Vol. 611 No. 3
1 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on and the actions he intends to take following the recent Society of St. Vincent de Paul statement that persons will be choosing whether to eat or heat their homes this winter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37456/05]
The Government's objective is to ensure that a social welfare recipient's total weekly income is sufficient to meet all their basic living needs, including food and heating costs. In recent years significant budget resources have been concentrated on providing real increases over and above inflation in all primary social welfare pension, benefit and assistance rates. This approach delivers a better outcome for pensioners and others by substantially increasing their income in real terms over the whole year, to better assist them in meeting their normal basic living costs, including heating.
Overall inflation, including food costs and fuel price increases, has amounted to 12.8% since January 2002. In the same period weekly social welfare rates incorporating fuel allowance have increased cumulatively by between 33% and37%. The household benefits allowances have also been increased fully in line with electricity and gas prices in the period and these are payable all year round to assist eligible pensioners, carers and disabled people with their heating costs.
Fuel allowances are supplements payable over the winter months to people in receipt of pensions and other qualifying social welfare schemes. Some 274,000 people receive this allowance at a cost of €85.4 million this year.
Increases in basic payment rates or in the rate or duration of the fuel allowance have significant cost implications. For example, an increase in basic rates of €1 per week would cost €52 million per annum. Increasing the fuel allowance by €1 per week would cost €8 million per annum. Increasing the duration of the fuel allowance by one week would cost just under €3 million per annum.
There is a broader issue of energy inefficiency, particularly in older private dwellings. Problems with poor insulation or inefficient heating systems in some houses can lead to discomfort and health problems, as well as being more wasteful of fuel costs.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Obviously, I recognise that someone on a low income in a private dwelling has limited scope to spend money to correct structural energy inefficiencies in his or her house. As a start in addressing this issue, my Department is co-operating with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and local Government, Sustainable Energy Ireland and the Combat Poverty Agency in a pilot action research project in Cork and Donegal to improve heating systems and insulation in selected older private dwellings and to monitor the outcomes for the households in terms of improved cost-efficiency and comfort and health levels. This project is due to commence shortly and should be informative in formulating future policy on this issue, as well as being of more immediate direct benefit to the pilot households involved.
In the meantime, I am keeping the various social welfare programmes under close review to ensure that they assist towards heating needs as efficiently and effectively as possible within the budget resources available to me.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Is he saying that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is mistaken and its view is wrong, that there is no hardship out there because of the increase in fuel costs, that everyone is all right, has plenty of heat and enough to eat, and that there is no problem? Is the Minister's response that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is totally incorrect and older people are fine? Will he admit that there is a problem and there is an issue where the recent increase in fuel costs, of oil and gas in particular, is causing hardship to older people and, if so, what will he do about it?
No, what I am saying is that there obviously is an issue here. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul does fantastic work on behalf of all of us. Its members are out and about meeting people and they know what they are talking about. I read carefully the society's pre-budget submission in which it made many strong points which, like all other submissions, will be taken into account in the budgetary context.
I stated in my reply that food costs and fuel price increases had amounted to 12.8% since January 2002 but in the same period social welfare rates, including fuel allowance rates, increased cumulatively by between 33% and37%. While the fuel allowance has not increased, the overall increases have far surpassed the costs involved. In the context of the forthcoming budget, the submission from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul will be taken fully into account.
I am confused. Is the Minister stating on the one hand that there is a problem and on the other hand that there is not a problem? He either agrees with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul that there is an issue out there that needs to be addressed or he is saying that the society's view is wrong? Will the Minister, in plain English, tell me which it is? Does he agree with the society and, if so, what will he do about it? Does he agree, for instance, that perhaps this process of increases only once a year does not take into account what can happens in between? Has he any evidence of hardship through sources other than the Society of St. Vincent de Paul?
I will repeat the question again to keep it simple for the Minister. Does he agree with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul that there is a problem and, if so, will he say so and say what he will do about it?
Of course there is a problem, otherwise there would not be a Department like mine. There obviously is a problem and we are trying to address it in many ways. The submission from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is excellent. It is professional and well researched. I received submissions from between 50 and 100 organisations about the budget.
This is about heating costs.
