representatives of the free legal advice centres, FLAC, made a submission to the joint committee which we discussed for the first time today questioning the restriction on the duration of payments under section 14. They are also concerned about the new definition of mortgage interest. Of particular concern is that it is over-prescriptive and reduces the flexibility available to community welfare officers to assess individual circumstances.
The kernel of the issue is that the figure provided in the budget and, I assume, the Department's Estimate will not be sufficient to meet needs. While a Supplementary Estimate was approved in the House yesterday, I understand it does not address this issue. For this reason, the Minister will have to go back to the drawing board because the alternative to the current approach would prove much cheaper in the long term and have the social benefit of keeping people in their communities.
The Government argues that the recession will be short. I hope those in receipt of mortgage interest supplement will shortly find further employment and be able to make mortgage repayments.
I am concerned by this aspect of the Bill, particularly provisions in respect of mortgage interest supplement, because a growing number will need assistance in this regard. We know from media reports that the banks are increasingly seeking to foreclose on home owners, a development that is clearly causing grave difficulty. Householders should stoutly defend their position but unfortunately they are unable to do so because they do not have sufficient resources to defend the actions taken by the banks. In one of a number of cases I have dealt with recently the banks gave a 51 year old man a 20 year mortgage. He will have to work and make large repayments until he is 71 years old. The banks have a responsibility to recognise their faultline on this issue. I will formulate an amendment for Report Stage.
Given that the contribution required for the payments in question has not been increased in a number of a years, during which time social welfare payments have been substantially increased, it is reasonable to increase the contribution by €5, particularly in the case of those who are working up to 30 hours per week. If such persons were to enter the rental accommodation scheme tomorrow, under the differential scheme to which the Deputy referred, they would immediately pay much more than €5 per week. I understand that while the figure varies between cities, it is up to €26. Those in the mortgage interest supplement scheme, therefore, pay substantially less than those in the rental accommodation scheme.
The 30-hour threshold is designed to facilitate people in work who are not in full-time employment. Rent supplement and mortgage interest supplement are intended as short-term schemes to facilitate people who are in particular difficulty at a particular time in their lives. The 30-hour threshold is generous compared to the number of hours — 19 in some cases — people are allowed to work to avail of other schemes. The rental accommodation scheme is considered the most appropriate for those in full-time employment. I have no immediate proposal to change the 30-hour threshold.
Deputy Enright is correct to say there is a greater demand for mortgage interest supplement. This is an issue that will be kept under review. In addition to the rent supplement review, I intend to review the eligibility requirements and the legislation dealing with mortgage interest supplement to ensure it meets people's needs. Under the Bill, the HSE can determine the limitation on the amount but it also must have regard to the family circumstances of the person concerned and the regulations governing the scheme. While I appreciate that there is a particular difficulty, I need to ensure the supplement is meeting people's needs and that the scheme is being operated in a fair and equitable manner throughout the country. I accept there are differences in that regard. We should remember that as soon as a person is deemed to be eligible to participate in the rental accommodation scheme, he or she is allowed to work more than 30 hours. I hope that with greater co-operation between councils more people will be deemed eligible to participate in that scheme. The 30-hour requirement is reasonable.
I do not know how the Minister can say it is reasonable. She said that if a person was working full time, it would be more appropriate for him or her to participate in the rental accommodation scheme. People cannot get onto it. The problem is that there are long waiting lists because there are not enough properties and the scheme is not being properly funded. That is the reality. The schemes may have been set up originally as short-term schemes but rent supplement, for example, is a major plank of housing policy. The reason people find themselves in private rented accommodation and in receipt of rent supplement for a long period is there are not enough social houses available. They do not have a choice in the matter. They are stuck in this situation.
A person on the minimum wage receives less than €270 per week. The Minister is ignoring the facts of life for many where both members of a couple have to work just to survive, to keep the show on the road, pay for child care and make mortgage repayments. That is the trend in recent years. If one member of the couple loses his or her job and difficulties arise with the mortgage, there is no justification for taking into account whether that person's partner has been working for 30 hours per week. Irrespective of the circumstances in which one finds oneself, one is prevented from receiving any assistance. That cannot be fair, as it is entirely arbitrary. There is no justification for it in this day and age, whatever about the distant past. If there is any income coming into a household, it will result in hardship for an increasing number who find themselves unemployed. That is wrong and should not happen.
On the point made about the figure of 30 hours per week, it would make common sense to judge the amount of money earned rather than the number of hours worked. That would make far more sense.
The Minister has agreed with me to some extent about mortgage interest supplement but reviewing the matter is of no consolation. A person who was in touch with me last week having been refused mortgage interest supplement has a meeting with his building society today at 3 p.m. in order to stop it repossessing his house. That is the reality. I do not know what the building society will decide but after today's meeting his home may be gone and all I can tell him, his wife and three children is that the Minister is reviewing the matter. That is the reality of what people are facing immediately. There are plenty more like them around the country. We can all give examples of persons who have been threatened with repossession. Banks and building societies also have a case to answer in that regard. Perhaps some people should never have been given a mortgage but that is the position in which they find themselves and we, as public representatives have to try to help them to get out of trouble. We will not achieve this by having a review. There is an urgent need to address the issue.
I would like to see the Minister return with solutions on Report Stage next week. We published proposals in our pre-budget submission that we thought would help to alleviate matters but those figures were not taken on board by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan. If banks are repossessing houses, people will become homeless and come to the doors of politicians, local authorities and community welfare officers. The position will become far worse if we do not address the problem now.
If somebody qualifies for mortgage interest supplement, he or she will receive it.
Not if his or her partner is working 30 hours a week.
That is one of the qualifying criteria. Anyone working over and above 30 hours is considered to be in full-time work. One of the difficulties in setting an income limit is that, as with other schemes such as those for lone parents, people keep income below the income threshold in order that they will qualify for a supplementary benefit. This may also be the case with rent supplement. It is an important point that once somebody is approved to participate in the rental accommodation scheme, he or she does not even have to receive it, he or she can work for more than 30 hours per week. That is the case with a large number of people.
That is not true.
It is.
That is not true, if a person is in private rented accommodation. Who pays the rent?
Once a person is deemed by a local authority to be eligible to participate in the rental accommodation scheme, he or she is entitled to work for more than 30 hours a week.
A landlord must be prepared to provide accommodation.
Are we talking about people in receipt of rent supplement?
Yes. A landlord must accept——
A person does not have to be participating in the rental accommodation scheme; he or she must just be approved.
That is news to me.
That is a fact. One does not have to be participating in the rental accommodation scheme; one just has to have been approved to participate in it.
Is the Minister saying that when a person is approved, the local authority pays the rent?
No, but a person or his or her partner is allowed to work more than 30 hours per week.
Who pays the rent?
The person concerned will continue to receive rent supplement.
That is news to me. If that is the case I welcome it.
I will be happy to provide details for the Deputy.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 10, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following subsections:
"(4) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of people in receipt of rent supplement on the waiting list for the Rental Accommodation Scheme.
(5) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the reform of the Rent Supplement Scheme.
(6) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on paying Rent Supplement in advance rather than arrears.
(7) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on requiring landlords to register with the PRTB in order to be eligible for rent supplement.".
A number of points in regard to the amendment have been made and I will not repeat them. On the capping of the supplement, the Minister referred to the changing property market and said that it was not a problem, as such, currently. I made a point on Second Stage about paying rent in advance rather than in arrears. This is still an issue for some. While I accept more accommodation is available, if somebody is looking for it in a particular area and a landlord has a choice between somebody who can pay up front and somebody who will pay in a month's time, he or she will nearly always choose the person who can pay up front. At the end of the day the State will pay the same amount. It is a reasonable change that could and should be made. It would at least give those in receipt of rent supplement the option of shopping around for the right accommodation for them.
Regarding the overall reform of the rent supplement scheme, we are told it is under constant review. I accept that is true to some extent, as the limits are constantly reviewed. I concur with Deputy Shortall in her previous amendment that the quality of accommodation and the need for registration must be kept at the forefront of that review. There is a pressing need for a change to the 30-hour limit in order to qualify for the supplementary payment. Focus Ireland published a good submission on the scheme approximately two weeks ago. The Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, may have launched it. Focus Ireland has referred to some case studies that the Minister would find informative of the genuine pitfalls and difficulties in which people find themselves, despite the fact that they have been approved. I refer to the lack of flexibility, difficulties associated with transition and dependency on allowances. An examination of Focus Ireland's documentation would indicate to the Minister better than I could the changes that need to be made. I ask her to take on board the submission when she is introducing reforms.
As the Deputy said, the allowance is paid in arrears. However, it can be paid in advance at the discretion of the community welfare officer if he or she identifies an individual with particular needs.
What criteria do the officers use in deciding this?
It seems to be at the discretion of the community welfare officer, as are many other decisions. The officer can also make a discretionary payment to cover a rent deposit, if required. Some 10,500 such payments were made last year alone. While the rule is that the payment be made in arrears, it can be made in advance. We are finding that landlords are welcoming rent supplement clients.
That is temporary and circumstances could change.
For a person who needs the allowance, it can be made available in advance.
I oppose the section which has umpteen problems, not least the €5 clawback. For the Minister to state the required contribution towards rent has not increased for a number of years is of no comfort to those from whom €5 is being taken of the €6.50 increase announced in the budget. One should try justifying this to someone who is struggling to survive — it just does not wash. If the Minister wanted to move to circumstances closer to those associated with the differential rent scheme contribution, she certainly should have phased in the measure. She should move towards the conditions that apply to the rental accommodation scheme generally. It is entirely unfair of her to take €5 of the €6.50 increase.
With regard to the 30-hour restriction, the Minister has stated people understand how the rules work and therefore keep their number of working hours below the maximum number allowed. That is a very poor approach to welfare payments. The Minister is saying a person working 35 or 36 hours per week should cut back on the number of hours he or she works in order to qualify for rent supplement.
That is not what I said at all. I have stated evidence suggests that where an income limit is set, as with the lone parent allowance, people work to the income limit and end up in low paid jobs. At least with the 30-hour provision, one can have a well paid job and still be allowed to claim rent supplement. Deputy Enright has asked why we did not set an income limit rather than limit the number of hours worked.
One could be working for 32 hours per week in a badly paid job, in which case one would be ruled out automatically. Such an individual would need the allowance more than somebody working for less than 30 hours in a well paid job. There is no justification for the Minister's approach, as there is a very definite poverty trap. She referred to people not working more than 30 hours but the thrust of policy should be to assist people to move from welfare payments to work. A limit such as the one to which we refer keeps people trapped. In any case, it is entirely arbitrary and does not make sense.
Let me relay to the Minister the concerns expressed by the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, about the provisions of section 14 generally. The Bill proposes to restrict the duration of the payment of mortgage interest supplement and excludes specific mortgages from income support by inserting a new definition of mortgage interest. That concerns me. FLAC argues the effects of the proposed changes are unreasonably punitive and will undoubtedly result in increased costs in the medium to longer term.
With regard to the 30-hour limit, what are a person's options? If a man with a mortgage loses his job, the welfare system should enable him to get over a difficult hump and, ideally, return to work as soon as possible. If he seeks assistance and his wife is working for more than 30 hours per week, he will be refused. What are the options for such a couple? If the partner does not give up work or works fewer hours, the couple will risk losing their home.
The fact that people have been mortgaged up to the eyeballs in recent years and were encouraged to overstretch themselves means money is so tight they cannot subsist for a few months without assistance from the State. They need to keep up their mortgage repayments and, if they do not do so, it is inevitable that they will lose their house. In this case, they will become even more dependent on the State because they will be looking to it to provide housing, as well as mortgage supplement. This does not make sense on any front. Without question, the provision will result in many more seeking social housing from the State.
