I remind the House that under Standing Orders, supplementary questions and answers are limited to one minute each.
Other Questions.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Denis Naughten
Ceist:29 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the maximum level of rent which a person may incur and still qualify for a rent supplement as determined by each health board; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33506/04]
David Stanton
Ceist:88 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which he intends to keep the minimum contribution of all recipients of the supplementary welfare allowance rent and mortgage supplement under review; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33489/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 29 and 88 together.
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme administered on my behalf by the health boards provides for the payment of a weekly or monthly supplement in respect of rent or mortgage interest. This supplement is intended to assist with reasonable accommodation costs of eligible people who are unable to provide for their accommodation costs from their own resources and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source.
Rent and mortgage interest supplements are subject to a means test. They are normally calculated to ensure that after payment of rent or mortgage interest, an eligible person has income equal to the rate of basic supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her or the family circumstances, less a minimum contribution. The minimum contribution is €13, which each recipient is required to pay from his or her resources. I have decided not to increase the minimum contribution this year. I will review this again in the context of next year's budget, taking account of the real value of increases in social welfare payment rates and developments in the local authority social housing sector.
There has always been a limit on the level of rent an applicant may incur and still qualify for a rent supplement. The limits take the household size and other relevant circumstances into account. This is to ensure that the rent is reasonable and that the health board is not subsidising the cost of overly large or overly expensive accommodation. As Deputies are aware, regulations were introduced in November 2002 which provided for holding the maximum rent levels until the end of December 2003 at the values that had been set by the health boards at that time. Further regulations, signed in December 2003, set out the maximum reasonable rent levels to be used as the basis for calculating the amount of rent supplement payable to various family sizes for the period from January 2004 to 30 June 2005. These range from €85 per week to €115 per week in the case of a single person, and from €693 per month to €1,200 per month in the case of a family with two children. I have arranged for my Department to send details to the Deputy of the levels appropriate to the different family sizes across all health board areas.
Any changes that might be required in the level of the maximum reasonable rent limits will be considered during the first half of 2005. As was done on previous occasions, the views of each health board will be sought regarding the operation of existing limits within its functional area. Consideration will also be given to the information supplied by the boards about cases where rent supplements were awarded in exceptional cases where the maximum rent limits were exceeded. Data from the Central Statistics Office relating to rent levels in the private rented sector will be examined, and any views from relevant interest groups will be taken into account in reaching a decision on the appropriate limits.
Does the Minister agree that rent levels in some cities, especially Dublin, have reached very high levels and that the type of property available to people in the bracket he has noted who qualify for that level of rental income would usually be in very bad condition and inappropriate? How soon will the Minister have the revised scheme ready? It is urgently needed because people are experiencing hardship as they cannot afford to rent appropriate accommodation because rents are too high.
The review will be completed during the first half of 2005. For my own sake as well as that of everyone else, it is worth putting on the record that rent supplement recipients account for approximately 40% of the private rented market. That means that by a long shot, the State is the largest player in that market. It will be appreciated that accounting for such a percentage of the entire sector can distort a marketplace. The market will almost certainly follow whatever cap we put on the relevant allowances, so we must be very careful in putting a figure on rent, for example in allowing €1,200 per month for a family with two children. Once such a figure is allowed for, that 40% of the private rented sector will almost automatically pitch the rent at that level. If we allow a figure that is too high, there is substantial evidence, particularly since we are such a large player in the market, that such a level of rent will be set. The Government is not just a rent payer in the marketplace, but is a rent setter.
Last night I informed the House that rental costs had fallen by about 3% between January 2004 and November 2004. Facts and figures are available which show that rental costs are coming down because of the substantial supply of apartments for rent. One can see blocks of apartments everywhere now and there is close to an excess of supply in the private sector. We must therefore be careful how we set the figures.
Is the Minister aware of the practice, and the extent to which it may exist, of landlords setting official and unofficial rents whereby those in receipt of rent supplements pay their official rent supplement and their personal payment as part of the rent, but are asked by the landlord for an unofficial rent top-up? Is the Minister's Department taking any account of this practice and, if so, are there any measures in place to stop the practice?