Organisations make submissions on the budget as to what they would like to——
The Minister should address the heating costs.
Sorry, Deputy Stanton, we are running out of time.
They make submissions as to their views on the setting of rates and how they would like to see the problem solved.
I asked about heating costs.
Deputy Stanton, allow the Minister to finish.
Heating costs is an issue which has been addressed up to now by a 37% increase in welfare payments since 2002 and it can be further addressed in future Social Welfare Bills and in budgets.
There is no problem then.
2 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the concerns expressed by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul that more than 600,000 Irish persons will be struggling to make ends meet and that thousands will fall into the clutches of moneylenders in Christmas 2005; the steps he intends to take to address the situation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37391/05]
I am aware of the concerns expressed recently by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in its pre-budget submission. In view of the particular financial pressures experienced at this time of the year by persons and families in receipt of social welfare payments, I recently announced that a Christmas double payment will be made to more than 1.2 million welfare customers and their dependants. The payment, to be made this month, is a sign of commitment to social welfare recipients. It will be equivalent to 100% of the normal weekly payment and will cost almost €140 million.
My Department has a number of services available to assist individuals and families, primarily those on low income, to manage their finances and to open up affordable credit options. The money advice and budgeting service, MABS, which was originally established in 1992 on a pilot basis as an approach to combating the problem of illegal moneylending, operates nationwide through 52 local companies with the support of funding of €14 million from the Department. The service is designed to target families and individuals identified as having problems with debt and moneylending. Strong emphasis is placed on practical budget-based measures that will succeed in removing people permanently from dependence on moneylenders and open up alternative sources of low cost credit through the credit union movement. MABS management committees are drawn from local voluntary and statutory services and community groups and often include credit union representatives.
I am concerned that where severe hardship exists in cases of over-indebtedness, MABS customers receive the most appropriate assistance to deal with the situation. The 2005 budget allocation included a sum of €700,000 to establish a MABS helpline. Furthermore, one of the MABS companies is operating a pilot scheme together with a local credit union to help those who are borrowing from moneylenders, to access credit at a low interest rate.
Through its operation of the household budget scheme with An Post, the Department assists people who receive certain social welfare payments with money management by enabling them to pay a regular amount towards various household bills by direct deduction from their payments. This scheme is used mainly to cover local authority rents and mortgages and utilities.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
There is also provision under the supplementary allowance scheme through its exceptional needs payments, whereby persons may qualify for once-off payments from the Health Service Executive to help prevent undue hardship at times of exceptional expenditure.
Building a fair and inclusive society and helping the most vulnerable have been, and continue to be, key priorities of the Government. The Government's strategic approach to tackling poverty is set out in the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion. The Office for Social Inclusion, OSI, is preparing the third national action plan to cover the period 2006-08. This involves consultation with all relevant stakeholders, those who are experiencing poverty and social exclusion and those who work to support them, either directly or indirectly.
In my area of social welfare, spending has more than doubled, from €5.7 billion in 1997 to €12.25 billion in 2005, providing significant real increases in payments during this period. As a result, in the period 2001 to 2005 the lowest social welfare rates increased by 40% while the consumer price index increased by just over 13%. Child benefit rates increased by 65% over the same period, while from 2002 to 2005 pensioners received increases of €44.71 per week.
In drawing attention to these increases, I am not complacent about the current situation. Much more remains to be done to tackle the problems of poverty and exclusion, including those highlighted by the society. I am determined, therefore, through vigorous implementation and development of the strategic process, in full consultation with all the stakeholders at national, regional and local levels, to continue to build and improve on our achievements so far. I am also examining specific targeted measures that could be implemented to address areas of particular concern, including child poverty and pensioner poverty.
Is it not astonishing that despite the unprecedented level of economic resources available, when we have the opportunity to ensure that people are lifted out of poverty, that various reports reflect the fact we have failed to do so? We should accept that poverty is not inevitable and that if the political, economic and social structures were put in place, it could be arrested and reversed. Is it not disgraceful that in the most affluent economic climate and circumstances ever, more than 600,000 Irish people will struggle this month to make ends meet and that thousands more will fall into the clutches of moneylenders? That is a frightening statistic.
