David Stanton
Ceist:1 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on relative income and consistent poverty as measures of poverty here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23746/05]
Priority Questions.
Poverty Levels.
The most recent statistics on poverty levels in Ireland are derived from the new 2003 EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions, EU-SILC, and were released earlier this year by the Central Statistics Office. This survey replaces the Living in Ireland Survey, which was conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute until 2001 and which provided data on consistent and relative poverty up to that year.
The nature of poverty and its effects are multidimensional and no one measure can give a complete picture regarding deprivation, poverty and social inclusion.
The relative "at risk of poverty" indicator measures income alone. The EU-SILC results reported that 22.7% of persons were at risk of poverty in 2003 based on the proportion of the population below an income threshold of 60% of median income. The 2003 figures represent a slight increase on the 2001 figure of 21.9%.
When countries experience rapid economic growth, however, as in Ireland in the 1990s, relative poverty measures on their own may not provide a clear measure of actual poverty. For example, using the "at risk of poverty" measure, relative income poverty in Ireland rose from 15.6% to 20.9% between 1994 and 2000. If we use the same measure and timeframe and increase the poverty line only by consumer prices, the "anchored poverty line approach", the level of poverty falls by 55.9%.
The main reason, therefore, for the increase in the "at risk of poverty" rate is the increase in incomes generally on which this rate is in part measured. For example, a recent EUROSTAT study calculated the monetary value of the 60% threshold in terms of purchasing power standards terms in 2003 for a household of two adults and two children. The value of the threshold for Ireland is above the EU average and is ranked eighth highest overall in the EU 25. Many households in Ireland with incomes below the 60% threshold may have a better standard of living than similar households classified as not at risk of poverty in other member states.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Furthermore, not all those below the 60% of median income threshold are regarded as being in poverty, even in an Irish context, as that also depends on other factors such as the extent to which their income is below the threshold, the length of time they have been living on a low income, the degree to which their assets will have run down while on a low income and the other resources they have at their disposal. This indicator measures income alone and does not take account, for example, of the high level of home ownership and entitlement to household allowances such as electricity, fuel, television licence and telephone rental, which are particularly important in Ireland in the case of the elderly.
The "consistent poverty" measure is used in this country to identify those experiencing basic deprivation. This is calculated by identifying from among those at risk of poverty with incomes below the 60% threshold those who are also deprived of basic goods and services regarded as essential for living in Ireland today. The EU-SILC survey reported that 10.2% of households experienced consistent poverty in 2003, up from 5.2% in 2001 under the earlier LIIS survey. However, both the CSO and the ESRI have made it clear that methodological differences between the two surveys mean the figures for 2001 and 2003 are not comparable and that it is therefore not possible to conclude from them whether the level of consistent poverty changed.
There is certainly no reason to believe there has been a worsening in poverty levels in recent years. Between 2001 and 2005 spending on social welfare payments has increased from €7.8 billion to €12.2 billion. During the same period the lowest social welfare rates have increased by 40% while the consumer price index has increased by just over 13%. As a result of budget 2005, welfare payments have increased by three times the expected rate of inflation.
Nevertheless, what is not in question from the survey results are the groups identified as being most at risk. These include families with children, mainly lone parents, or larger families, those who are unemployed or with disabilities, and older people, especially those living alone. EU-SILC confirms the findings of earlier analyses in this regard and provides information on the most vulnerable groups in society towards whom policy should be focussed.
While the EU-SILC results highlighted the difficulties in measuring poverty, the Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion, prior to the release of these results, had approved a review of the method of poverty measurement in Ireland. This work is now being progressed as part of the NAPS data strategy, co-ordinated by the office for social inclusion based in my Department.
Does the Minister agree he is massaging the figures and that he has ignored the number of children in relative income poverty who live in households where the income is less than 60% of median disposable income? Does he agree the number of these children is estimated to be an additional 240,000 on top of the between 60,000 and 120,000 children whom the Minister says are affected in some way by consistent poverty? Does he agree it is a disgrace in this day and age? What has he done and what does he intend to do about it in the short term to ensure these children are removed from the risk of poverty?