FLAC has expressed concern about the powers the Bill will give to the HSE. The main concern is that it will introduce crude limits in respect of mortgage supplement, as has been done in respect of rent supplement. This will disimprove circumstances. FLAC is also concerned that the provisions will make the whole system unnecessarily cumbersome and bureaucratic. One can appeal decisions on eligibility for a supplement; thus there is a two-tier system. However, the proposals are such that there will be a three-tier system, which does not seem to make sense. There is a need for root and branch reform of the rent supplement scheme, to improve the rental accommodation scheme and rationalise the entire system.
Since large numbers will face the prospect of having their homes repossessed, there is a very good case for the Department to consider providing rent supplement for a certain period. If an individual continues to be unemployed and require assistance, it should be possible for the State to take an equity share in his or her property. The thrust of policy should be to facilitate people to hold on to their home, if at all possible, thus enabling them to get through the difficult economic circumstances that obtain. One way of doing this would be to consider an equity-share arrangement. There is a need for new rules and a new system to cope with the new economic reality.
I will have further specific amendments on Report Stage to address FLAC's concerns. Section 14 is exceptionally problematic. For that reason, I oppose it.
If we offer assistance to the banks, we should offer it to householders also.
We will certainly consider the submission made by FLAC. If we can do anything on Report Stage, we will certainly do so. The Department and I have not yet had the opportunity to examine the submission because we have just received it. There is certainly an issue for banks and building societies which were flaithiúilacht in giving out mortgages. In the case of those who have lost a job and may pick up another one shortly, they should work with them, particularly individuals and families who have a good record in making mortgage repayments. There is no reason a bank or building society cannot reschedule repayments in these circumstances. I know the MABS has worked on this issue and always recommends to families that they should seek to have their repayments rescheduled. It would contribute to a major social problem if more and more houses were repossessed. There is a responsibility on the banks and building societies which gave out that money, particularly those offering 100% mortgages, to facilitate the rescheduling of repayments.
Getting approval to participate in the rental accommodation scheme from a local authority might be the way to ensure the couple working over the 30-hour limit is not prevented from receiving rent supplement or mortgage interest payments. We can examine the timescales relating to approval by local authorities of participation in the rental accommodation scheme.
I welcome the Minister's comments on encouraging banks to reschedule repayments. However, I find at my constituency clinics that householders who get into difficulties in making repayments become terrified, bury their heads in the sand and do not renegotiate the repayment schedule. In the initial months when the defaulting begins, people stop paying completely rather than paying what they can afford. Is there any mechanism by which we could encourage householders to meet their bank? Can we encourage banks and lending agents to contact people with mortgage repayment difficulties to meet them?
One issue that the MABS has highlighted for me is that the hall table offers the greatest escape for people. In other words, they leave the letter from the bank unopened on the hall table because they know what is in it. Then, events reach a stage where it is nearly too late to do anything. There has been an increase in the numbers seeking advice from the MABS. Even if people checked the website, they would see that the MABS advises people to talk to the bank or building society.
I share the Minister's sentiment but those who get into the most trouble the quickest, even if they have a good repayment record, are those who went to the institutions least likely to help. In the instances I have come across, the institutions involved are not the ones included in the bail-out which means we will have no opportunity of influencing them politically. It is only through the Department that those affected can be helped.
The Minister's comments on qualifying for the rental accommodation scheme are news to me. Can we have a note in that regard?
I have indicated that I will circulate a note. It was provided for in last year's Bill.
Have local authorities and community welfare officers been notified about this?
I will send a note to the Deputies.
I am opposed to this section because its provisions double the minimum number of qualifying credits for illness benefit and severely restrict the duration of payment. It is a particularly mean-spirited section.
I am also opposed to the section. Its provisions are unfair and will make life difficult for those affected.
All Members recognise that unemployment is growing significantly. The construction sector is one of the hardest hit. Many construction workers and trades people were encouraged or forced to become self-employed to save their employers PRSI and other payments. This became a growing trend in the past 12 months, which means many will be caught by the threshold extension from 52 weeks to 104. Mean-spirited is a good description of the section's provisions. I hope the Minister will re-examine the matter. There is also the case of those who took up apprenticeships when the construction boom was at full tilt. It came to a sudden end, meaning many apprentices have been caught out in the past 12 months. Those who do not fall within the 104-week threshold will have no prospects.
It is what it is and just ensures that in qualifying for contributions one has to have worked for two years before one can benefit from the one-year payment. It is a savings measure for the social insurance fund on which expenditure is severe. It also ensures people will have a record of being in the workforce before they begin benefiting.
This section proposes the doubling of the minimum number of qualifying credits for health and safety benefit. I am opposed to it.
I also oppose it.
It goes back to the fact that expenditure on the social insurance fund will exceed income this year by over €200 million and by €900 million next year. We do not want the Exchequer to have to subsidise the fund. We had to examine if those with limited contribution records should benefit in the same way as those with more contributions. I know these changes are difficult. None of the budget measures introduced was easy. The section links participation in the workforce and the length of time for benefits.
Fianna Fáil made a pre-election commitment to cut PRSI.
The Deputy is well aware of the changing economic circumstances worldwide.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 13, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:
"(2) The Minister shall, within 3 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.".
I tabled this amendment to highlight the difficulties being experienced by those availing of the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowances. In the budget there were some improvements made to the allowances but they were negated by the changes to the school books scheme. Many benefiting from one allowance will lose the other. There has been a major increase in the number seeking social welfare assistance from other Departments and agencies. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has seen an increase of 40% in the number seeking assistance. It was quite substantial and nearly a quarter of those were first-time callers, indicating the changed circumstances in which people find themselves. It was expected to spend about €3.5 million this year in helping people get back to school, which I believe signifies the inadequacy of the scheme. It is an important scheme and people derive comfort in knowing they will be eligible for it, particularly those faced with the prospect of having a number of children going back to school. I have tabled the amendment to facilitate the point in relation to it because some people dread the onset of September each year as they believe they will not be able to meet the cost of their children going back to school. The cost in terms of uniforms, books, sometimes separate sports clothing etc. that people have to meet is a substantial amount.
This is an important scheme. The purpose of the fund is to cover the clothing and footwear allowance. It is €305 for a second level child and €200 for a younger child. Given the budget for this year, we were faced with a choice of either increasing the amount or the number of people who could benefit. I suggest the cost of a uniform and shoes would be covered in the €305 allowance, but not perhaps the cost of the books as well. That is why I decided to target the number of people who would benefit from the scheme. An additional 18,000 families will benefit from the scheme next year, bringing it up to 120,000 families in total. That was as good an increase as I could achieve on it this year.
I appreciate that more people are coming under it and that is important for them. In reality, however, one cannot view it in terms of just the cost of uniforms, clothes and shoes in isolation, while I appreciate that these are what this scheme covers. When the money goes into the purse, it must cover a great many more aspects of sending a child back to school. Barnardos has said that between €375 and €405 is required to fund the basic costs. Then, as the Minister is well aware, one must take into account the gym, sports footwear and photocopying that is required as well as supposedly voluntary contributions in some instances. I am not suggesting the Department should be funding the latter, incidentally, but that is the reality of what parents have to face, so I want to press the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 are related and will be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 14, line 35, to delete "employment."," and substitute the following:
"employment.
(3B) Where a person to whom section 64(1)(c)(ia)(I) applies is——
(a) in receipt of carer’s benefit or carer’s allowance on 15 October 2008, and
(b) the period of interruption of employment for the jobseeker’s benefit referred to in section 64(1)(c)(ia)(II) began on or before 14 October 2008,
subsection (3) shall not apply to the jobseeker’s benefit claim made immediately following the
carer's benefit or carer's allowance for the remainder of such period of interruption of employment.",".
In the context of the current economic circumstances and the pressures on the social insurance fund, in particular, I have had to make a number of changes to the eligibility conditions under the jobseeker's benefit scheme. Two of these relate to the duration of the payment. Previously, people who had 260 or more paid social insurance contributions could get the jobseeker's benefit for up to 15 months. From 15 October, this has been limited to 12 months for current claimants with less than six months duration on the scheme as well as all new claimants. Where a claimant has less than 260 paid contributions, the maximum duration of the jobseeker's benefit will be nine months instead of 12 if the claimant has been in receipt of benefit for less than three months and for all new claimants.
The amendment I am now proposing will protect people, who have transferred to a carer's payment during the course of their jobseeker's benefit claim, from the impact of these changes. This means that people who would have qualified for jobseeker's benefit for a maximum duration of either 15 or 12 months, depending on their circumstances, will not be affected by the reduction in the duration to 12 or nine months, as provided for in section 18 of the Bill, where they have transferred to either the carer's benefit or the carer's allowance and subsequently move directly back on to the jobseeker's benefit. This is in line with a similar exemption from the impact of the reduction in the maximum duration of illness benefit to two years, as provided for in section 15 of the Bill.
Are we addressing the section overall?
We are dealing with amendments Nos. 16 and 17, which are being discussed together, before taking the section.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 14, line 50, to delete "employment."," and substitute the following:
"employment.
(4B) Where a person to whom section 64(1)(c)(ia)(I) applies is——
(a) in receipt of carer’s benefit or carer’s allowance on 15 October 2008, and
(b) the period of interruption of employment for the jobseeker’s benefit referred to in section 64(1)(c)(ia)(II) began on or before 14 October 2008,
subsection (4) shall not apply to the jobseeker's benefit claim made immediately following the
carer's benefit or carer's allowance for the remainder of such period of interruption of
employment." ,".
This is one of the worst aspects of the budget changes in social welfare. At a time when more and more people find themselves unemployed, it seems the safety net the State is supposed to provide is not there for a great many people. Very many significant changes are being made to the qualifying criteria for jobseeker's benefit. One of the main changes proposed by the Minister is that there will be a reduction in the duration of payment of jobseeker's benefit. The duration for most claimants is being cut by three months, irrespective of the number of contributions made. At a time when people are very vulnerable and money is tight, the Minister proposes to reduce the assistance previously available to people by €2,600 per person. That will have an enormous impact in terms of their ability to keep their heads above water.
She is also making changes to the number of contributions required — there is a doubling of the number of contributions, as proposed in the Bill as it stands — and there must be 13 paid contributions in the relevant year. All that makes it much more difficult for people to qualify for the dole.
It is a poor state of affairs, with the economy in difficulty and many more people unemployed, that the Minister should have targeted the most vulnerable, those who have lost their jobs. Before the budget there was a great deal of talk about protecting the vulnerable, and it turns out the Minister has not done this. In effect, she has targeted the vulnerable and made it more difficult for people to qualify for assistance at a time of need.
Apart from the changes to the qualifying criteria for jobseeker's benefit, not only has she altered the criteria for new claimants but she has sought to restrict the duration for existing payments, and that is an entirely new departure. I cannot recall those types of cuts ever having occurred before, where claimants find their entitlements have been reduced very substantially. This raises questions about what the Minister is proposing to do here. I saw a letter the other day which a person on jobseeker's benefit got when he or she first made the claim. It set out the entitlements and indicated the payments would be made over a certain duration. It is there in black and white, and now the Minister is retrospectively deciding that those rules no longer apply. She is changing the rules for such people.
There is an element of contract involved here between the Minister and people who claim jobseeker's benefit. People pay into a social insurance fund, abide by the rules, meet the criteria as set down at the time, apply and are granted payments for a certain duration. Those are the rules that apply, but the Minister then changes them. It is very hard to see how that can be legal. For a start, it is not ethical and is very unfair to people. Many of those who will be affected by this do not even realise it yet.