We are aware of such allegations. To date we have no hard evidence that such activity exists but from anecdotal evidence we believe it does. The structure of the system also lends itself to the sort of the practice of which Deputy Boyle speaks, given that the State accounts for about 40% of the entire rental market. We continue to examine that issue to see if we can tighten it up.
Hospital Charges.
Paul Connaughton
Ceist:30 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the report, Sick Children, Money Worries, published in June 2004 by Children in Hospital Ireland; his views on the proposal to establish a non-means tested scheme, that is, the assistance for hospitalised children scheme, to provide up to €40 per day in cases in which the hospitalisation of a child is prolonged or repeated so as to help cover costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33501/04]
I am aware of the report referred to by the Deputy. I am particularly interested in the survey of 110 parents on the costs of having a child in hospital. The report found that almost all lower income families surveyed were under financial strain because of the hospitalisation of their child and half of the parents in the higher income group experienced financial strain.
The report makes a range of recommendations including, for example, assistance with travel expenses and parking fees and the introduction of a specific scheme of assistance for parents whose children experience long or frequent spells in hospital. While my Department does not operate any specific scheme of financial assistance for parents in these circumstances, I acknowledge that there is an income maintenance issue which needs to be examined further. A possible source of such assistance at present would be by way of an exceptional needs payment through the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. These payments can be made to help meet essential once-off exceptional expenditure which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of their weekly income. My officials are undertaking a review of this scheme, phase two of which is due to be completed by the end of 2005. I have asked that this report be examined further in that context and I am also arranging to invite the report's authors to meet Department officials to discuss the findings. In addition, I will discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children.
I thank the Minister for his response and I support him in any action he takes on the matter. Is the Minister also aware that according to the report, only five of the parents surveyed said that they received any help from community welfare officers? Could the Minister do anything to make that area more flexible in the short term? Does the Minister agree that the role of his Department is to alleviate hardship, financial hardship in particular, especially among low income families? Does the Minister agree that it is bad enough to have a child regularly sick in hospital without having to incur what in many cases can be financial hardship involving travel, overnight stays, paying for food and so on?
I am happy to suggest to community welfare officers that they might be helpful in this area. I will draw to their attention what we have been saying on both sides of the House. I said in my reply that an exceptional needs payment might be possible. It is up to a community welfare officer to take a view. We will see what can be done about a broader scheme but, clearly, many issues are involved. I have invited the authors of the report to meet Department officials and I look forward to the outcome of that discussion to see what is practicable.
Has the Minister's Department a role in terms of capital expenditure in this area? I cite the example of the Knights of Columbanus who have built accommodation in connection with Cork University Hospital to allow for the accommodation of the family members of medium and long-term patients. They eventually got funding, but it is uncertain whether such funding should come through the Department of Health and Children or the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Given that it involves family support in the long run, perhaps this might be a role for the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
I take the broad point the Deputy makes, but we are referring here to a particular report, which makes a number or recommendations, all of them in the current area, so far as I can determine. These include a recognised scheme of assistance towards non-medical costs of hospitalisation on a non-means tested basis, personal medical card in respect of any child covered by a domiciliary care allowance and free parking for parents of children hospitalised for long or multiple periods and so on. It lays down what the possible criteria might be for the future and the particular thresholds which could trigger this type of assistance, for example, serious ongoing medical conditions, distance from a child's home etc., with no means test required. The report did not explore the area of capital to any great extent. When the authors present the report to the Department, I shall ensure that this is discussed with them to see what is envisaged in that area.
Departmental Expenditure.
Pádraic McCormack
Ceist:31 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount paid for agency services in 2003 and to date in 2004; the bodies involved; the amount paid to each; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33502/04]
Olwyn Enright
Ceist:72 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount paid for agency services in 2003 and to date in 2004; the amount paid to each body and the work carried out in each case; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33503/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 31 and 72 together.
Payments for agency services are made for services provided to my Department by medical practitioners and by An Post and De La Rue-Smurfit Limited. Medical practitioners provide medical certificates to insured persons in support of illness related claims. The Department makes payments to them for the costs incurred in issuing certificates and in the completion of medical reports where these are required for the administration of illness related schemes.