Does the Minister agree that lone-parent households are exposed to a greater incidence of child poverty than dual or single income two parent households? Will the Minister tell the House why this figure of relative income poverty represents the highest rate of child poverty to be found in the European Union? This is an indictment of the policies of the Minister's Department and the Government, they have failed the children of Ireland by ignoring relative income poverty statistics put forward by the Combat Poverty Agency, an independent agency that castigated the Government for not taking relative income poverty into account and ignoring its impact on children.
The relative income poverty measure here is 22.7%. At the risk attracting unwanted headlines, I do not believe 22.7% of the people of Ireland live in poverty. That is the relative income measure and the word "relative" is important. We are all poor relative to someone else. I have been critical of the measurements before. I rely on the figures from the ESRI, NESC, CSO and EU but I also point out to those bodies that the Department is working through the NAP strategy to make progress in this area.
We must get our act together on how we measure poverty. We cannot use the figure of 22.7% because it is not real. The Deputy made the point about children living in relative poverty. There is another, more realistic measure — consistent poverty — and I am targeting resources at it. Welfare spending in 2001 was €8 billion and this year was €12 billion, with a huge proportion of that going into child benefit and much of it being targeted at families.
Whatever differences there are about percentages, there is no difference about where poverty exists. All studies point out that those most at risk are families with children, mainly lone parents, larger families, those who are unemployed or disabled and older people living alone. I am targeting those areas with the carer's allowance, increased lone parent's allowance, child benefit and a range of supports and I am making it easier for people to get back to work, the best way to tackle poverty for those able to do it.
I caution against operating from the totally unrealistic figure of 22.7% because relative poverty is an interesting academic measurement but, paradoxically, as the country gets richer, the relative poverty figure increases. If the country continues to grow at this rate, will be talking about 60% of the people being poor in ten years? The figure must be looked at in that context. It is useful but in terms of focusing on the vulnerable groups, it is not helpful.
The Minister says he will ignore relative income poverty and he will not answer the question about what he will do to address poverty. Does he agree that 148,000 children are in consistently poor homes — 14.6% of all children — according to the latest CSO data from 2003, as reported in the most recently published ending child poverty policy document produced by the Combat Poverty Agency?
Will the Minister tell us what "consistently poor" means and what he intends to do about this? I do not want to know what he has done, I want to know what he will do about it. These are up to date figures from the Combat Poverty Agency. Will he continue to ignore relative income poverty? Is it Government policy to ignore statistics from the Combat Poverty Agency on children in relative income poverty?
I will keep it in perspective. The 22.7% figure is interesting but the figure for consistent poverty is 5.2%.
It is 14.6% according to the CSO.
The EU-SILC survey for 2003 reported that 10.2% of households — an increase from 5.2%, I apologise — are in consistent poverty.
So is the CSO wrong?
Consistent poverty is regarded as those deprived of basic goods and services with incomes below the 60% threshold. I will focus on consistent poverty and child poverty. The figures I have for child poverty range from 66,000 to 120,000.
The Minister is doing nothing about it.
I am continuing to increase child benefit and welfare payments, which have already increased dramatically. I am finalising work on the possibility of a second tier of child benefit which would be focused exclusively on children in low income households. We have had a number of meetings about that and we are making progress. It will be a major instrument in tackling child poverty.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Willie Penrose
Ceist:2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will take steps to increase the income limit his Department has put in place for the receipt of various benefits from €317.43 to €420 in view of the fact this limit has not been adjusted for several years; if his attention has been drawn to the impact this limit has on lone parents and others in availing of secondary benefits; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23516/05]
I am conscious of the need to facilitate persons in receipt of social welfare payments to take up employment opportunities and to ensure the social welfare supports are structured to support this objective. I am aware of the specific issue raised by the Deputy, which was also raised in the recent discussions at the committee on social affairs that he chairs.