According to ministerial replies I received to parliamentary questions, about 48,000 people who are currently unemployed will find themselves losing out on three months' worth of welfare payments. This will start to kick in next April and Government supporters will feel the heat when people realise that the entitlement they thought they had does not actually stand any longer. The Government will have cut their entitlement without informing them of it, in a very underhand and mean way. I will call a vote on this section because it is a critical element of the budget. It is important that those who support the Government know exactly what is involved in this, so that they cannot tell their constituents that they did not realise what it was about. This section means that those 48,000 people who are currently in receipt of jobseeker's benefit will lose €2,600 each. They will only discover that next April. Government supporters are voting to reduce people's entitlements by that amount of money, and these people are already struggling on the dole.
There are legal issues involved. A case before the European Court of Human Rights was quoted, where it was found that social insurance based welfare rights can be treated as property. Any attempt to interfere with the existing property rights can be found to be legally dubious. I will pursue this, because there are serious questions about what the Minister is doing. Her proposals are exceptionally unfair to people who find themselves unemployed because of the mismanagement of the economy. They thought they were entitled to something that they had paid into, because it is an insurance scheme and we are talking about jobseeker's benefit, but now they will find out that on dubious legal grounds the Minister is taking €2,600 away from each of them. When people realise this in a few months' time, there will be a major uproar. The whole section is abhorrent, which is why I oppose it.
Fine Gael is also opposed to this section. We got the opportunity on Second Stage to outline our views on the rates of increase on many of these payments, which we felt were inadequate. It is all very well to talk about the overall global situation, but vulnerable people are being scapegoated by the failure of the Government to manage the public finances for so long. It is fine to say we need to make hard decisions to get the economy back on track. Nobody disagrees with that, but making tough decisions is one thing and making fair decisions is another thing entirely. It seems clear from the Finance Bill before the House today that vulnerable people are those who will come out the worst in the decisions that have been made. Section 18, as well as the sections on illness benefit and the health and safety benefit highlight this fact.
It is a most unusual time for any Government to consider making these changes, when the live register figures are growing so worryingly. When we have 260,000 people on the live register, these cuts become even more severe. They will make a frightening difference to many people. The Department estimates that changes to the jobseeker's allowance, the illness benefit and the health and safety benefit will save about €72 million in 2009. That is money people were expecting to get.
The rationale behind this is not clear. We were told that cuts had to be made somewhere, but the argument about people's expectation is very strong. There is a contradiction between these sections and the changes that are being made to child benefit, even though I also disagree with that cut. However, at least there is a tapering off period because of people's expectations. The Minister is making an argument for one payment in the system, but is making an entirely different argument for another payment in the system and that is a strange way of looking at things.
In its submission, the INOU made another interesting point. How does the Government view children and the entitlements for children? The Minister states that children become adults at 18 for the purposes of child benefit, yet the changes to jobseeker's benefit see young adults to age 24 still dependent on their parents. We know the reality is that if a young person living with his or her parents makes an application, the payment level is unrealistic for someone trying to engage in society as an adult with people on incomes.
The Minister said that it is about ending a dependency culture and so on. In my constituency, 27% of those unemployed are people under 25. The Minister can talk about ending such a culture, but she must provide alternatives. Cutting their payments does not deal with this. This is the stick being used on them. The mantra in this Bill seems to be "make tough decisions, but do not provide any alternative". That will not help people re-engage in the workforce and will cause immense financial difficulties. That will lead to societal difficulties, because these people will be left with very few alternatives when they are deemed ineligible for this payment. I do not expect many changes, because we have debated this already in recent weeks. However, this section is wrong and I am bitterly opposed to it.
I oppose this section. Most of the points have been made by Deputy Enright and Deputy Shortall and I support what they have said. This will hit young families very hard and people who are down on their luck, in most cases through no fault of their own. They have become unemployed and are in difficult situations because the Government mismanaged the economy. It squandered money throughout the boom years and did not put in the infrastructure to create competitiveness. It did not develop an export market for the economy, which would have sustained us more through the current downturn. People at the lowest margins of society will be hit hardest.
This did not have to happen. The budget was all about choices and deciding where to make cuts and incur other income streams. Those decisions were avoided and the soft option was taken in all cases, which is most unfortunate.
I will vote for the Department of Social and Family Affairs to continue to be in a position to provide a reasonable payment to those people who need it the most. Nobody likes making the decisions that had to be made. We would have loved to continue the huge increases that have gone into the Department's budget in the past eight or ten years, but we are just not in a position to do that. We are being realistic here.
As Deputy Cyprian Brady said, none of this is easy. Our advice is that this is legal and that we are entitled to do it. Obviously, I would not be aiming to put into legislation anything that was not legal. Many countries link length of payment to duration in the workforce and to age. In the UK, one would only get it for six months and in Italy for 210 days. There is no contract with the person, as the Deputy said, to pay him or her benefit for 15 months. The contract——
If it is in writing, surely there is.
Deputy Shortall should allow the Minister to continue.
The contract is that every week one must be looking for a job. One has to show one is genuinely and actively seeking work and it is on that basis that a person is paid. The key point is that somebody who is of limited means and who is in any way affected by these changes, which cut back the time from 15 months to 12 months, or from 12 months to nine months, can apply for and perhaps qualify for jobseeker's allowance. The level of payment for jobseeker's allowance is the same as for benefit.
Again, there is the difficulty that if the person's partner has any income at all, he or she may well not qualify. In the majority of cases two members of the family are working, which is a problem. Of course, the Minister is entitled to make whatever rules she wishes in regard to the qualifying criteria for welfare payments but it is exceptionally unusual and, I maintain, legally dubious that she can retrospectively introduce changes. It remains to be seen what the legal position is on this. The entire section is completely unacceptable and I am strongly opposed to it.
I repeat my point concerning the difficulty caused by the household means test for a person living at home with his or her parents. For the Minister to refer to other countries is a blasé way of dealing with this issue. If we want to get into the analysis of other countries, let us examine their entire social welfare, employment and training opportunities system, which would at least be a real way of examining this.
When the Minister is making these decisions, she must provide for alternatives to facilitate people back into education and training. What about the 5,500 FÁS apprentices who cannot complete their apprenticeships and who under this will probably not have the requisite number of payments? Since last May, they have been trying to find a way of completing their apprenticeships. The Minister must provide solutions when she is making these changes and provide other opportunities for people. We are just going in one direction, using the stick approach, and not providing alternatives. That is the real difficulty in this legislation.
With regard to Deputy Enright's point on training and education, people on those will not be affected by this move because they will be called for the national employment action plan after three months, and that will continue. The Deputy may be aware that FÁS is working with apprentices who have difficulty finding on-the-job training so as to fast-forward their off-the-job training.
The former director general of FÁS, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have given me that information in separate replies since last May. However, I have yet to come across an apprentice who has got his or her position sorted out. It is not the Minister's responsibility, but that is the reality of the situation for those people. It is infuriating to be told by every person one asks that it is being sorted out. It is not sorted and that is the reality.
On the issue of the qualifying criteria for back to education and back to enterprise allowances including that one must be in receipt of a jobseeker's payment for 12 months, people could lose out because they will not be able to receive a jobseeker's payment after finishing their reduced period on jobseeker's benefit if they do not have an entitlement to jobseeker's allowance. It is that one is in receipt of payment, not that one is signing on for credits.
If people have been assessed by FÁS under the national employment action plan, which they would be after the three months, they would qualify. It is six months for the second level in any case.
Where 12 months are required, the Minister is excluding those who——
If one is participating in an employment action plan, it is nine months.
Not everybody will be able to get into that.
We are also working to increase the number of people who are in that. People who need it most could be on jobseeker's allowance, which would qualify.
Not if their partner is working. It is a means-tested payment.
Yes, it is.
Not only will those people lose out more than €2,500 each, they will be precluded from options which currently would be open to them after their period of claim. They are being ruled out where a person is required to be in payment for 12 months.
I want to respond to the comments made about difficult times and that difficult decisions have to be made. Difficult decisions had to be made in regard to this budget but the Minister had choices. The reality is——
Choices that you do not pay some people any other——
Allow Deputy Shortall to make her point.
They are the choices. One has to try to pay as many as one can.
The Government had choices about where the cuts would take place. To give a couple of examples, tax relief to the tune of over €500 million is being given to landlords. That was not touched because the Government did not consider that landlords might take a hit in all this. The Government decided that people who were unemployed would bear the brunt, so it left its friends, the landlords, alone. There are plenty of other examples. The real high rollers in business, who have their own small, self-administered pension schemes which are costing the country a fortune, are left alone. They can build up pensions of €5.5 million, most of it tax free, but they are not touched. The Government had choices and it is very clear what choices it made — it chose to hit the weak and leave the rich alone.
The choices we made are based on providing a reasonable standard of living for those who need it most. I do not want to go down the road of having "landlords" become a dirty word. Many landlords are ordinary, decent Irish people who are providing accommodation. People have to live somewhere.
The decisions which we are now discussing are in regard to the social insurance fund and are about ensuring that moving into the future we will have sufficient money in that fund to continue to pay people who need it most. None of the issues the Deputy raised would have impacted on the fund.
To correct something that was said earlier, I have a copy of a letter that was given to a particular individual who made a claim a few months ago. The letter from the Department of Social and Family Affairs states that if one has less than 260 PRSI contributions since the person first started working and if that person continues to satisfy all the conditions for receiving the benefit, the Department will pay the person for 312 days, or for 390 days if the person has at least 260 contributions. The Department is telling people it will pay them for a certain duration based on their claim at that point.
Is there not a line giving all the conditions?
I do not see how afterwards the Department can change the conditions and the rules.
The Deputy, when reading the letter, left out the part with all the conditions. These are the conditions.
They satisfied the conditions at the time they were granted the payment.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 16, to delete lines 14 to 44 and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 26 and substitute the following:
"(b) in section 221 (as amended by section 17 of and Schedule 3 to the Act of 2006) by inserting the following subsections after subsection (1):
‘(1A) Notwithstanding section 219(1)(b), for the purposes of subsection (1B) and section 221A, ‘qualified child’ shall include a child
who, having attained the age of 18 years is under the age of 19 years and is--
(a) receiving full-time education, the circumstances of which shall be specified in regulations, or
(b) by reason of physical or mental infirmity, incapable of self-support and likely to remain so incapable for a prolonged period,
and
(c) ordinarily resident in the State, and
(d) not detained in a children detention school and is not undergoing imprisonment or detention in legal custody.
(1B) Payment of child benefit in respect of a child referred to in subsection (1A) shall be made to a person qualified for child benefit at half the appropriate amount set out in column (1) or column (2) of Part 4 of Schedule 4, or at half the appropriate amount as determined in accordance with subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b).
(1C) The payment referred to in subsection (1B) shall cease to be payable on 31 December 2009.'
and
(c) by inserting the following section after section 221:
221A.—(1) Subject to this Act, a person shall be entitled to a payment provided for in subsection (2) where a qualified child referred to in section 221 (1A) normally resides with that person and in any week—
(a) an increase in respect of that child is being paid in accordance with section 43(2), 43(3), 56(2), 56(3), 66(2), 66(3), 76(2), 76(3), 76(5), 81(5), 102(1), 102 (2), 109(17), 112(2), 112(3), 113(5)(b), 113A(5)(b), 115(8)(a)(ii), 117(2), 117(3), 122(2), 122(3), 127(1), 142(1)(b)(ii), 146, 150(1)(b), 150(3), 156(1), 158, 161B(1), 161D, 174(1), 178A(3)(a), 181(1)(b)(i), 181(4), 197(b), 211(1)(b), 211(3), 215(1)(b) or 216, or
(b) family income supplement in accordance with Part 6 is being paid in respect of a family which includes a child referred to in section 221(1A).
(2) Subject to subsection (5), an amount of €15 shall be payable in respect of a child referred to in subsection (1) for each week or part thereof in which the conditions in—
(a) subsection (1)(a), or
(b) subsection (1)(b),
are satisfied until the date on which that child attains the age of 19 years.