Payments to An Post are in respect of the payment service operated by the company for the encashment of social welfare payments. An Post has provided these services to the Department over a long number of years. Their extensive networks have ensured that customers in all areas receive suitable encashment services. The payments which An Post provides include non-contributory pensions, child benefit, pre-retirement allowances, disability allowances, one parent family allowances and unemployment allowances. In addition to these social assistance payments which are Exchequer funded, An Post makes social insurance payments, including old age contributory pensions, widow's contributory pensions, disability benefit and unemployment benefit. The fees paid to An Post cover both the Exchequer funded and social insurance funded schemes.
Payments are made to De La Rue-Smurfit in respect of the printing and production of personalised pension order books and child benefit order books which are presented for encashment by customers at post offices. Some 1.7 million books were produced in 2003 and the Department estimates that 1.8 million books will be produced in 2004. The total expenditure for agency services in 2003 amounted to €53.173 million. This included €29.099 million paid to An Post in encashment fees in respect of social assistance payments. A sum of €2.443 million was paid for the production of order books by De La Rue-Smurfit and €21.631 million to medical practitioners for medical certificates and reports.
Expenditure to the end of November 2004 amounts to €53.566 million. This is made up of €26.535 million paid to An Post for the encashment of social assistance payments, €2.245 million paid to De La Rue-Smurfit for the production of order books and €24.786 million for medical certificates and reports provided by medical practitioners.
A sum of €20.844 million was paid to An Post in respect of social insurance scheme payments in 2003 and €19.528 million in 2004, to November. These payments are made from the social insurance fund.
I thank the Minister for his response. As regards medical practitioners, when people have to go for medical examinations, appeals and so on, is that cost included and, if so, will the Minister give a breakdown of the costs?
The current fee payable from 1 July to a medical practitioner is €8.25 per certificate and €44.44 per report. The total cost of this is €21.6 million for medical certificates and reports, inclusive.
Child Care Services.
Arthur Morgan
Ceist:32 Mr. Morgan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if, in view of the Government’s position that child benefit remains the best way to help parents with child care costs, consideration has been given by him to the inclusion of a child care supplement for children under five years of age as a top-up to child benefit. [33318/04]
Joan Burton
Ceist:49 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the introduction of a child benefit supplement as recommended by NESC and other statutory agencies; his further views on whether such a payment would target additional resources to children and families in extreme poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33443/04]
Bernard J. Durkan
Ceist:79 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the extent to which the level of payments in respect of child benefit equates to child care costs in cases in which both parents work outside the home; if he has examined the possibility of increasing the level of payment to a more realistic level; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33529/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 32, 49 and 79 together.
Child benefit is paid to 520,000 families in respect of approximately 1 million children, at a total cost of almost €1.916 billion in a full year. This includes the extra €136 million provided in the budget. Child benefit delivers a standard rate of payment in respect of all children in a family regardless of income levels or employment status. It supports children and assists those on low incomes in relative terms. It helps to contribute to the cost of raising children, regardless of the household's income or employment status. Child benefit does not distort parental choice in respect of labour force participation and contributes towards alleviating child poverty. The concentration of additional resources in child benefit avoids the employment disincentives associated with increased child dependant allowances and has underpinned the policy of successive Governments since 1994.
Over the period since 1997, the monthly rates of child benefit have increased by €93.51 at the lower rate and €115.78 at the higher rate, increases of 246% and 234% respectively, compared to inflation of 26.9%.
This level of increase is unprecedented and delivers on the Government's objective of providing support for children generally while offering real choice to all parents. In addition, the 2005 budget provided for a €10 per month increase, or 7.6%, in the rate of child benefit payable in respect of each of the first two children and €12 per month, or 7.3% increase in the rate payable in respect of the third child and subsequent children. These increases will take effect from April 2005. The introduction of an age-related payment structure for child benefit has been proposed on a number of occasions in the past. However, in recognition of the increased expense encountered by larger families, with younger and older children, rates have been structured towards payment of the higher rate in respect of the third child and subsequent children. This policy provides a consistent level of support for parents regardless of the age of the child.
The child benefit payment fulfils a number of roles, the most important of which are assistance to all households in recognition of the higher cost incurred and the alleviation of household poverty associated with children, without adding to labour market disincentives. The very substantial increases in benefit in recent years can make a significant contribution to meeting those costs.