Several measures have been introduced in recent years to remove disincentives to taking up employment and to assist in the transition from welfare to work. These measures include easing of means tests through income disregards, tapered withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase and employment support schemes such as the back to work programme.
The income limit referred to applies to people who take up employment under approved employment schemes, and who, because of their employment, do not qualify for rent supplement under the standard rules of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme or for other secondary benefits. People in those circumstances may be entitled to retain these secondary benefits, in total or in part, for the duration of the scheme, subject to certain conditions.
For most people the most significant secondary benefit is rent or mortgage interest supplement, which is paid under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. While the income limit of €317.43 per week has not changed for several years, other significant improvements have been made to the means test since then. Back to work allowance and family income supplement, in cases where one or both of these are in payment, are now disregarded in the assessment of the €317.43 limit. PRSI and reasonable travelling expenses are also disregarded.
People who had been unemployed and who commence employment through the back to work scheme can have a weekly household income significantly in excess of the €317.43 weekly limit in question and still qualify to retain 75% of their rent or mortgage interest supplement. For example, in the first year of their participation in the back to work scheme, a single person can have combined income from the back to work allowance and earnings of €429 per week while a couple with two children can have a weekly income of €528.25.
Other improvements have also been made to the retention arrangements. The period for which rent or mortgage interest supplement may be retained has been extended to four years on a tapered basis; 75% in year one, 50% in year two and 25% in years three and four. As a consequence of these improvements many families retain more of their rent or mortgage interest supplement than had been the case.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Participants in the back to work and community employment schemes are assessed under either standard rules or under retention rules and will be entitled to receive payment under the more favourable option. Alternatively, people who do not qualify under these retention arrangements can apply for rent supplement under the standard rules of that scheme. Under these rules, rent or mortgage interest supplements are calculated to ensure that an eligible person, after the payment of rent or mortgage interest, has an income equal to the rate of supplementary welfare allowance appropriate to his or her family circumstances, less a minimum contribution of €13 which each recipient is required to pay from his or her own resources.
Family income supplement is now also disregarded in the standard means test. In addition where the employment is part-time, that is, fewer than 30 hours per week, up to €60 is disregarded in the means test thus ensuring that a person is better off as a result of taking up such an opportunity.
I am aware that the income level of single parents who take up community employment places exceeds the €317.43 weekly income limit. However, this does not exclude them from receipt of rent or mortgage interest supplement as they have the option of being assessed under standard supplementary welfare rules. One impact of the changes means that more people qualify for support under the standard rules of the schemes in question and are not subject to the thresholds that apply to the special rules governing retention of secondary benefits. They are also financially better off than they were before taking up the community employment or other opportunity. The arrangements I have outlined are designed to encourage and assist people in the transition from reliance on welfare payments to full-time employment. I will continue to keep all of the employment incentives under review.
We must stop talking illusory economics where the psychology is that if one keeps repeating that it will be all right on the night, it will be. Is it not the position that the community employment scheme participants are disqualified from receiving rent allowance once their income exceeds €317.43? Is it not the position that this rule acts as a complete disincentive to lone parents to seek employment or training?
The best way out of poverty is through employment. Schemes, such as the community employment scheme, have provided a marginalised section of the community with the chance for further education, training and the opportunity to enter the workplace. If we are serious about bridging the gap between rich and poor, we need an imaginative approach to education, training and employment opportunities. This means the income eligibility threshold must be increased to €420 as it has not been raised for several years.
Community employment scheme participants have written to me, claiming they are the victims of the latest Government scam to reduce rent allowance greater than 50% and yet receive an increase in the scheme's benefits of €14 per week. How can anyone be satisfied with this? How could anyone have the gall to claim the peoples lot is improving? This is arising as a direct result of the failure of the Department of Social and Family Affairs to raise the income limit for tapered rent allowance.