We see charges of up to 200%, even with the licensed moneylenders. With unlicensed moneylenders it is a case of whatever they can extract. Will the Minister now consider restoring the money, advice and budgeting service, MABS, supplement that was one of the savage 16 cuts unnecessarily and shamefully inflicted by his predecessor on the very vulnerable people who will now feel the heat? Will he agree that it is important to send out a clear message for people to keep away from moneylenders and warn that many people with no money to spend who feel pressurised to approach them should try to get some help through different sources?
In that context, why have the calls to just one organisation, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, exceeded 300,000 in the current year, an increase of more than 10%? That is not a submission. It is empirical statistical data reflecting dire consequences for this country. Despite our successful economy we have a fractured society. Is that the legacy this Government will leave behind at the end of May 2007, if it lasts that long?
On MABS, last year's budget gave a special allocation of €700,000, which was exactly the same amount that been removed earlier in one of the cuts referred to by the Deputy. I restored that funding but left it to the discretion of the MABS management as to where it fitted best. One must realise that since 1996, taxpayer spending on this area has doubled. It has moved from €5.7 billion up to €12.2 billion in just a few of years. Child benefit, for example, has increased by 65% over the same period. Therefore, there have been substantial increases with taxpayer funding going into it.
The Deputy has probably heard me say a thousand times that a third of all Government spending is accounted for by this area. That is not to say that I am complacent, however. I take the point made by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the Deputies opposite. There are real social issues in society still to be dealt with and people are still struggling.
I do not see that figure of 300,000 in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul submission unless somebody can point it out to me. It is a figure that I saw in the newspapers, but I do not see it in the report and it is not in the chairman's foreword. I would not like that figure to take hold before we can confirm the statistics in this area. Deputies have also heard me talk many times, and there is some degree of agreement in the House on this, about the frustration caused by different poverty measurements. We have made massive strides but we cannot afford to be complacent. That is why the increases will continue.
3 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will consider extending the Christmas bonus to all those in receipt of short-term disability in excess of six months; and if he will give a costing for this. [37483/05]
The Christmas bonus payment was first introduced in December 1980 for social welfare pensioners and people who depend solely on their social welfare payments for income support. There have been a number of developments in this initiative since its inception, including changes in the level of the bonus payment which has been at the rate of 100% over the past six years, the introduction of a minimum payment and the extension of the categories of eligible claimants.
The focus of the bonus has always been on assisting people who rely on the social welfare system for financial support over the longer term. These include recipients of retirement, old age — contributory and non-contributory — widow's, widower's and invalidity pensions, one-parent family payment, carer's allowance, disability allowance, long-term unemployment assistance, farm assist and people on employment support payments, for example, the back to work allowance.
The bonus is also payable to certain participants on FÁS, vocational training opportunities, job incentive and community employment schemes and to those in receipt of payment under the rural social scheme which was introduced in 2004 and operates under the aegis of my colleague the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.
The Christmas bonus payment will benefit more than 1.22 million people this year, comprising some 835,000 social welfare recipients and their 384,000 dependants. Payment of the bonus is estimated to cost almost €140 million in 2005 and payment is being made to recipients of the relevant long-term schemes this week. Of the 64,000 persons in receipt of disability or injury benefit, almost 42,400 obtain those payments for six months or longer. It is estimated that extending the bonus to those people would cost in the region of €6.75 million.
The extension of the bonus to any one category of short-term payment would inevitably lead to pressure to extend it to all other short-term payment schemes. Consequently, the implications of any amendment to the Christmas bonus must be considered in the context of competing demands for available resources.
I take it that the Minister is saying in his reply that he will not consider paying it to people in receipt of disability benefit for more than six months. The question was about whether the Minister would consider making the payment. It is a short-term measure but some of the people who avail of this benefit could be on it for up to two years or longer. It is called short-term but it is not really that. My suggestion in the question was about anyone on it for more than six months. That is a long time for a single person to survive on benefit of €140.80 a week with possibly an extra €100 for a married person or spouse. There is difficulty involved, especially at Christmas time. I understand it is a matter of finances but perhaps the Minister should examine this issue, even if it is too late for this year. The way the system rolls out at the moment is unfair. To be on that benefit for six months is a long time. We all know poverty is incremental and so on and the hardship involved.
