Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 6 October 2004
123 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has considered establishing a new allowance of similar value to the fostering allowance, particularly to grandparents who are looking after grandchildren in the absence of parents, especially in cases in which there is drug addiction in parents; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23466/04]
View answerThe foster care allowance can be paid only in respect of children who are taken into the care of the health board and placed in foster care under the Child Care (Placement of Children in Foster Care) Regulations 1995, or in relatives' care under the Child Care (Placement of Children with Relatives) Regulations 1995. I understand that under the regulations it is possible for a health board to place a child with relatives in an emergency. However, the board must ensure that its regulatory obligations regarding the assessment of the child's and relative's needs are carried out as soon as practicable and that it conforms to all the other obligations regarding care plans and reviews.
Issues of foster care are a matter for the Department of Health and Children and the health boards, and any question of extending payment of the allowance in circumstances other than those which currently apply are a matter for that Department. The orphan's contributory allowance and orphan's non-contributory pension, paid by my Department, provide income maintenance in situations such as that raised by the Deputy, subject to certain qualifying conditions. The definition of an orphan for the purpose of these payments was extended in 1995 to include children where one or both parents are alive but have abandoned or refused or failed to provide for them. This expansion of the definition was a response to changes in family and social circumstances.
The weekly rate of the orphan's contributory allowance and maximum rate of orphan's non-contributory pension, which is paid to the child's guardian, is €107 per week. This is substantially higher than other payments made by my Department in respect of children. The highest rate of child dependant allowance is €21.60 per week. The foster care allowance is set at a rate of €289.50 per week for a child under 12 years of age, and €316.50 per week for children of 12 years and over.
The two payments have significantly different objectives and purposes. The orphans' payments, paid by my Department, are designed as income support measures while the foster care allowance is a very different type of payment which responds to very specific child care needs and the additional challenges faced by foster carers. There are no plans to change the present arrangements in this regard. I will keep the matter under consideration, taking account, inter alia, a review of these payments which was published by my Department in 2003.
I am pleased the Minister says he will keep the matter under review. This area has expanded over the years. Many Dublin Deputies would be aware of cases where children have been abandoned and left to be cared for by their grandparents. The Minister has explained the system but there is a great anomaly involved and a major difference between the fostering allowance and the orphan's allowance. That needs to be examined.
Many families in such situations do not know where to turn, and many young social workers are not aware of the allowances. That needs to be addressed. Being new to the Department, the Minister should prioritise the matter. It is not merely a problem in Dublin but is spreading through the country. I know that the debate about carers will continue later, but those of whom I speak feel abandoned. The children have in many cases been abandoned. They do not know to whom to turn. The State seems to turn its back on them and makes it difficult for them to receive allowances. I could cite many cases where people have been left to look after their grandchildren and do not hear from the parents. The grandparents are reluctant to come forward and say the children have been abandoned, partly because they are elderly and face age-related difficulties when attempting to claim allowances.
Will the Minister consider the matter? I know the budget is coming up. While the Minister says there are differences in the situations of orphans and foster children, the work that grandparents do in these areas is much the same.
The Deputy states the matter well and has captured in his words the personal and human dimension of this issue. A great deal of trauma surrounds the issues related to orphans, definitions, payments and relationships. As I said, I will review the matter and take into account the payments which were published by my Department in 2003. I will conduct that review as a matter of urgency, taking into account what Deputy Crowe said. I will do that without any commitment today other than to study the matter, which I have not yet had an opportunity to do.
Question No. 124 answered with QuestionNo. 122.
125 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if it is intended to restore eligibility for the back to education allowance to persons who were unemployed for six months, in view of the hardship caused to persons by the 15 month stipulation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23468/04]
View answerThe back to education allowance is a second chance education opportunities programme designed to encourage and facilitate people on certain social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications and thus their prospects of returning to the active workforce. The conditions for entitlement to the third level option of the back to education allowance were revised with effect from 1 September 2004. From that date, the qualifying period was increased from six months to 15 months for new applicants intending to commence third level courses of study.
The scheme was always intended to benefit people who had difficulty finding employment because of a lack of education qualifications. In many cases, people who have not completed second level education are held back in their efforts to obtain employment. The scheme provides these people with an opportunity to improve their qualifications and thus their prospects of obtaining work. It was never intended to be an alternative form of support for people entering the third level education system.
One of the factors that influenced the change in the qualification conditions is the concern that some people may go on the live register specifically to qualify for the back to education allowance. In the academic year 2003-04, the majority of participants in the third level option of the scheme were in receipt of an unemployment payment for 12 months or less when they accessed the scheme. It was therefore decided that the qualifying condition should remain at six months for people who wish to pursue a second level qualification. Restructuring the back to education allowance in that way ensures that this support retains its focus on the more vulnerable groups in our community, particularly people who do not have a second level education qualification and who are at risk of becoming dependent on social welfare payments on a long-term basis.
Time spent pursuing a second level course with the assistance of the back to education scheme will count towards meeting the 15-month qualification condition for the third level option. In a situation where priorities had to be set and choices made, those in greatest need of assistance under the BTEA have been protected.
I thank the Minister for his response and welcome the fact that he has decided to review these cutbacks. Does he agree that the back to education allowance has the laudable aim of bridging the gap between unemployment and a return to work? For lone parents in particular and for people with disabilities, the extension of the time frame from six months to 15 months acts as a disincentive. If people are unemployed, it is much more difficult for them to re-motivate themselves and return to education.
I attended the launch of a pre-budget submission by people with disabilities. They have outlined their difficulties, including their additional cost of living costs and the cost of mobility. The latter is reckoned at about €40 weekly and is another one of the hurdles the disabled must jump. Will the Minister agree that restoring the back to education allowance will help lone parents to become more independent and contribute equally to society? Will he agree that this would be cost-effective and self-financing over a period of time? The changes to the back to education scheme have saved €1 million but it is regrettable that they were made because some people were abusing the scheme. We should investigate those abusing the scheme rather than punish those benefiting from it.
The scheme was designed to help those who have not worked for some time to improve their employability and their job readiness by giving them a chance to improve their qualifications and education. As the Deputy hinted, the scheme is a recognition of the special difficulties people can face when attempting to get a foothold in the labour market.
There are no plans to abolish the back to education allowance. The concern is always to support those who need extra help to equip themselves for the job market. Since it began in 1990, the number who have accessed the scheme has steadily increased, from 67 in 1990 to 7,648 for the last academic year. I intend to review it, taking into account the points made by Members.