A lone parent on a community employment scheme receives €350 and is automatically over the limit. Conditions attached to participating in the community employment schemes are strict. A participant has to be in receipt of low income to be eligible for the scheme. People in need of help are being forced to drop out of the scheme to qualify for rent allowance. Is this right? Is it right that we have not ensured those disregards have been adjusted in line with inflation to facilitate people's transition into the workplace, particularly when in the past seven years, the Department of Social and Family Affairs has returned €850 million to the Department of Finance. Some of these moneys could have been used productively for the back to education allowance and the community employment scheme.
Will the Minister undertake a review of all disregards that have been static for several years? They have only served to exclude people because of the failure to index link the bands and limits, leading to automatic deprivation of eligibility for those schemes. It is no use giving a person a coat if one proceeds to cut the buttons off it; it will not keep him warm. Let us stop the codology and raise the limits to ensure participants in these schemes get an opportunity to participate productively in the economy. We will see the fruits of it in the future.
Limits are adjusted from time to time, often in the budget. I will keep these income limits under review. However, it is a battle of choices where sometimes we need to increase rates rather than move limits. It is often a trade-off. I have given the Deputy the overall increase in welfare expenditure. This year we have tried to target it at increasing the rates rather than moving the limit. I take the Deputy's argument that one has to continue working on both issues.
I am aware the income level of single parents who take up community employment places exceeds the €317.43 weekly income limit. However, this does not exclude them from receipt of rent or mortgage interest supplement as they have the option of being assessed under standard supplementary welfare rules.
A lone parent can retain the one parent family payment in addition to receiving the community employment payment. That puts him or her in a more favourable position than an unemployed person whose community employment wage replaces his or her social welfare payment. I am conscious of the effect of these thresholds in getting people back into employment.
I saw the figure of €850 million in a recent newspaper article. The Department is not sending back money as such. The reason it did not spend what it was budgeted for is that unemployment was not as high as estimated. In that sense, it is good news rather than bad news.
I want to redistribute the fruits of that good news to those most in need.
Catherine Murphy
Ceist:3 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way in which the poverty trap inherent in the payment of rent assistance will be addressed when the rental accommodation scheme is fully rolled out later in 2005; if it was considered in the context of the national anti-poverty strategy; if so, the conclusions which were drawn; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22707/05]
The purpose of the supplementary welfare allowance rent supplement scheme, administered on my behalf by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive, is to ensure that private sector tenants who are not in full-time employment or full-time education have a guaranteed minimum amount of income with which to meet their basic day to day needs after paying rent. It is a short-term income support measure, rather than a long-term housing measure.
The scheme includes a variety of income disregards in determining the amount of assistance to be provided in individual cases. It is flexible, particularly for unemployed people who seek to get back to work or into community employment or training under the various relevant State schemes. That will remain the position after the new rental accommodation scheme arrangements commence for longer-term recipients.
While the objective of rent supplement is to provide short-term income support as opposed to addressing long-term accommodation needs, a significant number of people had come to rely on rent supplements on a long-term basis over recent years. The Government announced an initiative in July 2004 aimed at meeting these long-term housing needs. The new system gives local authorities responsibility for meeting long-term housing assistance needs, including the needs of those people on rent supplements for 18 months or longer. These needs will be met through a range of approaches including the traditional range of social housing options, the voluntary housing sector and, in particular, a new public private partnership type rental accommodation scheme.
The aim of the new system is to minimise ongoing dependence on rent supplement by progressing to a situation where suitable long-term accommodation is available for all who need it. The rent supplement scheme will continue to meet the short-term needs of people for accommodation. This will be achieved within three years from commencement of the new arrangements in each local authority and in any event no later than September 2008.
The level of rent charged by local authorities under the new scheme is a matter for each local authority. Arrangements in that regard have not been finalised but are well advanced. Rent levels will be set in a manner broadly consistent with the current local authority differential rents system. This system does not distinguish between sources of income in determining the appropriate rent payable in each case.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Accordingly, while the overall income level of the household will determine the rent payable under the rental accommodation scheme, there will be no specific restrictions on employment. Participants on rental accommodation schemes will be free to take up work or extend their employment hours as they wish, with some appropriate adjustment made by the local authority to their rent levels to reflect their increased income.