I presume when this scheme was originally implemented it was on the basis that the Department did not want people going on sick benefit prior to Christmas or whatever. However, if someone is on it for six months, he or she is genuinely sick. The Minister will appreciate that if someone is sick for that length of time, all types of extra costs are involved. That was the reason for the question. I suppose it is the difference between being Santa or Scrooge coming up to Christmas. An opportunity exists and it should be put right. I do not know whether this may be done in the light of the Minister's current budget proposals, but if he cannot do something this year, perhaps he could consider it for next year.
As I said, some 834,000 people already get the bonus. The distinction was made many years ago between long-term and short-term recipients. It was decided that long-term people would get the bonus and short-term people would not. The Deputy is quite right in that disability benefit is a short-term scheme. However, there can be an anomaly in that many people can be on a short-term scheme for a long time. I take that point. The proposal the Deputy has in mind is six months, equivalent to 42,400 people, which would cost €6.75 million. If one could ring-fence that, I would be interested in looking at it. One must be careful in pulling the thread of short-term schemes, however, because it could open them to another 200,000 people if all were to be included. That would involve a bill for €31 million for which there is no particular demand at present. I acknowledge that it is a short-term scheme and some people can be on it for a year or two. They have the option of moving to an invalidity pension after one year. If they receive that pension, they will get the bonus. The option exists but they must pass a medical test to avail of it. Many people who are on benefit for 12 months transfer to the invalidity pension and they then get the bonus. There is an issue there which I will continue to study.
4 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his Department’s priorities for 2006; if he has set targets, if so, the details of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37457/05]
My Department has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that the fruits of our economic growth benefit all, particularly those who are most vulnerable and in need of vital support. I am determined that the resources available to my Department will be targeted at delivering 21st century welfare supports which are characterised by recognition, compassion, activation and service throughout the range of allowances and benefits. I am actively pursuing a new social reform agenda that has at its core the ambition of reaching behind the welfare payments and addressing the social issues involved. My social policy reform agenda includes addressing issues such as child poverty, pensions, lone parents, job seekers and carers.
Child poverty is clearly a complex area requiring coordinated action across a range of services and income support payments. The development of income supports which can make the most effective contribution to alleviating child poverty lies within my Department's responsibilities and a series of budgets have increased considerably in real terms. The National Economic and Social Council has, during 2005, spent considerable time and effort in analysing this area.
The Government has made a number of commitments on pensions and significant progress has already been made. Overall pensions have increased by up to 81% since 1997 against a CPI increase of just under 31% in the same period. Significant increases in qualified adult allowances have also been given in recent years. I am examining the operation of our pension schemes with particular reference to the means test associated with the old age non-contributory pension. My aim is to provide choices to people in how they spend their later years and to ensure that the rules of our welfare schemes do not impinge on the choices people might want to make. I recently received the national pensions review on occupational pensions from the pensions board. This is before the Government and we will publish it shortly.
I intend to bring forward proposals to support and encourage thousands of lone parents in achieving a better standard of living. We are committed to ensuring that the long term unemployed and other welfare recipients have the opportunities they need to return to work. Supporting carers in our society has been a priority of the Government since 1997. The improvements we have made across the board provide the Government with a strong social policy reform agenda.
The Minister makes many statements on what he intends to do. What are his specific proposals on the issues he has just outlined? I know he will not be able to go into them in detail in just two minutes. However, it is important in the year that is left before the election that he set out clear parameters for himself and his Department. What plans does he have to bring in the two tier payment about which he has been talking for some time? What plans does he have to change the cohabitation rules so that single parents are not caught in a trap? He has many announcements on this issue as well. What are his plans for child care? What changes will he make in the qualified adult allowance? If he cannot give a response here, will he consider setting out targets and timetables for these issues in the next few weeks? We have seen many pictures of the Minister on the front pages of the Sunday newspapers, outlining his thoughts for the week, but we have yet to see concrete targeted proposals that are costed and clear.
He is not as bad as his predecessor. She used to have photographs taken.
She is much more photogenic than I am.
We were paying the piper.