(3) Subject to this Act, a person shall be entitled to a payment provided for in subsection (4) where a qualified child referred to in section 221(1A) normally resides with that person and in any week that child is in receipt of disability allowance in accordance with Chapter 10 of Part 3.
(4) Subject to subsection (5), an amount of €15 shall be payable in respect of a child referred to in subsection (3) for each week or part thereof in which that child is in receipt of disability allowance until the date on which that child attains the age of 19 years.
(5) The amount payable under subsection (2) or subsection (4) in respect of a child whose birth was part of—
(a) a multiple birth of 2 children, of whom 2 remain qualified, shall be €22.50, or
(b) a multiple birth of 3 or more children, of whom—
(i) not less than 3 remain qualified, shall be €30,
(ii) not less than 2 remain qualified, shall be €22.50,
or
(iii) one remains qualified, shall be €15.
(6) Only one weekly amount shall be payable pursuant to subsection (2)(a), (2)(b) or (4).
(7) For the purposes of this section—
(a) the Minister may make rules for determining with whom a child referred to in section 221(1A) shall be regarded as normally residing,
(b) a child referred to in section 221(1A) shall not be regarded as normally residing with more than one person, and
(c) where a child referred to in section 221(1A) is resident in an institution and contributions are made towards the cost of his or her maintenance in that institution, that child shall be regarded as normally residing with the person with whom in accordance with the rules made under paragraph (a) he or she would be determined to be normally residing if he or she were not resident in an institution but, where the person with whom the child would thus be regarded as normally residing has abandoned or deserted the child, the child shall be regarded as normally residing with the head of the household of which he or she would normally be a member if he or she were not resident in an institution.
(8) Section 221(1A) and this section shall cease to have effect on 31 December 2010.'.".".
This amendment relates to the lowering of the age limit for child benefit from 19 years to 18. This measure is to be phased in, with payment for existing and future qualifying children being halved from January 2009 and payment ceasing at age 18 years from January 2010. A compensatory payment of €15 is being provided during 2009 and 2010 for any week during which those affected by this measure receive a social welfare payment which includes an increase in respect of the 18 year old child or a family income payment which includes payment in respect of that child. It will also apply where the child in question is receiving a disability allowance payment in his or her own right.
Families with twins, triplets and other multiple births receive more in child benefit than recipients generally. Therefore, they would face larger reductions in their payments following implementation of this measure. For this reason, we have provided that the weekly compensation payment of €15 will be increased by 50% for each child in a set of qualifying twins and by 100% for each child in a set of qualifying triplets and other multiple births. These increases will mirror the rates of child benefit generally provided in the case of twins and other multiple births.
In addition, households affected by the measure which also qualify for the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance will receive an extra payment of €215, bringing the total payment in respect of such a child to €520. These transitional measures will cease in January 2011.
I am opposed to this proposal. The Government's decision to phase in the changes over a year demonstrates it realises the hardship this will cause. However, it still made the decision to go ahead. Age is no bar to poverty and many studies conducted by different agencies show that children cost more as they get older. While I do not have the relevant studies to hand, I referred to one study on Second Stage, which showed that children in the higher age brackets cost their families more than do younger children. Consequently, this change will cause significant hardship. Deputy Cyprian Brady made the point previously that cuts must be made somewhere. However, I refer to the Government's overall attitude towards so doing. It was not obliged to make cuts in the manner in which it did as other strategies were available to it that were not considered.
Overall, the issue of adequacy of payments will cause difficulty and hardship. However, while I will deal with my amendment in respect of second tier payments presently, this cut affecting payments for children is highly unfair, as is demonstrated by the manner in which the Minister is dealing with it.
For as long as I have been in politics, the argument about whether child benefit should be a universal payment has been raging. One argument, which has been made continually and is still valid, is that the existence of household income, particularly when there is only one breadwinner, does not necessarily mean that such money is passed on. Moreover, repeated studies have demonstrated that moneys coming into households from child benefit are spent on children. This is not disputed and sufficient evidence exists to prove this point.
Children are highly expensive at two ages. The first is at the start of their lives, when one is obliged to put in place the equipment to set up a house for a new child. The second is at the latter stage of childhood, when they want trainers of a certain brand and pocket money. Moreover, they expect to be dressed the same way as their friends and have every right to so do. Equally, Members have every right to expect that parents should not be put in a position whereby they can no longer afford to keep their children in school because the household no longer can afford it. This is what child benefit is about.
Adjustments were made to the taxation system a number of years ago in which the tax benefit accruing to people who had children was dropped. Charlie McCreevy then went further and individualised taxation, thereby removing the tax benefit one received for having a dependent spouse. Such adjustments meant several things to families. First, the concept of child benefit came about as a result of such adjustments, because as one no longer received a tax benefit for children, one received child benefit instead. This now has been cut back. If one expects people on limited means to keep their children in school, the only income coming into such houses to maintain dependent children is child benefit. I envisage that the consequence of this cut will be that people will make decisions, because they cannot give their children pocket money or maintain them in a certain way, and those children will leave school to take up employment. This will affect a particular group of people and consequently, the universality of the payment no longer will apply. Some households will be able to afford to maintain their children in school, while others will not.
This measure is outrageous and is comparable with the proposal regarding the over-70s, which has been reversed, and the payment regarding disabilities, which also has been reversed. It is wrong to hit people who the Government deliberately claimed would not be affected and the Minister should not proceed with it. Moreover, I am uncertain how much will be saved by this measure. However, I am certain that if it goes ahead, it will be the start of a slippery slope whereby the age will be reduced further next year and eventually, the argument on whether child benefit should be a universal payment will be re-run. Ultimately, the Minister then will make the argument that as the benefit is only being paid up to the age of 14, what difference would it make to abandon universality. The Labour Party is opposed to this cut.
I apologise for my absence during the earlier part of the meeting as I was caught up with other matters. More people have approached me about this issue than any other because it affects families and children at a highly expensive stage. There usually are additional expenses and costs around the time that children leave secondary school and go to college. To be blunt, this constitutes another kick in the teeth to mothers and their children at a time when in general, incomes are dropping because people are working fewer hours or, in the private sector, their income has been reduced or one parent has lost his or her job. I urge the Minister to reconsider this issue before it is too late. Common sense has prevailed regarding the levies on Knock airport and the over-70s issue, to a certain degree. However, this cut is more cruel and should be re-examined before it is too late.
I have been sitting here quietly and listening for most of the debate. However, I wish to intervene in this regard. I now doubt the point of attending this meeting because the Minister has not budged in respect of anything that has been discussed heretofore and unfortunately, the Opposition does not have the numbers to win. This issue should not be about numbers. It is about more than simply taking a vote because this issue is extremely important.
I agree with the other speakers that this measure will affect many families in both the lower and middle income levels. I am a parent with young teenagers, the youngest of whom are 15 and 18 years old, and am aware of the past benefits to me of being in receipt of child benefit. In the area in which I live, I have noticed that because of the transition year, children frequently are staying longer in school and leave school a little later. When they so do, it is part of a parent's role to keep them in their health in respect of what they eat and in particular to keep them involved in different activities. For many parents, the child benefit received at the end of the month has helped to keep children in good health, to provide clothes and warmth in the house and above all, to provide a little additional money for the extra activities in which they might take part. For many children, the age group extending from 16 up to 19 and 20 has become a crucial time in their lives at which they change from children into adults. They require more attention in respect of both tender loving care and guidance and, speaking as a parent, the benefit has helped in this regard.
Over the years, I have heard criticism of child benefit in my locality pertaining to allegations that people use it to go on holidays and so on. This is off the wall. The proposal not to pay child benefit in respect of 18 year old children will have a highly detrimental effect on young people in school. The Minister for Education and Science is considering reintroducing third level fees. For young people leaving school, this would be another disincentive to go further. They must work for one year before they become eligible for job benefit payments. In my area, young people have been let go after a few months and are caught in limbo. Parents, brothers and sisters are once again being asked to provide stability.
All young people like to have a few bob in their pockets at the weekend, particularly if they want to go out with their friends or to the cinema. Reducing the child benefit payment for a critical age group is of concern. Members can vote against it and can walk out believing that we have done our bit, but the vote is not the issue. The Minister should consider the practicalities and parents' concerns about how to keep their children properly clothed and fed while bridging the gap between school and employment. It is sad that we will need to vote and that the Opposition will probably not win. Will the Minister reconsider the matter?
Like Deputy Kathleen Lynch, I do not know what savings would be made, but I guarantee that parents will suffer if this benefit is withdrawn from a vulnerable age group. I appeal to the Minister and her Department to reconsider. This benefit must remain if children are to be given the opportunity to continue in education.
It is almost surreal that, to move amendments on Report Stage, I must address various issues on Committee Stage. The futility of moving amendments is stark because I do not know how far they will go. Four or five years ago, this was the portfolio of my colleague, Mr. Seán Crowe. He dealt with the then Minister, Seamus Brennan and I was taken aback by how the Minister dealt with his opposite number across the room. It was a constructive engagement, as the Minister listened carefully to comments to determine whether he could take on board some of the Opposition's points. This was my first experience of a Minister with that approach and I have rarely seen it since. I do not say this because Seamus has passed on; I acknowledged it a number of times while he was a serving Minister. We should have more of his approach.
To be fair, there is a substantial amount of politicking on the Opposition benches. It is not just on the Government side, where Ministers subsequently close down and go about their business. However, the welfare of children and people in the home adds a dimension of seriousness. I wish we could find a way to build a path through the Bill to make it fairer and more equitable for all. Unfortunately, I see no inclination towards that on the Minister's part, but I felt that I must express my opinion.
I register my opposition to the ruthless and savage cuts in child benefit. They attack the family and the child and their effects will be felt hard. In the long run, society will be the poorer for them. I urge the Minister to reconsider her stance.
Deputies will be aware that my Department's budget to deal with the most vulnerable, those who need social welfare, will be €19.6 billion in 2009. That this significant amount is an increase on last year shows commitment, but it was necessary to find savings in the fund and the Vote. The child benefit segment of the budget amounts to €2.5 billion. It is a tax free, universal payment that makes a substantial contribution to alleviating child poverty. However, withdrawing it from the recipients at the top end was seen as the fairest way to make savings. More than 70% of students were under 18 years of age when they did their leaving certificate examinations last June. Many reached the age of 18 years in the three months just prior to their examinations. I do not accept the argument that a large number would drop out of school because their families would be unable to pay for them.
Second level education is only one part of the argument, but the families that find it difficult to pay to keep children in third level education are the same families that qualify for grants. At that point it becomes an education issue that must be constantly addressed.
While the benefit has been withdrawn in respect of 18 year olds, alleviating measures have been introduced to help those dependent on social welfare. The saving is significant — €79 million in a full year. The cost of the alleviating measures will be €11.8 million next year. Any change made in social welfare has an impact, but the impact at the age in question will be less than it would be at any other, given the ages at which people do their leaving certificate examinations. Those dependent on social welfare will qualify for further support when they enter higher education.
We discussed this disappointing cut at length during Question Time. Since other options were available, it is unfortunate that the Minister has chosen to make the saving of €79 million on the backs of 18 year olds and their families. I question her figures on the number aged over 18 years when doing the leaving certificate. Among those who attend primary and secondary levels in full, the tendency is to do transition year. Official policy encourages it. Given this, six years are spent in secondary school and eight years are spent in primary school. Unless one turned four years of age just before starting school, one will be over 18 years of age during the leaving certificate. None of those who starts at the age of five, four and a half or four and three quarter years and who do transition year would be under 18 years of age when doing the leaving certificate.