The new arrangements for people with longer-term accommodation needs will be fully in accord with the thrust of the national anti-poverty strategy. Similarly, I consider that the rent supplement scheme remaining in place for people with shorter-term needs is an assistance towards poverty alleviation for low-income households.
My experience of rent supplement is that it deters people from going to work. I do not have a problem with the concept of local authorities taking significant responsibility for what is a housing issue. However, I want to ask some questions regarding problems with the scheme or perhaps to elicit more information about it.
The public service embargo will have a bearing on the ability of local authority staff to turn the voids, or housing stock that has remained vacant for longer than six months, around quickly and to find accommodation. People may be caught between both systems. People may be obliged to travel distances or to spend long periods waiting for officials on the telephone, which will add to their costs. In cases where people currently visit health board offices, will the Minister consider using those offices to cut down on that cost or will he ask local authorities to do so?
Many aspects of this scheme could be problematic for particular individuals. For example, if a family goes over the income threshold which entitles it to be on the housing waiting list, presumably it will be automatically cut off. However, the situation may arise whereby elderly parents or parents on low income have children living with them who could push them over the threshold, so that they suddenly disappear off the Richter scale. Will the scheme also be a way of stating that a person is accommodated, so that he or she disappears from the housing waiting lists without the State ever providing a permanent home for that individual?
There are also difficulties about the voids being turned around quickly and local authorities could end up with a sizeable bill. It is difficult to figure out what will happen. Will the Minister respond to this point? After three years, when the scheme is rolled out, will local authorities be provided with the resources to continue this scheme? There appears to have been silence on that point and there are all sorts of legal difficulties. Basically, the Minister has told the House that people who currently cannot get rent assistance if they are in employment will be able to go to work if they are on the list for 18 months and join this scheme. They will pay a differential rent, a portion of the rent that would normally apply. Is this the change in how housing applicants will be considered? If so, it will result in the possibility of some applicants going to work, which is something from which they have been excluded. Is my understanding of the new scheme correct in this regard?
I thank the Deputy for the question and her helpful suggestions, which I will consider. I would be happy to arrange for senior officials to meet the Deputy to take her through the details of the scheme if she wishes. As to her question, this is a new scheme. I expect 4,000 households will be facilitated under the rental accommodation scheme by the end of 2005. This year, I have transferred €19 million from my Department to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to enable the process to get under way. I am disappointed that no one has yet been housed under this scheme. However, I am assured that this will begin in the coming weeks and I urge all concerned to make better progress than is currently being made.
The evidence I have on file demonstrates that there is an increased reliance on rent supplements. In a sense, the numbers are frightening in that the number of people who are in receipt of rent supplement has increased by 35% in four years, from 42,000 to almost 60,000. The taxpayer is now paying €370 million into that scheme, compared with €150 million in 2000. The evidence behind those figures shows that people are beginning to rely on rent supplement as a permanent means of housing.
Therefore, it was decided that once a person spent 18 months in receipt of rent supplement, the Department would transfer him or her to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who would have responsibility for finding permanent accommodation by whatever means possible, principally through a more permanent type of rental scheme.
Some 30,000 people, which is a large number, have been in receipt of rent supplement for more than 18 months. Therefore, through the funding I provided, I expect the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as well as local authorities to move on and start to facilitate those people. The number of 4,000 is the target for the end of this year, but we have some distance to go.
Local authorities already have problems delivering the housing programme. In the absence of extra staff, I believe this simply will not happen. No additional resources were provided in the budget and the embargo has not been lifted so I am seriously concerned that these funds will be returned without anyone being housed by this scheme.
I will consider the Deputy's point.
Social Welfare Code.