The last budget began these reforms. We brought in special allowances for carers to recognise their work. We made substantial improvements in child benefit which started the reform process on child poverty. We moved income disregards for pensioners so that they could have much more income before they kicked into a pension. I refute the suggestion that the social agenda I have been laying out has not been pursued. It began in last year's budget and continued in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2005 and in my preparations for next week's budget. I have been guided by these social reform measures.
The NESC provided me with a report on the two tier payment and I am having discussions with colleagues on the progress we can make in up-coming legislation and in up-coming budgets. I have brought a paper on the cohabitation rule to the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion and I have got broad agreement to make the amendment. I will go back to the Cabinet soon on that issue. I am very keen to replace it with a family friendly allowance. I have been too long in politics to give the Deputy deadlines by which I will have reformed Ireland's social problems. They will be around long after I leave office. What I can do is to lay out clearly my priorities. These include child poverty, pensions, the liberation of lone parents and elderly people on pensions who want to do other things, as well as recognising our carers. In our budgets and Social Welfare Bills, I want to make sure that we give effect to those policy objectives. That is an on-going process and will not be completed in the lifetime of this Dáil.
Can the Minister give us some targets?
I am the target.
5 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has identified policies, specifically social welfare payments payable under the mandate of his Department, that act as a disincentive for non-marital and marital families to live together; if having identified such disincentives, he has proposals to alter the parameters under which such payments are made and under which such policies are constructed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37392/05]
Entitlement to certain social welfare payments aimed at supporting those parenting alone is contingent on the claimant not cohabiting in a spousal relationship with another adult. I am aware that reluctance on the part of some parents to forego the income security provided by schemes such as the one parent family payment may act as a disincentive to the formation of partnerships and ultimately marriage for recipients. One of the qualifying conditions for the one parent family payment states that a parent must be the main carer of the child and the scheme, as it currently operates, may not sufficiently facilitate joint parenting for couples who are separating. This is why I established a working group in my Department earlier this year to review the income support arrangements for lone parents and to address issues such as the contingency basis of certain payments. A process of consultation with social partners was also conducted as part of this review and the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion has been updated on progress.
It is my intention to bring this report to the Cabinet shortly, along with another report conducted by a sub-group of the senior officials group on social inclusion, which was mandated to look at the obstacles to employment faced by lone parents. Both reports will then be published and a further period of consultation will lead to the development of proposals designed to support and encourage all parents in achieving a better standard of living, employment and education opportunities, a better future for themselves and their children and a more appropriate social policy in the future.
One aspect not highlighted by the Minister in his response was the community welfare payment for housing supports. That is a significant disincentive to people. Every Deputy in this House knows people who are either living apart or stating that they are living apart, as they would lose the rent assistance when one person works. I am aware that the system is changing towards a rent assistance scheme. Will the Minister consider looking at an interim arrangement? It will take four years for the rent assistance scheme to come into effect.
I always thought Ireland was regarded as a family friendly country. I know of families who live apart. I presume that other Members are aware of similar examples caused by a family's financial situation. I am sure the Minister is aware that some people feel they spend their lives looking over their shoulders and that the system has made them dishonest. While I do not condone it when people work and claim for benefits to which they are not entitled, it is human nature to so do. If the system is bad, it is important that one parent payments are not examined in isolation. The entire gamut of payments, including community welfare payments on housing, must also be considered.
As a general statement, people should not be obliged to adjust their lives to fit a particular payment. Their lives are their own and we should respond by supporting them in any way possible. I share the Deputy's view that it is not good social policy to have people who wish to live together not do so in order to maximise a payment. I am trying to change such occurrences.
It is a difficult question. Particular payments, such as, for example, one parent family payments, are intended to benefit one parent families. If there is not a one parent family because people have chosen to live together, a one parent family payment is no longer appropriate. At the same time, however, such people have expenses. We must try to provide the same level of funds to such households, while moving away from the cohabitation issue. I share the Deputy's concern about any couple who decide not to live together, purely to maximise payments. That is not good social policy. I have asked the Department to examine all the schemes which may act as a disincentive to people living together. We will try to amend them as we go along. My priority is one parent family payments. The Deputy has asked me to consider community welfare payments in respect of housing. I must discuss it with my colleagues and I will do so.