Responsibility for child care issues generally rests with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As regards a more targeted child income support such as a child benefit supplement, the partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, recognises the importance of child income support arrangements, with a specific commitment to examine the effectiveness of current arrangements in tackling child poverty.
In the context of this commitment, the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, has agreed to undertake a review of child income support and in particular the possible merging of family income supplement and child dependant allowances into a second-tier child income support payment. This review, which NESC expects to complete in 2005, will inform the development of future policy in this area and I look forward to receiving the report in due course.
Parents across the State are struggling to balance work and family life. Most families do not have the luxury of one parent being able to stay at home. In its budget submission, Sinn Féin focused on the whole question of child care and supplements for children under five years as a top-up to child benefit. We believe this would be a significant step towards addressing the extra financial burden faced by parents of a child below school-going age. Given that the Government has outlined its position on more than one occasion to the effect that child benefit remains the primary instrument for assisting parents with child care costs, will the Minister give serious consideration to this proposal? Such a supplement will not discriminate against families where one of the parents decides to stay at home but will enable them to make such a choice. If the Minister is unwilling to proceed with such a proposal, will he outline clearly the measures with which he intends to tackle the real difficulties being faced by parents of young children because of the rising costs of child care?
There are a number of issues to be addressed here. I am aware of the Sinn Féin proposal and will certainly take a look at it as regards the child benefit structure affecting toddlers of up to five years, which I believe is the Deputy's general concern.
There is a discussion on whether it is appropriate to have child benefit based on age. It is currently based on the number of children in a family. We could have a good debate on whether children under the age of five are more expensive than children from age ten to 15. I have a fair idea of the answer to that. The NESC is looking at this area and we will see where that goes.
Child benefit is not focused primarily on child care costs. It is an income payment on behalf of the child in question. Child care is a broader issue, which has been led by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and which involves taxation issues and supply issues. Long before any of us in this House ever heard of the concept of child care, children's allowances were being paid. It would be wrong of the Government to pretend that child benefit is our response to the child care issue. We need to respond to the child care issue across the different Departments, including the Department of Finance, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Children and my Department.
Would the Minister consider making a submission to the National Economic and Social Forum? The Department of Education and Science and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform have both made submissions. It would be prudent if the Minister's Department made a submission. Child care is scattered everywhere and we must get it focused into one agency. The Minister is probably right to say that it is not within the remit of his Department. Child benefit is income support for children. The One Parent Exchange and Family Network stated that it was delighted that child benefit was going up each year as it would go towards child care, but that it could probably do with a bit more. Deputy Crowe was right when he stated that people actually use it to finance child care which is crippling families all over Ireland. A positive way to end our discussions on this area would be for the Minister to get his officials to make a submission on that. It might be helpful in this debate.
We will certainly work closely with the NESC and will make proposals and submissions to it. I referred to the possible merging of the family income supplement and the child dependant allowance into a second tier child income support payment. There are very exciting possibilities in this area to focus on child poverty and I look forward to the report.
Are there any proposals to have joined up Government in this area? The Department of Health and Children, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Education and Science and the Minister's own Department are all involved in the care and support of children and families. One Department seems to fob off the responsibility to another. Is there anything happening so that we can have a form of joined up Government, whereby one co-ordinated approach can be taken? Has the Minister any plans to lead something like this?
I have a feeling I will regret using that phrase.
I will keep reminding him.
I think the Deputy has got to like it. We asked the NESC to carry out this review of child income support and to review the idea of merging these two allowances. Child care is being led by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There are a number of groups at official level right throughout the whole area. There have been a number of studies, meetings and presentations made to the different Departments, but the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is leading it as it has substantial funds under this heading. Other Departments mentioned, including my own support it.
In view of the recent Cabinet decision to regularise the citizenship of foreign nationals, will the Minister now give consideration to restoring universal child benefit for all children who are born in this country and who are living here at any given time?
There are a number of issues here which extend beyond my responsibilities. Many of the issues relate to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is a two year habitual residence clause and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and I will continue to keep that under review in the context of issues within my Department. At the moment I do not have any proposals to make any changes in that area.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.