David Stanton
Ceist:4 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on whether the social welfare system here gives adequate recognition and support to women and to the role of women in society; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23747/05]
A key objective of my Department is to ensure that the range and level of social security coverage is appropriate to the social and economic circumstances of different groups, including women, and that the services for which people are eligible are readily accessible and delivered in an efficient, effective and integrated way.
There has been a significant increase in the level of social protection available to and being accessed by the female population over the past 20 years. Improvements in the comprehensiveness of social welfare schemes, including an increased recognition of the importance of caring through the homemakers schemes and carers payments points to an ongoing commitment to women in recognising the value of their work outside the formal labour force.
The Government is committed to supporting carers and this is demonstrated by the significant budget package of over €34 million provided to improve the payment rates and respite supports for family carers. The Government has also concentrated resources for child income support on the child benefit scheme, which is normally paid directly to the mother. Child benefit is neutral vis-à-vis employment status and income levels of parents and therefore does not distort parental choice in respect of labour force participation.
Over the period since 1997, the value of all social welfare payments has increased in real terms. In particular, the monthly rates of child benefit have increased by 271% at the lower rate and 258% at the higher rate, compared with inflation of 30.6%. This level of increase is unprecedented and delivers on the Government's objective of providing support for children generally while offering real choice to parents.
Increased participation by women in the formal economy has also led to higher levels of social protection afforded to women. The number of women at work rose by 420,000 in the period 1991-2003. In the past, the lower rates of participation in the paid labour market by women led to far lower levels of social insurance coverage for women, especially married women, than for men. By 2003, the number of single and married women in employment had more than doubled compared with 12 years earlier.
The numbers of insured persons grew from almost 1.44 million in 1990-91 to nearly 2.53 million in 2002. The general increase in coverage of the social insurance system has been accompanied by a rise in female coverage and access to benefits so that of the 1.9 million workers insured for all benefits, that is, PRSI class A contribution, almost 48% are women and more than 293,000 contributors paid PRSI as self-employed contributors in 2002, of whom almost 23% were women. The rise in coverage is also reflected in the data on benefit take-up. Of all weekly social insurance based payments, 53.9% were made to women.
A number of measures have been introduced in recent years which make it easier for people to qualify for pensions. These include extended social insurance coverage and an easing of the qualifying conditions for old age contributory and retirement pensions.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
These measures are of particular benefit to women who may have less than complete social insurance records due to working in the home.
The Government is also committed to increasing the payment for qualified adults, age 66 or over, to the same level as the personal rate of the non-contributory old age pension and a number of special increases have been given over several budgets in pursuit of this target. In addition, since October 2002, new pension claimants can opt to have the part of the payment in respect of their spouse or partner paid direct to that person.
The homemaker's scheme was introduced in 1994 to protect the pension entitlements of those who take time out of the paid workforce for caring duties. The scheme is being reviewed as part of the second phase review of the qualifying conditions for the old age contributory and retirement pensions. The review is due for completion in the next few months and developments regarding the homemaker's scheme will be considered in light of the review's conclusions.
The one-parent family payment is designed to provide income support to parents, generally women, with insufficient means who have to parent alone. One of the objectives of the one-parent family payment is to encourage and facilitate lone parents to consider employment as an alternative to welfare dependency while at the same time supporting them to remain in the home if they so wish.
Income support payments for lone parents are being reviewed in this context, particularly examining obstacles to employment for lone parents. The outcome will contribute to concrete proposals designed to better support and encourage lone parents in achieving a better standard of living, employment and education opportunities and a better future for themselves and their children.
I am also giving serious consideration to the introduction of a second tier of child income supports, aimed specifically at families in greatest need. The current national action plan against poverty and social exclusion specifically targets women as one of a number of groups who are particularly vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion, with a view to reducing or eliminating their level of risk and incidence of poverty and improving their access to services such as health care, education and employment. The Government is committed to continuing efforts to assist and support women and ensure that they have a fair share of improvements in quality of life.