I wonder about the Minister's figures. She mentioned the claim that a large number would be affected. That is not our claim, but an as yet undetermined number of people will be affected. The impact on low income families will be great and money can make all the difference to whether a young person stays in school. There is a problem with many second level students, especially those from low income families who work. This has an effect on their performance in school and in exams. Teacher unions have been very vocal on this in recent years. The policy at teacher level is to discourage young people from working during exam year. On the one hand people are advised not to work when doing the leaving certificate to maximise performance. On the other hand, the Minister is placing people in a situation where they have no choice but to work unless they pack in school altogether.
In severely disadvantaged areas, which may not include Dún Laoghaire but of which there are many throughout the country, the numbers staying on to leaving certificate are very disappointing. In Ballymun in my constituency, a minority of students stay on to do the leaving certificate. The global figures are good but in particular areas the retention rate to leaving certificate, never mind third level, is very disappointing. For young people in circumstances where the odds are stacked against their staying on, this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Children in poor families know the financial stress that remaining in school puts on their parents. The financial stress is the opportunity cost if they were working and the difference that would make to the family situation. That is unbearable pressure to put on young people.
That the Minister is phasing it in over two years does not help. It helps for those who are 18 this year and next year but it is a sneaky move. The Minister has stated what is happening this year and next year and that is fine. What about the people who turn 18 after that and are trying to stay on in school? There is no help for them. The difference is quite considerable. There are 2,000 in that leaving certificate year who are over 18. They eat like adults, their clothes are adult clothes and it is really difficult for financial reasons for children from poor families to stay on in school. The Minister is putting another obstacle in their way by taking away the small bit of assistance that was the payment of child benefit up to the age of 19 if the child was in full-time education. The Minister is doing so on the backs of the most vulnerable and all for the sake of €79 million. It is a disgrace and we will pay a price in terms of an increased drop-out rate from school.
People who would not be followers of the budget have come to me about this. They know the implications this will have for their families and the difficulties it will cause. Mothers in particular are concerned about this and people who voluntarily spoke to me told me it is difficult enough to keep children in school and to encourage them to go further in third level. This will make it more difficult. No one knows better than the Minister the drop-out rate at second level. It is 17% to 18% and there has been no substantial improvement. This measure will not assist. The blasé response is that they can get the grant. This does not help sufficiently and a top-up grant was introduced for that reason.
I refer to one family where both parents are on social welfare and either two or three of four children are at third level. I can check that. The family was refused the top-up grant. Their only income is social welfare but what disqualified them was the extra payment at Christmas time under social welfare. They were €100 over the limit and were disqualified. The matter is on appeal to the vocational education committee but the decision was made. Everyone looks surprised but I have the decision in black and white. We may say they can avail of the grant, but it is important to realise how decisions are adjudicated upon locally. This family is struggling to keep those children in college and this will not help them. It will make it much more difficult.
I suggest to the Deputy that she follow up on the issue.
I have followed up on it for four months and I am still at it.
I am not aware that a social welfare payment alone would disqualify someone from the grant, certainly for someone with four children. The income limit is reasonably high. There may well be some other issue. The figures for those doing the leaving certificate stack up. Some 500 of the 750 schools offer transition year and not all offer it to all students. In many schools it is only offered to 20 or 40 students, not the whole school year. That accounts for the figures I have given that 70% of people were under 18 doing the leaving certificate. A number of them would have reached 18 in the months immediately preceding that. Deputy Shortall is right that 18 year olds are adults, which is why we will no longer treat them as children for the purposes of child benefit.
May I make a brief comment?
I will let Deputies in as many times as they want but the trouble is that we agreed to finish this Bill at 6.30 p.m.
My comment is brief.
The Deputy can go ahead then.
The Minister said that 70% are about 18 when they finish the leaving certificate. Going on children living in my area and my children going to school, out of my daughter's class of 25, 16 will be 19 years of age when they finish the leaving certificate In one class in a school in a RAPID area beside me, there are 13 children doing the leaving certificate in one class. Of those 13, 11 will be 19 years of age when they finish school. That they will finish the leaving certificate in September represents major progress for the school. I know the 11 who will be 19 years of age when they finish the leaving certificate.
I am not too well up on proceedings on Committee Stage but I ask the Minister to reconsider this and not to call a vote on it today. This must be examined for the benefit of the young people in schools. Regardless of whether it is possible to withhold voting on this, I ask the Minister to reconsider. I appeal to her to take into account the question of where these young people continuing in school until 19 years of age will go when they are finished. There is no work for them and probably very few of the 13 will end up going into third level education. What happens to them? Their parents provide for them and it is an extra burden on parents.
To clarify, at 19 years of age they would have ceased to receive child benefit anyway. I hope they continue with higher education.
I understand that.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 17, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the introduction of a second-tier, employment neutral, child income support payment to target child poverty levels.".
I will press this amendment. I appreciate the Minister cannot deal with it in this Bill but I would like to see a clear report on it. The National Economic and Social Council has a good research paper on a second-tier child payment. As the arguments have just been made about people's financial needs in terms of the changes proposed by the Minister, I do not need to go through them again.
One in nine children in Ireland live in consistent poverty, while 20% of children are at risk of poverty. The introduction of a second level child income support payment to target child poverty levels was recommended by the NESC and there has been a degree of support for it among all of the groups which deal with young people and the issue of poverty. The Government also supports it because a commitment was made in the programme for Government to develop a second tier through the amalgamation of qualified child allowances and family income supplement.
I had this debate with the Minister's predecessor prior to the downturn — or prior to the Government's admitting to it — and received a watery response on whether it would be proceeded with. If we are to get real about child poverty, we must examine this issue. No changes were announced in the budget and I do expect any will be introduced on Report Stage next week. I would not stand over the introduction of another Social Welfare Bill which did not make decisions on this issue. It is a while since the report was published. Everybody sees the benefits but nothing happens and it is time something did.
As the Deputy stated, I will not bring forward proposals on this issue. There is no agreement on Dr. Sweeney's research paper on refundable tax credits and it raises extremely complex issues. As the Deputy stated, it is in the programme for Government but we have three valuable pieces of research, namely, Dr. Sweeney's paper, the ESRI report and the Department's work on the take-up of family income supplement which might contribute to future policy development. This involves my Department, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance in discussing the complex issues raised. The fact that there is no agreement also makes matters more difficult. As such, we will not have anything on it immediately, although I appreciate the Deputy's raising the matter.
Who was not in agreement?
There was no agreement——
Between which agencies and bodies?
Within the NESC.
It still produced a report.
On the question of refundable tax credits, I would have thought it would be in the Minister's interests to receive support at Cabinet level because it is funded through the tax system. In recent years, when the tax situation improved, those outside the tax net and social welfare recipients received nothing from the improvements in the tax system. A properly functioning system would allow for refundable tax credits. When the then Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy, introduced tax credits, he was applauded on all sides. However, the difficulty is he did not go any further with them. It is in the interests of the social welfare system that a refundable tax credit be introduced on a wider scale. It applies to some extent with regard to the giving of relief on medical expenses. However, it should be introduced in many other areas. The tax system should directly assist those in greatest need.
It should be in the interests of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to receive support from the Revenue Commissioners. I know the Department of Finance is vehemently opposed to the notion that people should be given back any more in tax. However, it is a more progressive system. I suggest to the Chairman that after the committee deals with the Bill we take up this issue. If the principle of refundable tax credits was accepted at Government level, it would be the single most significant improvement we could make for those on low incomes.
We can include it in the work programme for next year.
The Deputy may have heard the Minister for Finance refer in his Budget Statement to the Commission on Taxation on the issue of child payments. I expect the issue will be dealt with in this context.
On the same basis that I spoke about the cuts in job seeker's benefit I want to ensure the Chairman, as a supporter of the Government, and all Government members on the committee are fully aware of what they are voting in favour of in order that when the cuts kick in, they will not be able to state they did not realise it. We have seen this happen in the past. By any standards, it is a backward step to cut child benefit for 18 year olds. It will impact, in particular, on the poorest families who are struggling to keep their children in school until they complete the leaving certificate. This should not happen. The Minister should not target poor families in these circumstances when she has other options to balance the budget. It is a bad section with which I completely disagree.
The points have been made. Low-income families dependent on social welfare payments, including family income supplement, will receive the compensatory payment next year and the following year. However, in a context where savings had to be made, it was considered this was fair, particularly as more than 70% of students complete the leaving certificate before they reach the age of 18 years.
Is the Minister hoping people will have forgotten about this cut in two years time? Is she trying to ease the blow a little by making compensatory payments over two years?
The compensatory payments were designed to ensure people with an expectation of receiving money in January would not be caught.
It is just too bad that in two years' time——
At least in two years' time people——
What can they do?
People know exactly how long their child benefit payments will last.
They still have an expectation.
Do they start saving now? Is that what the Minister is suggesting?
It will last up to the age of 18 years.
What does the Minister suggest they do?
They can get the money back from FÁS.
What do those who have a 16 year old child do when he or she reaches 18?
They will receive it until the child is 18 years.
It is a disgrace.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 18, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on eligibility criteria for the Early Childcare Supplement.".
I will be brief on this amendment because I have made the relevant points previously. I disagree with what the Government has done in reducing the payment period by six months, especially given that the payment has not been in place for very long. When it was introduced, it was deemed necessary for it to apply to children up to the age of six and I do not see what has changed in that regard. The purpose of the payment was to assist parents in paying for the cost of child care. Child care costs have remained the same. The argument is now being made that children are in school by the time they are six years of age, but that was also true when the payment was first introduced.
It would not have been necessary to make this change had the Government done its homework in the first place with regard to how the payment would be made. It was intended to cover the cost of child care in Ireland. However, by linking the payment to child benefit, parents working here whose children are not living in this country are eligible to receive the payment. This means that a significant amount of money is leaving the country every year and is not going towards the cost of child care in Ireland. Had the Government implemented the payment correctly, savings garnered could have gone a long way towards offsetting the cut that has just been made.
I support this amendment and oppose this section. There is a real difficulty with this aspect of the Bill. The Minister is portraying this provision as reducing the entitlement to early child care supplement by six months, but that is not correct. While the supplement technically will stop when the eligible child reaches five and a half years of age, because of the changes to the manner in which it is paid, parents will lose out on nine months of the payment rather than six months. The Department has chosen a particularly underhand way of reducing the payment, portraying it simply as an administrative change in terms of a monthly rather than a quarterly payment. However, the net result is the loss of €800 to parents of five year olds. This general approach being taken by the Government is to target rather than protect the vulnerable. It is a bad move and I oppose it for that reason.
This is the meanest cut. The early child care supplement was announced to great fanfare, but the Government giveth and the Government taketh away. The payment was a significant benefit to many families, in particular to young couples who are burdened with huge mortgages. It helped relieve pressure so that parents could go to work in the knowledge that their children were being cared for. In taking away half a year's payments, the Government is once again hitting the most vulnerable people. Alongside the new child care subvention, this will put additional pressures on young couples.
I learned in a reply to a parliamentary question I put to the Minister that the cost of the supplement in 2008 is estimated at €476 million, whereas the projected cost for 2009 is €390 million. However, €4.4 million was paid this year to children living outside the country and an estimated 7,000 of these will receive the benefit next year at a cost of €7 million. The Government must reconsider this measure because it is a mistake to take away half a year's payments.
The introduction of the early child care supplement was mismanaged in that it included children who did not live in Ireland. It would have been much wiser to have invested the money that has flowed out of the country in child care services here. I support the amendment.
Deputy Catherine Byrne noted that an estimated 7,000 children who reside outside the State will receive the supplement next year. Can the Minister tell us the value of the payments leaving the country and indicate the scale of fraud involved? Fraud in the area of child benefit costs in the region of €20 million or €30 million. Approximately one sixth of these frauds involve children who are residing abroad.
What is the Department's estimate of the fall-off in demand for child benefit as a result of migrants returning home, both in respect of children residing in this jurisdiction and those living elsewhere in the EU?