Perhaps the Minister did not read the question, but I asked whether the social welfare system gives adequate support and recognition to women. I take it the answer is "Yes". What percentage of women over 65 get a State pension based on their own PRSI contributions? What percentage of women in employment are covered by an occupational personal pension and is the Minister happy with this number? What percentage of women involved in farming have a personal pension? Is it true that 90% of them have no such pension and is he happy with that? Is it true that 95% of all qualified adults are women and does he agree that the social welfare system reinforces women's dependence on men for income? What, if any, are his plans to make changes in this regard?
The Deputy is seeking information that was not sought in the original question.
I am referring to the role of women in society and asking whether the social welfare system gives adequate recognition and support to them. These questions are based on an article by the National Women's Council. I am told that 95% of all qualified adults are women. Does the Minister agree that the social welfare system reinforces women's dependence on men? In its programme for Government, did this Administration not promise to raise the qualified adult allowance to the same level as a non-contributory pension? As it is now three years on, will this happen and if so, when? What plans, if any, does the Minister have to make changes to allow relatives, mainly women, assisting in family businesses to get insurance under the PRSI system?
In effect the Deputy has raised with me the agenda of the National Women's Council. Obviously he met its representatives, as I also did. If I were in Opposition I would also go through their shopping list. When I met them I gave them some answers. While I do not have at my fingertips the detailed data the Deputy seeks, I will get them for him.
Deputy Stanton asked me how many women over 65 receive social welfare payments. It is estimated that approximately 83% of women over 65 years of age——
I asked how many of them receive payments based on their own PRSI contributions.
Some 83% of women receive social welfare support in some form. Some 19,000 are supported as qualified adults on the pension of their spouses or partners. Approximately 90% of those receiving support have a payment in their own right. Many of these women receive widow's payments. At the end of January 2004, 32% of those in receipt of either an old age contributory or retirement pension were women. Some 63% of people receiving old age contributory pensions are men with 37% being women. It is interesting to compare this figure with those on non-contributory pensions where 58% of those receiving non-contributory pensions are women with 42% being men. It is clear that women mainly receive non-contributory pensions and men mainly receive contributory pensions. This shows vulnerability, on which matter I will return to the House with some thoughts as soon as I have the opportunity.
It is still Government policy to bring the qualified adult allowance up to 70% of the non-contributory pension. It is our intention to move towards that position over a number of budgets.
I have discussed the issue of family members and PRSI with representatives of the IFA. Obviously the Deputy meets the same people I meet. We explained to them the partnership and company requirement etc. I am familiar with the issue and they are familiar with our response, which is that we will examine the issue with a view to responding. I assure the Deputy that the issues he has raised are on our agenda.
I ask for more details on the Minister's plans regarding the qualified adult allowance and the promise to bring it up to the full allowance. He has said this will happen over a number of budgets. Given that the promise was made three years ago, how many budgets will it take for this to happen? While I am glad the Minister has acknowledged that women, particularly older women, are at risk of poverty when compared with men, what does he intend to do to help people in such a situation? What are the plans and timescale for the qualified adult allowance and for helping older women at risk of poverty or in poverty because of the vulnerability acknowledged by the Minister?
The process of increasing the qualified adult allowance commenced with the budget for 2000 and a number of special increases have been given to qualified adults since then. While I know the Deputy referred to the ratio, the rate of the qualified allowance on the contributory pension now stands at €138.50, which is 84% of the maximum rate of the non-contributory pension. In that case we have gone well beyond the 70% target. Obviously I cannot at this stage explain our budgetary strategy. We will certainly seek to make improvements in this area on an incremental basis.