I am sure the Minister does not like introducing these measures but she is constrained by budgetary realities. It is interesting that the Irish Independent reported in March 2007 that Fine Gael wanted to abolish the early child care supplement altogether.
Alternatives are available to the Minister. I do not know whether she likes what she is doing but the reality is that the Government did not do its homework before it introduced this supplement. On six separate occasions, Fine Gael asked the Taoiseach, who was Minister for Finance at the time, the amounts flowing out of the country and was given a different figure each time. We now know that the cost for next year is estimated at €7 million. Suddenly the Government is addressing the issue of waste. Millions of euro are being saved in child benefit but waste in this area was ignored over several years. How much money has been lost? People are suffering because of poor Government management.
This payment was designed to provide for the care of children in their pre-school years. By the age of five and a half, almost all children are attending school. I am not pretending that other costs do not arise but the payment targeted full-time pre-school care.
Why was it paid until the age of six?
The largesse of a Government that had a lot more money at the time.
There were no school places for the children.
Make it up as you go along.
We are making the changes in recognition that the children will be in school. By paying the supplement on a monthly basis, we can avoid the issue raised by Deputy Shortall in respect of families that might lose a month's payment after their children reach the age of six. There were also instances where mothers received payments for two months before their children were even born.
It is the Minister's fault if her Department cannot introduce proper controls. She cannot use that as an argument.
How did that happen?
The mother received payment for the quarter in which the child was born. If a child was born in March, the mother received a payment for January and February.
Why was the Department doing that?
At the time the payments were made quarterly. They are now being done on a monthly basis. It is a fair way to make the required savings.
The Minister is implying this is the fault of somebody other than herself.
No, I am merely saying that the child who loses the payment at the age of six might have gained at the time he or she was born. The only way we could have designed the measure so that it would not apply to non-resident children of workers in Ireland would have been through a vouched cost in the tax system. Under EU regulations, as a family payment it had to apply to all who worked here.
The numbers affected are a small percentage of the overall number, although they are significant given the sums involved. This year, 435,000 payments were made at a cost of €480 million. I understand the savings that will be made next year as a result of the change will amount to €97 million.
We take combating fraud seriously. Depending on their children's age, the people we target to ensure child benefit is going to the right recipients are also paid the early child care allowance. When the initial survey of child benefit was conducted, the incidence of fraud was only 1.7% of the 500 Irish nationals surveyed, compared with 14% among the 500 non-Irish nationals. That is a good reason for us to continue targeting letters at people who are in receipt of child benefit. The savings can be significant.
In regard to non-Irish nationals returning to their countries of origin, if they no longer work here they do not qualify for child benefit or the early child care allowance. From my discussions with people working in the social welfare offices and from evidence coming from schools, I am not sure those with families have left the country. Those who have gone home are people who are not married or who have no children. They are more mobile, whereas those with children settled in schools have not left, so I am not sure how great an impact that will have on that budget next year.
Are there any comments?
No, but I will press the amendment.
Have we any indication of the impact it will have on migrants returning home? I accept the Minister's point that migrants who have brought their children are buying into Irish society and will be here for the long run; that is a fact. However, a significant number of migrants have children residing abroad and have claimed the top-up payments in this jurisdiction. In the drafting of the budget in the Department I am sure that issue and the impact it could have was examined in terms of the savings required. Will the Minister give us a ball-park figure for that?
Of those elements of fraud that were indicated, just over 1% for the Irish population and less than 15% of the migrant population, how many of those involved children under the age of six who would have been eligible for the early child care supplement? There is a double saving in highlighting fraud in that area. What provisions are being put in place in the Department to ensure we can reduce the overall fraud level involving migrants? Most of that involves children residing outside this jurisdiction because it should be easy to confirm whether children reside in this jurisdiction.
People will be aware that there are some delays for applicants for child benefit. Those delays largely relate to the checks and investigations that need to be undertaken to ensure that non-resident children exist and that they do not receive any other payment. We are fairly thorough in our control measures before we give a payment. The Deputy asked what impact the savings from the child benefit controls would have on the early child care scheme. It is expected that 1,200 cases of child benefit will be terminated, saving €13 million, and, of those, €1.5 million will also be saved on the early child care scheme, although I do not have the exact number of people.
In the survey I mentioned we identified a higher risk of fraud among the non-nationals surveyed. However, we must be very careful not to discriminate against a particular group in control measures. We have increased controls and anti-fraud measures generally, particularly regarding child benefit, with mailshots and home visits etc. We are keeping the matter very closely under review.
Is there a higher percentage of fraud regarding children not residing in this jurisdiction compared with children of non-Irish parents residing in this jurisdiction?
I do not have the breakdown of whether the children were resident here, but irrespective of that, 14% is a very high fraud rate and it must be combated.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 18, before section 23, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
"23.—(1) The Principal Act is amended in Part 1 of Schedule 4 by substituting the following for reference 5A:
‘
|
5A. Blind Welfare Allowance |
63.60 |
- |
4.40 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
'.
(2) Section 12(d) of the Act of 2008 is repealed.”.
Section 12 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2008 contains the legislative basis for the transfer of administrative responsibility for blind welfare allowance from the Department of Health and Children to the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This is endorsed by a Government decision but is not scheduled to take effect until next year. In anticipation of the transfer, the amendment provides for an increase in the rate of blind welfare allowance, a means-tested payment normally paid as a supplement to an existing income support payment.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 18, before section 23, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
"23.--Where a recipient of fuel allowance expresses a preference for the payment of the sums due to him or her by way of two lump sums, it shall be lawful for the Minister to make such payment by way of two lump sums.".
This relates to fuel allowance, an issue we have all raised. Consideration should be given to a facility whereby fuel allowance could be paid in two lump sums during the year to facilitate people who depend on oil for their central heating. Has the Minister considered it?
I would like to comment on that and I will speak to my amendment on fuel allowance to save us returning to it. The Minister's officials were here last week with Sustainable Energy Ireland and other Departments. That meeting was most dissatisfactory and uninformative but we will deal with that on another day. One of the officials made the point that a report or a review was conducted a number of years ago and the majority of people did not want the payment in this way. However, a substantial minority want it. I am not asking for it to be just one way but for the choice to be there. We need better information on how the all-Department committee operates and a review of the effectiveness of the fuel allowance. The Departments are to return to us, I hope with more information, but the last day they told us only how the system operates rather than what the group is examining regarding changes that need to be made to ensure the fuel allowance is more effective and heat is not going out the window. It is important we get a report on that.
I will examine that in the context of next year's budget. It could be done only for pensioners because it would have to be for somebody who is in receipt of a long-term payment as the unemployed person might not still be unemployed two or three months after receiving one of the two lump sums. We are not sure what the demand would be. Many people have moved away from the bag of coal and many have moved to gas that they pay for on a monthly basis. I will see what information I can gather in the coming year, before next year's budget, and whether it is demanded by pensioners because it could not be done for others.
That is fair enough. I thank the Minister for that and I look forward to hearing more about it next year.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 18, before section 23, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
"23.--The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to increase the Living Alone Allowance .".
We have been over this ground before at Question Time and I have asked the Minister about the research by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice on minimum essential budgets that different categories of people need to survive. The partnership has done very worthwhile work and has listed everything people buy, including items such as birthday cards for their grandchildren, all the small and big items that add up. It has estimated the minimum budget that different categories of people require just to survive. It estimates that it costs one pensioner living alone approximately 70% of what it costs two pensioners to live. All the groups working in this area would support that view. When one person in a pensioner couple dies it is very stark and the overheads are basically the same. For example, the mortgage, central heating and electricity all cost the same whether it is one or two people, as well as maintenance of the house, garden and car. The figure has been calculated at 70% of the cost of living as a couple.
I have previously asked the Minister if she accepted those findings and, if so, why she is not putting more money into the living alone allowance. The reply has always been that she is concentrating on increasing pensions overall, which is fine. I acknowledge the progress made in increasing the level of pensions but there is an issue within pension payments that has been consistently ignored. Has the Minister read the Vincentian Partnership research and does she accept its findings? If not, will she at least examine the issue people are telling us about. The Minister seems to be just ignoring it.
I want some attention to be given to the area and some evidence-based research to be either carried out or taken on board. Either way, the Minister should address the issue.
I support this amendment but will speak to my own amendment. I will not repeat Deputy Shortall's comments. When a constituent comes to a public representative on such an issue, he or she will make the point that having lost a spouse, his or her income is effectively halved. The only thing halved in terms of what they purchase is clothes; perhaps the purchase of food is lessened to some extent, although we all know that when cooking there is not much difference between doing it for one person or two. People still have to pay the same house and car insurance, run a car and heat the same number of rooms in a house. The outgoings are the same.
The previous Minister, Deputy Cullen, indicated a rising tide lifted all boats, which is the reason the overall pension limits were changed. The tide is not rising at the moment and these people will really struggle now. The allowance merits more attention.
There is no doubt that costs do not halve when a person is left on his or her own. Equally, the intention has always been to try to increase the general rates of payment. I indicated in the House earlier this year that in the event of there not being as much money for a budget package this year, I would have to prioritise this and the fuel allowance. Some €550 million was put into a budget package, which meant I was able to increase all the payments and did not have to specifically target this living alone allowance.
The statistics on people at risk of poverty or in consistent poverty show numbers have reduced significantly with regard to older people. I accept there is a higher risk for the person on his or her own. This year I looked to see if anything could be done for widow's allowance, as these people are most likely to have had a large house requiring more heating, for example, before finding themselves on their own. Years ago this was all put into one payment, so one cannot identify from one group, as they are all matched.
That payment has not moved in years so it is not just a case of doing it or not this year. The main pension payments have moved significantly, and this will always be our target. I cannot say what we will be able to do for next year as I am not sure how much money will be available for anything. If we had less money this year, I might have acted on the living alone allowance and not acted on pension payments, and if I had more I may have acted on the living alone allowance and the main pension payments. I had to work with what I had.
I know the Minister does not have an endless budget. This has been identified by several groups as a structural problem within the social welfare code. It was recognised by the Department some years ago, when the living alone allowance was introduced, and it used to be increased on a yearly basis until several years ago.
It was 12 years ago, until 1996.
It has remained static since, and if it had kept pace with inflation the payment would be about double what it is now at a rate of €15. At some stage, a policy decision was taken in the Department not to increase the payment. It is not enough just to say pensions are being increased generally as this is relative. The point of the research was that relative to a pensioner couple, a lone pensioner is disadvantaged. It is not the correct approach to say that if money was tighter, we may have had to target those people. There should be an attempt to bring everybody up and identify specific problems within the system. I do not know where the notion came from that the issue can suddenly be ignored.
If the Minister is prepared to consider this during the year with a view to perhaps introducing changes next year, having had the Department undertake its own research or seriously examine the Vincentian Partnership research, that would be fine. I am looking for some kind of commitment that the issue will be considered in the coming year.
I do not question the findings that a person suddenly alone or a lone pensioner is worse off than a couple. There is no doubt about this, particularly because of overheads. It is not just birthday cards as there are many other items which people must pay for, such as house insurance, heating, car maintenance and so on. I am sympathetic to consideration of how best to tackle this within a particular budget but everything is conditional on how much money is available. If I had less, I would have targeted this provision. I indicated this at Question Time. If I had more I would act accordingly. I will keep it under review, particularly as information comes on poverty rates, and we should have more information soon on consistent poverty rates.
The Minister may have misunderstood me. The point I was making about birthday cards was not that it is any different with a couple or a single person. The Vincentian Partnerships considered all the real expenses, down to the detail of birthday cards or all those little incidentals. For example, a person will pay for so many haircuts in the year, and these essentials were included.
I have asked the Minister twice to do some work in the area or at least look at the work being done but she has not committed to doing so.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 18, before section 23, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
"23.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of relaxing the qualifying criteria for Back to Education Allowance so that unemployed persons can claim it within three months of the start of their claim.".
These amendments relate to schemes in place to assist people returning to education or those in receipt of the back to work enterprise allowance for setting up their own businesses. There are two ways to judge the budget, with the first being to ask if it is fair. The Government has got its reply from the public on that and it is certainly the strong view on this side that the budget is not fair. The other criterion on which it should be judged is whether it does anything to help the economy and create jobs. There is not much evidence there is any plan — in the budget or elsewhere — to create jobs and deal with some of the underlying economic problems.
These amendments are related to the qualifying criteria to avail of some of these schemes. When people lose their jobs they come to the Department for financial assistance and income support. The aim of the Department should be to ensure these people do not become the new long-term unemployed. If this is to be achieved, it must be ensured that opportunities are available to retrain and upskill, perhaps for people setting up their own business. In as much as possible, the Department should be able to support people and ensure their dependence on welfare for as short duration as possible. They should be facilitated in moving on and becoming self-sufficient again. That should be the aim of the Department. If the Department was serious about this, it would identify the obstacles, including the qualifying criteria. Currently, if a person becomes unemployed and does not receive statutory redundancy — there are many of these people at the moment — he or she cannot avail of the back to education allowance for six months, for example to go back to school to do the junior certificate or leaving certificate if he or she has not had a chance to do it previously. If a person wants to go into third level, he or she must be unemployed for 12 months, which can be reduced to nine months in exceptional circumstances. It is a long waiting period. We should try to get people into courses, training, or employment or to set up their own businesses as quickly as possible. It does not make sense to have those waiting periods. For the back to work enterprise allowance the waiting period is two years for jobseekers and one year for recipients of the one-parent family payment and other payments such as pre-retirement allowance and the invalidity pension. A person on illness benefit must wait three years or longer.
An extra 100,000 people have gone on the dole in the past year. The Minister needs to gear up to prepare for those. She needs to consider the roles that have applied in the past and see whether they are relevant to the new kind of unemployment problem that we have. There is an urgent need to change the qualifying criteria to enable people to get into employment, set up their own businesses and so on more quickly than they are allowed to under the current arrangements. It is crazy that if somebody loses his or her job and desperately wants to do a particular course, he or she is told to stay on the dole and wait 12 months. The person must stay dependent before he or she is allowed to avail of a particular scheme. It does not make sense. In the current climate the Minister should aim to move people through the system as quickly as possible. That is why I have proposed these amendments.
I support Deputy Shortall on both these amendments, but I want to speak particularly about the back to education allowance. Of all the times it was important to make changes in this regard, this is the most opportune. The current criteria effectively force some people into joining the live register. The Minister probably will not agree with that, but I can cite plenty of examples I have come across and that my colleagues have come across and contacted me about. Having to be on the live register for 12 months does not make sense in view of the cost of that payment versus that of the back to education allowance. There is a real issue here. I tried to explain this on Second Stage, and probably did it badly, but it depends on when one comes on the live register. If one loses one's job in October or November and must fulfil the 12-month criterion, one is automatically caught for a further year because only 11 months will have passed by the time the third-level institutions start the academic year. Thus, one will have to wait until the following October. This lengthens the time people actually have to wait.
I realise the thought process behind the allowance, but there is an argument for extending it to people on the minimum wage as well, if we truly want people to increase their skills and improve their prospects. I am speaking in particular about people who were not given the opportunities that others had at a younger age. I am not optimistic that we will persuade the Minister to change her mind, but that is the way it is being operated at the moment, bearing in mind the differences if one is in the employment action plan or gets redundancy. None of the people who have been coming to me in recent months, who worked in shops or small local businesses as opposed to bigger companies or multinationals, have got redundancy payments. Those working in smaller scale but equally important jobs frequently do not get redundancy payments, which means they do not automatically become eligible for the scheme. The system is short-sighted and really needs to be changed.
Those working in the social welfare offices also say that perhaps we could consider the back to school allowance. I refer to the second level payment rather than just the third level payment. There are people who could benefit quickly from that. I am also conscious that there are 18 year olds walking in the door with their families, who themselves were unemployed, and signing on. These people would be far better occupied in education or in some form of training. Perhaps something could be targeted at these people. That is one area I will consider.
I am more anxious about the third level scheme. What I do not want is to narrow the criteria so much that we end up with people either signing on three months after the leaving certificate or targeting a payment for third level. In fairness, the payment, at €200 per week, is very generous compared to the third level grant. With more people going through the activation plan, the time scale will have been reduced to nine months for them, but in addition, we will have more information from FÁS about the educational qualifications of people participating. In this way we can examine how to target certain people. This is something I want to keep under review. It is working. This September there was a 24% increase in the number of people participating in the back to education scheme compared with last year. Where people are identified and targeted, it can work and it can be successful.
I accept what Deputies are saying about people who may not get statutory redundancy. We need to get more information on the types of people coming in. I want to make sure we target the right people at the right time. There may be scope, in particular, for second level, and I will certainly consider third level also.
I am not talking about school leavers and I would not suggest that school leavers be facilitated in going on the dole. We should be able to offer school leavers something better than the dole. That is a separate issue entirely. I am talking about people who were employed but find themselves unemployed, who should be facilitated in going on to do something else. Everybody would be open to the idea of an age limit or a requirement for a certain amount of time in employment. I am talking about changing the qualifying criteria to assist those people who find themselves unemployed and who are desperately trying to do something. The figures produced by the Minister show there is major interest in improving education standards. Sometimes people talk about this as though most people are swinging the lead. They are not. People want to improve their skills and avail of educational opportunities, but the Minister is limiting their ability to do that.
If we consider what is happening in third level colleges, especially in the IT sector, we can see there are many vacancies in courses across the board. It does not make sense. In one college a large IT department was set up several years ago, but school leavers are no longer interested in that area to the extent they used to be. The college is paying the staff and it has all the facilities lying there. Why not get unemployed people in there to improve their computer skills, especially older unemployed people? There is major demand for that. With a bit of creative thinking, much could be done. The system is very restrictive as it operates at the moment. Is the Minister saying she will consider this before Report Stage?
It will not be possible, as Report Stage will be on Wednesday of next week. However, it is something I intend to keep under review. It is something that could be changed at any time — it is not dependent on the Social Welfare Bill. It could be dealt with through regulations, although there could be costs.
The Minister is correct in saying that the scheme has been successful for those who have managed to get on it, but it could be enormously successful for many more people if the changes are made. That is the key point, the impact it could have on people if they get on to the scheme. Perhaps the committee should examine this in more detail. Will the Minister return within a few months with some facts and figures on the possibilities of such changes and the costs involved? There would be cost implications. I know the Exchequer is conscious of having to pay third level fees. There is that cost. However, the difference is only €500 extra per year if they are on the back to education allowance, as against what they get on the jobseeker's allowance. That must be borne in mind. In the end, they will come out with a qualification instead of sitting at home and getting €500 less per year.
It is a no-brainer.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 18, before section 23, but in Part 2, to insert the following new section:
"23.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of relaxing the qualifying criteria for Back to Work Enterprise Allowance so that unemployed persons can claim it within three months of the start of their claim.".
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 18, before section 23, but in Part 2, to insert the following new
section:
"PART 2A
23.—The Minister shall provide that the following reports shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas within 3 months of the commencement of this Act:
(1) A report on the adequacy of each social welfare payment.
(2) A report on the eligibility criteria for the Disability Allowance.
(3) A report on reducing application processing time for social welfare supports.
(4) A report on the removal of the Habitual Residence Condition from the Child Benefit payment.
(5) A report on the progress made in tackling:
(a) Child poverty.
(b) Pensioner poverty.
(c) Lone Parent poverty.
(d) Poverty of the long-term unemployed.
(6) A report on increasing the Living Alone Allowance.
(7) A report on data security within the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
(8) A report on the nature of the anti-fraud initiatives that are in use or consideration for future use by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
(9) A report on the possibility of extending the free travel scheme to include other services providers in relation to free travel benefits for people in rural areas.
(10) A report on the rationale for keeping Qualified Child Allowances at a low level over the past decade.
(11) A report on the amalgamation of any and all agencies into the Department and the rationale thereof.
(12) A report on the number of people who are unable to meet their mortgage repayments who are seeking Mortgage Supplementary Support.".
I put forward this amendment to try to cover the various issues that must be addressed. It is long but I will not take much time. I dealt with adequacy of payments on Second Stage and what I said still stands. People will be affected despite the increases in payment. The Government might have awarded a more generous increase in many areas, which would have made a difference.
I included the eligibility criteria for the disability allowance to reiterate the importance of that allowance to people, and I am glad the Minister ultimately realised its importance.
I dealt with the reduction of application processing times on Second Stage and I ask the Minister to examine this comprehensively. There is a very wide difference in social welfare offices around the country in respect of how long people are expected to wait. The length of time people must wait for payment appears to bear no relation to the number of applications in hand in some of the offices. The Minister took my point at the time. Rather than merely talking about it, we must see a change. We must take the office that is best and set that as the target example across the country. This need not incur a charge on the Exchequer. There is plenty of room within the Civil Service for staff to examine this issue and to ensure that people do not have to wait longer than necessary. I know I will be told that applicants can go to the community welfare officer and get a payment, but people do not want to do that. If they are entitled to a payment they should be able to get it within a reasonable period but in many places at present, this period is not reasonable.
We discussed the habitual residence condition several times last year. I believe this occurred with Deputy Cullen when he was Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I also mentioned to the present Minister what people in asylum centres are being asked to live on is unacceptable. I know their food and accommodation costs are paid, but parents should not be asked to expect their children to live on €9 per week. This gives them no opportunity of socialising, getting to know their colleagues in the schools they attend, or being able to participate in after-school and extracurricular activities. Ultimately, some of these children will be allowed remain in Ireland. I accept that others will not. Those who will be allowed stay are missing out on the vital part of the socialisation process in schools because of the meagre level of that payment.
We have discussed the four instances of poverty at length during discussion of earlier amendments and on Second Stage, and I will not go into them now, nor into the issue of the living alone allowance. It is necessary to discuss the issue of data security within the Department. We have dealt with it on numerous occasions by posing parliamentary questions. The safety of information is of concern to people across all Departments, in respect of its use by departmental staff and in interdepartmental use. I am not happy that information is as secure as it could be. That must be addressed.
I dealt with the anti-fraud initiatives briefly at the beginning but there is much more scope for discussion. I appreciate that some extra savings have been made but I strongly question the fact that there have not been more prosecutions. I intend to follow up with the Minister in respect of the efforts she is making to get money back that was paid out for fraudulent claims in the past. Child benefit is a particular instance. The Minister told us that she saved an extra €25 million since July and €4.5 million since changes were made to the disability allowance. If such savings can be made through anti-fraud activities, it should be remembered that fraud was going on for much longer. We should seek to get that money repaid.
With regard to extending the free travel scheme, I posed a parliamentary question on medical instances that might qualify. The Minister said she will not change the free travel scheme at present. I will return to that issue later.
We dealt with the qualified child allowance already and we have discussed the other issues in enough detail. If time allowed me, I would speak further on all these matters. They must be considered and I will return to them on Report Stage.
I will not talk about all these issues but one is topical, namely, processing times for payments in the Department. I know this is of concern to people. Obviously, the nature of the particular claim being made, whether habitual residence, social insurance record or medical, would impact on the processing time. There are no delays in the majority of applications for pensions, illness benefit and child benefit, but I accept there are delays in jobseeker's allowance and jobseeker's benefit. The Deputy is correct to highlight this and I acknowledged as much already in response to her parliamentary question. The delays in some offices are longer than in others. An additional 115 staff are to be assigned to 48 offices and that should help to alleviate the pressure.