From the figures I gave earlier it is clear we have an issue regarding vulnerable women, particularly older women. I drew attention to this problem regarding occupational pensions. While I do not have the figure before me, from memory no more than 35% or so of women outside the public service who are in employment had an occupational pension and would need to rely on the State pension. I am giving considerable attention and thought to these issues which are complicated and do not have easy answers. However, the situation has improved as a result of substantial increases in welfare expenditure generally and women's participation in the workforce has increased dramatically. The combination of these factors has reduced the risk of poverty for women in particular.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Seán Crowe
Ceist:5 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason for the delay in applicants receiving disability arrears from his Department; if it is due to a shortage of staff in processing claims; if many financially vulnerable clients must wait up to three months for their entitlements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23813/05]
My Department is committed to providing a quality service to all its customers. Every effort is made to ensure that customers receive all their entitlements as soon as possible following application.
Entitlement to disability allowance is contingent on the applicant satisfying both medical and means conditions. To satisfy the medical condition customers submit a medical certificate from their general practitioner. A medical assessor of my Department examines the medical evidence submitted and, if necessary, asks the person to attend for a medical examination to establish if the medical conditions for the scheme are met. The weekly rate of disability allowance depends on the amount of weekly means the person has. Means are assessed on the basis of income which the person or the person's spouse may reasonably expect to receive in the year following the date of the claim. An officer of my Department gathers all the necessary evidence, including documentation, to make an assessment of a person's means. In certain circumstances a home visit may be necessary before the assessment can be completed.
Inevitably, a period of weeks elapses while these investigations take place. This results in arrears accruing to the person. However, once a decision is made on the person's entitlement, the weekly rate is put into payment to ensure that the person receives ongoing payments as soon as they are due. Arrears accruing for the period from date of entitlement to date of first payment are then computed and issued as soon as is practicable. Many claimants are in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance or other primary social welfare payments during this period. The amount of such overlapping payments must be established and deducted when computing the net arrears due. Having regard to the time it takes to decide on applications for disability allowance in the first instance and subsequently to calculate and issue the appropriate amounts of arrears due, it is inevitable that a number of weeks will elapse before these matters are finalised in any case.
One of my Department's priorities is to minimise the time lags involved in processing new claims and any associated arrears due. Targets are set for claim processing, including calculation and payment of arrears, but pressures can arise at certain times due to claim volumes, as a result of which these targets are sometimes not met. My Department makes every effort to ensure, however, that payments are made as quickly and expeditiously as possible.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
There has been a significant increase in the number of disability allowance applications received by my Department in the first six months of 2005. A total of 10,500 applications have been received, compared with 8,700 in the first six months of 2004. In this context, priority has, in the first instance, been given to processing entitlements to the allowance. Consequently some delays have been recently experienced in the processing of arrears of disability allowance. Staff resources, which have become available as a result of the successful completion of another project in the disability allowance area, are being dedicated to the processing of arrears to reduce the number of cases awaiting decision. The situation will continue to be closely monitored to ensure that service improvements are effected.
I will be interested in seeing the additional information. We are talking about vulnerable people in bad health. The Minister has spoken of delays in terms of weeks. I have heard of one particular case where a person was waiting for up to three months. I have been told there is a problem within the Department and that people were on long-term sick leave. How long are people actually waiting? What is the longest waiting period? Is the embargo on public servants the cause of the problem? There may not be enough people in the Department processing the forms.
How many staff are working in this area? Is it a matter of training people if others are out for the long term? Have people been waiting for six months? The Minister mentioned that some can go to the community welfare officer. Many people will not go to the community welfare officer, due to pride or whatever. I know of one case which was successful in obtaining arrears with the help of the Department. However, there are many people who do not want to go down that road and they borrow from families and others. In light of the difficulties that seem to be emerging in this section, will the Minister carry out some kind of organisational review? These are some the most vulnerable people in society, they are ill and in need of this money.
In the first six months of 2005, 10,500 applications were received. That compares with a total of 8,700 in the same period last year so that is quite an increase. Currently, there are 3,422 cases awaiting calculation of arrears and 2,800 of these are for people who have been awarded the allowance. A total of 572 cases are for persons who have been given revised rates of payment. Out of the 3,422 cases in arrears, 925 are awaiting determination for longer than three months. I am examining resources as a result of this information.