The annual social inclusion report 2008 will be published in early 2009, together with the report of the national development plan. We can continue to look forward to others. All these issues may be raised as parliamentary questions and they can be discussed then. I do not propose to accept the amendment.
I wish to press the amendment.
I have one brief comment on asylum centres. Will the Minister consider the allowances that are paid? Perhaps she will talk to colleagues in her previous Department, the Department of Education and Science, especially those in the primary sector who have children of asylum seekers in their schools. In my constituency, quite a number of schools have children from asylum centres. Because the allowances are so low, not all children are facilitated with swimming lessons, school tours and other outings. The limited resources that are available to the school to subvent, in some cases, up to 40% of the school population mean that the school cannot discriminate between one set of children and another. That is natural. As a result, these children are not participating in some events. Every child loses out because this payment was not increased.
The argument will be made about a certain type of welfare fraud. I do not believe the amounts in question will lead to too much fraud but if that is an issue surely additional allowances could be provided for schools through the community welfare officer to make provision for such events. Those officers are not doing this work at present and, as a result, there is an anomaly within the system whereby all children are being penalised.
That payment comes from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. My Department does not provide it.
It is from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
It is not part of the budget of my Department.
It is a lump sum paid by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to the Department of Social and Family Affairs whose officials administer it. Is that correct?
The amount is determined by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
However, the money comes from the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
Yes, through the community welfare officers in my Department.
Amendment No. 28 is out of order.
I do not understand why amendment No. 28 was ruled out of order. Will the Chairman inform the committee in writing of the reason? The amendment allows the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the General Register Office to provide information to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Section 24 provides for the same thing, that is to facilitate the exchange of information between Departments and State agencies. This amendment serves the same purpose and facilitates the exchange of information from the General Register Office to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I fail to see how it is outside the scope of the Bill.
There is a weakness in the existing legislation. Section 58 of the Act is not enforced. This amendment would allow the General Register Office to bring any suspicion to the attention of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. This does not happen at present for some unknown reason. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not make objections which could be made under Section 58 of the Act. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has outlined at some length the immigration problems which arise as a result of this weakness. I urge the Minister to reconsider the decision before Report Stage. This is a very simple amendment and could alleviate a problem of which all sides of the House acknowledge the existence. It can be addressed without using the very draconian legislation proposed by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
We cannot consider it on Report Stage because of the time constraints. The amendment is out of order and it cannot be discussed on Report Stage.
It is a matter for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
That is not the case because the Civil Registration Act is overseen by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.
The idea of sham marriages and so on is a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
The amendment is in the name of Deputy Olwyn Enright.
I seek a commitment from the chairman that he will revert to the committee and explain how furnishing information to one Minister is deemed within the scope of the Bill, yet furnishing information to another Minister is deemed outside the scope of the Bill. That is the ruling made by the chairman, which is, I believe, incorrect.
All I know is that amendment No. 28 in the name of Deputy Olwyn Enright is out of order on the grounds that it is outside the scope of the Bill. The amendment provides that persons getting married can be challenged on citizenship grounds and it is not that——
The amendment makes provision for information to be disclosed to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Section 24 of the Bill does the same for other Ministers. In any case I have set down the issue. Will the Minister examine this again before Report Stage?
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 19, before section 25, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
25.—(1) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a review on the effectiveness of the Fuel Allowance in view of rising energy prices.
(2) The Minister shall, within 1 week of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the progress of the National Carers Strategy.
(3) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the eligibility criteria for the Carers Allowance with a view to recognising and supporting the work of young carers.
(4) The Minister, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the financial implications of providing Carers with a full rate of Carer's Allowance/Benefit for every person they care for.
(5) The Minister, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending the number of hours a week a Carer may be employed while retaining entitlement to the Carers Allowance
(6) The Minister, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report considering the implications of awarding PRSI contributions to carers on the same basis as paid contributions so that carers can improve their pension entitlement.
I have already spoken on the matter of the fuel allowance and I will not advert again to it. I refer to the carers issue. We are one week shy of what should have been the first anniversary of the publication of the national carers strategy, yet it still has not been published. I put down the amendment to highlight this issue and to tease out what should be included in the national carers strategy. I have spoken to some of those involved and they expect a visionary document from the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I hope for the same. The Towards 2016 document was probably visionary, as were many other documents but action does not necessarily follow as a result of the publication of such documents. There are particular issues which must be recognised and dealt with and decisions which must be made. One such matter is the full rate of the carers allowance or benefit. Another issue is the extension of the number of hours per week for which a carer may be employed while retaining entitlement to the allowance. There is also the matter of the implication of awarding PRSI contributions. I asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs for a report on these issues and to discuss them rather than inserting them in the Bill, as they probably would have been disallowed anyway. What are the views of the Minister on the matter?
I refer to the issue of young carers, of which there are approximately 3,000. I understand from a previous discussion with the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Martin Cullen, that reference to these was not to be included in the national carers strategy. I am especially concerned about young carers as they do work which they should not be obliged to do at that stage of their lives. It makes them grow up a good deal quicker than they otherwise would. It is a good thing that they do such work, but it is not a position in which any of us would wish to see teenagers and younger people. In such circumstances, they miss out on the chance of growing up and education opportunities also. This must be addressed and it is to some degree a mistake that it is not addressed in the strategy. However, I realise there were varying views on the matter. I have no doubt such people were referred to in Towards 2016 also. Reference to these people should be included in the strategy and it should address the situation in which they find themselves. They do a job they should not be obliged to do at that stage of their lives.
As the Deputy is aware, the interdepartmental working group dealing with this matter is chaired by the Taoiseach. At the opening of the social forum this morning, the assistant secretary in the Department of the Taoiseach, Ms Mary Doyle, indicated in her contribution that the carers strategy would be published in the first part of next year.
That is yet another change.
That was announced at the social forum this morning. The Department of the Taoiseach is the lead Department in this matter, which does not only relate to social welfare. There are health issues and other cross-departmental issues also. I understand a study of young carers is being carried out by the Office of the Minister for Children in the Department of Health and Children commenced in October, but it is unlikely that will contribute to the final report on carers.
The Minister's response is very disappointing. We were told this time last year that although it would not be ready for December, the strategy would be ready this year. We are now approaching December 2008 and it will not be ready until next year. Some people are under pressure and dependent on the strategy. I recognise it will not necessarily have money or bells and whistles attached, but people have an expectation that it will at least chart the road for how carers will be looked after by the State. There has been much improvement in recent years, but serious issues remain to be addressed and people are dependent on the strategy. People will be upset to hear the strategy will still not be ready this year.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 19, before section 25, but in Part 3, to insert the following new section:
25.—(1) "The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on data protection policies and procedures within the Department of Social and Family Affairs
(2) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on progress and savings accrued to date as a result of the Department's anti-fraud initiatives within the Department of Social and Family Affairs.".
I have already spoken on this matter.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
"PART 5
DISSOLUTION OF COMBAT POVERTY AGENCY
29.—In this Part "Agency" means the "Combat Poverty Agency."
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
"30.—The Agency shall be dissolved on the commencement of this Part.".
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
"31.—(1) All rights and liabilities of the Agency arising by virtue of any contract or commitment (expressed or implied) entered into by the Agency before the commencement of this Part shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Minister.
(2) Every right and liability transferred by subsection (1) may, on and after the transfer, be sued on, recovered or enforced by or against the Minister in his or her name and it shall not be necessary for the Minister to give notice to the person whose right or liability is transferred by that subsection of such transfer.”.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
32.—(1) All land which immediately before the commencement of this Part, was vested in the Agency and all rights, powers and privileges relating to or connected with that land are, on such commencement, without any conveyance or assignment, transferred to and vested in the Minister.
(2) All property other than land, including choses-in-action, which immediately before the commencement of this Part was the property of the agency shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to the Minister without any assignment.
(3) Every chose-in-action transferred by subsection (2) may, on and after the commencement of this Part, be sued upon, recovered or enforced by the Minister in his or her name and it shall not be necessary for the Minister to give notice to any person bound by the chose-in-action of the transfer effected by that subsection.
(4) Any moneys, stocks, shares and securities transferred to the Minister by subsection (2) which, immediately before the commencement of this Part, are in the name of the Agency shall, upon the request of the Minister, be transferred into his or her name.”.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
33.—(1) As soon as may be after the commencement of this Part, but not later than one year thereafter, the Minister shall cause to be prepared final accounts of the Agency, in respect of the accounting year or part of an accounting year of the Agency ending immediately before the commencement of this Part.
(2) Accounts prepared pursuant to this section shall be submitted as soon as may be by the Minister to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit, and, immediately after the audit, a copy of the accounts as audited and a copy of the comptroller and Auditor General's report on the accounts shall be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies of those audited accounts and that report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.".
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
34.—Where, immediately before the commencement of this Part, any legal proceedings to which the Agency is a party are pending, the name of the Minister shall be substituted in the proceedings for the name of the Agency and the proceedings shall not abate by reason of such substitution.".
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
35.—(1)(a) Subject to paragraph (b), every person who, immediately before the commencement of this Part is an employee of the Agency shall, on such commencement, hold an unestablished position in the Civil Service.
(b) Every person who, immediately before the commencement of this Part, is a fixed-term employee of the Agency shall, on such commencement, hold an unestablished position as a fixed-term employee of the Minister for the duration of his or her contract of employment.
(2) Save in accordance with a collective agreement negotiated with any recognised trade union or staff association concerned, a person referred to in subsection (1) shall not, on the commencement of this Part, be brought to less beneficial conditions of remuneration than the conditions of remuneration to which he or she was subject immediately before the commencement of this Part.
(3) The previous service of a person referred to in subsection (1) shall be reckonable for the purposes of, but subject to any exceptions or exclusions in:
(a) the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 to 2007;
(b) the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001;
(c) the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003;
(d) the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997;
(e) the Terms of Employment (Information) Acts 1994 and 2001;
(f) the Minimum Notice and terms of Employment Acts 1973 to 2005;
(g) the Unfair Dismissals Act 1977 to 2007;
(h) the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004;
(i) the Parental Leave Acts 1998 and 2006;
(j) the Adoptive Leave Acts 1995 and 2005;
(k) the Carer's Leave Act 2001.
(4) Any superannuation benefits awarded to or in respect of a person referred to in subsection (1) and the terms relating to those benefits shall be no less favourable than those applicable to or in respect of that person immediately before the commencement of this Part.
(5) The pension payments and other superannuation liabilities of the Agency in respect of its former employees become on the commencement of this Part the liabilities of the Minister for Finance.
(6) A person referred to in subsection (1) shall undertake such duties as the Minister may from time to time direct.
(7) A person referred to in subsection (1), shall be subject to and employed in accordance with the Civil Service Regulation Acts 1956 to 2005 and the Ethics in Public Office Acts 1995 to 2001.
(8) In this section—
‘Act of 2004' means the Public Service Management (Recruitment and Appointments) Act 2004;
‘Civil Service' has the meaning assigned to by the Act of 2004;
‘contract of employment' has the meaning assigned to it by the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003;
‘fixed-term employee' has the meaning assigned to it by the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003;
‘recognised trade union or staff association' means a trade union or staff association recognised by the Minister for the purposes of negotiations which are concerned with the remuneration or conditions of employment, or the working conditions of employees;
‘unestablished position' has the meaning assigned to it by the Act of 2004.".
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
36.—The expenses incurred by the Minister in the administration of this Part shall, to such extent as may be sanctioned by the Minister for Finance, be paid out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.".
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 22, after line 7, to insert the following new section:
37.—The Combat Poverty Agency Act 1986 is repealed.".
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 5, line 11, after "2004" to insert the following:
", TO PROVIDE FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF THE COMBAT POVERTY AGENCY AND THE TRANSFER OF ITS ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND EMPLOYEES TO THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS, TO REPEAL THE COMBAT POVERTY AGENCY ACT 1986".
