Amendment No. 12 is out of order.
Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.
Amendment not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"14.—The Principal Act is amended in section 198 by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3D)—
"(3F) The landlord in receipt of a payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable of a tenant shall, as soon as practicable, submit to the Health Service Executive the registration details of the tenancy where registration is required by section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004"".
May I speak to amendment No. 12?
I am afraid it is out of order but I am sure, in addressing amendment No. 13, the Deputy can preface his comments.
It has been my experience on a number of occasions where a local authority increased rent payments that I have had to refer to a regulation by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which provides that the maximum increase on rent supplement payments is 15%. This was the reason behind amendment No. 12. I accept that the amendment has been ruled out of order but I ask that some sort of regulation be introduced to the Bill in this regard.
Amendment No. 13 deals with the large proportion of private sector rental accommodation of which account has not been taken. In every local authority, hundreds or, in the case of cities, thousands of accommodation units are not yet registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board. There is no mechanism, therefore, to make these landlords accountable. In my area, applicants receive forms from their community welfare officers which are signed by the local authority before they proceed to seek accommodation. There is no mechanism to allow for the inspection of the rental properties, however.
In regard to the rental sector, I am very annoyed by developers and builders who lease their properties while awaiting planning permission for further development. The condition of these rental units leaves a lot to be desired. I see examples of this practice every time I conduct house calls and during each election. When I enter a street, I can nearly tick off the rented accommodation because in many cases the walls or gates are falling down and the houses are in poor repair. It is rare that the occupants of these properties do not have something to report in regard to heating or cooking arrangements. No mechanism appears to be available to hold people to account.
Amendment No. 13 will require that a landlord in respect of whose property rent supplement is paid must be registered with the PRTB. The fee for registration is €75, which is a small sum, but at least it would allow us to determine whether the owner of a particular building is registered. Subsequent legislation could ensure the protection of tenants. The rental accommodation scheme is in place in a number of areas, which I welcome. From my knowledge of the scheme, the accommodation is first class, well looked after and well documented with the local authority. The payments are made from the local authority to the landlord and there is a mechanism available for the tenant to go to the local authority and ensure that if there is a problem with heating or other normal services, a link is provided.
This is not so with so many thousands of tenancies. Some of this legislation relates directly to them. The landlords in question will put the boot into the tenant because they look for payments under the counter. They will tell the tenants to go the community welfare officer and say he or she is getting the facility for €100, for example, but they will ask for €20 or €30 under the counter when the tenants are accepted and not say anything else about it. We have no mechanism in place for such payments.
The Minister knows as well as I do, in her constituency as much as mine, that there is a tendency for people seeking accommodation to go over the top to try to get better accommodation. It is normal to expect any family to try to look for the best accommodation but unfortunately, there are landlords who will try to be underhand.
There are significant amounts of money involved in rent subsidies and related issues. Some people would suggest that the community welfare officer could investigate such matters but it is impossible for such officers to find time to do so because of the workload they have. The community welfare officers are not even able to cope with what they have. In my area, a community welfare officer has been appointed to deal solely with rent subsidy in order to try to eliminate the backlog on what is there. That is not feasible.
As a first step, the landlord in receipt of the rent subsidy payment should be registered. It would be another box to be ticked on the application form but it would ensure that such landlords come on board, whether they like it or lump it. As a result of the condition of some of the rented accommodation, it will not be possible to rent it to anybody except those who seek rent subsidy. It is necessary to have another box on the application form to ensure the landlord is registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board and if he or she is not, the payment should not be made. In this regard we would try to improve the facilities for those unfortunate enough to have to seek the subsidy.
The rental accommodation scheme is the way forward as it is clean-cut and does much for the tenant. It is a way around a landlord who is blackguarding many people around the country. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment as it would ensure that we have at least one step forward in getting the rogue landlord, who causes such decimation to family life by getting under-the-counter payments. Such landlords do not put any effort into providing even partially acceptable conditions for those unfortunate enough to have to seek accommodation from them.
I support the amendment and the various amendments put down by the Labour Party on rent supplement. My party has some of its own on the issue later so I will speak to it now.
There are a number of considerations. This amendment links the registration with that of the Private Residential Tenancies Board. I put down questions last week following Committee Stage to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and, as with so many instances here, the first line of the response informed me that the Minister had no function in the matter as the operation of tenancy registration is the responsibility of the PRTB, an independent statutory body. This immediately makes it more difficult to have effective co-operation between the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the PRTB.
There are approximately 240,000 landlords registered with the PRTB. It is frequently the landlords renting accommodation to somebody on social welfare who are not registered. I am sure everyone in this House can cite so many instances of people coming into our clinics who are living in poor accommodation, who want to get local authority housing and get it based on their accommodation being so poor. At the next clinic in the same area a new person will come in who is in the same accommodation and is seeking local authority housing based on the poor quality of their accommodation. Along the way, these people have been on rent supplement in that poor quality accommodation.
This is a vicious circle that costs the local authorities and the Minister's Department a lot of money. The only way of dealing with it is if the rent supplement is linked to the PRTB. The Minister will argue that she does not want to make the recipient of the rent supplement suffer but we are not doing these tenants any service by effectively forcing them into poor quality accommodation. There is also an issue for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
I agree with Deputy Wall in that the rental accommodation scheme is the way to go. There is a fear among people that if they go into better quality accommodation through the scheme they will not be considered for local authority housing. This is not the responsibility of the Minister alone but rather a case that needs interdepartmental co-operation, as well as input from State agencies. The issue will not be solved by any one Minister. There has been a little improvement in trying to ensure we sort it out.
Under-the-counter payments are common, although they are technically illegal. Those in receipt of the rent supplement are only entitled to it if the accommodation is at a particular standard. People are desperate when looking for housing and are willing in some instances to pay the landlord extra money per week because it may be the only housing available.
Another issue relating to payment links to the Minister's Department and the Revenue Commissioners. A Comptroller and Auditor General report indicated concern about the number of landlords getting rent supplement who are not paying tax on the properties being rented. There must be better co-operation to ensure that issue is fully and adequately addressed. This is one way of tracking it within the system so as to ensure tax is being paid. It is difficult to do this with a private tenant, although it should still be done, but when the State is giving rent supplement there must be a mechanism to ensure that where the landlord is the ultimate recipient, he or she is paying tax on that money. It does not always happen.
Another issue is the method of receipt for the supplement. I asked the Minister on Committee Stage to consider the Focus Ireland submission as it was worthwhile. It highlighted some of the difficulties that arise and the poverty traps that can ensue. An interesting matter brought up by the submission, which has been raised here before, is the fact that if a person works for more than 30 hours per week, that person is ineligible for rent supplement.
That makes no sense and amounts to another poverty trap. The issue should not be how many hours are worked but how much money is earned. We spent much time yesterday debating activation for lone parents and this issue of rent supplement is related. If a trap is put in people's way — after 30 hours working they cannot get rent supplement regardless of how much money is brought in — it is not a logical way of doing business. We should encourage these people to get employment. The issue must be addressed.
I support the amendment and would be delighted if the Minister would accept it. We need a settled housing situation. The difficulty relates to the large local authority housing waiting list of some 43,000 people. However, local authorities cannot make that provision because they are grossly underfunded. At Government level, upwards of €440 million per year is being spent on a housing rental scheme that gives the taxpayer little return on expenditure.
I accept that the overwhelming majority of landlords are responsible, but it is disappointing that they have not all registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. A serious push must be made to ensure that they register and Deputy Wall's amendment would go some way towards achieving this. It would make for a better regulated rental market and might substantially lessen our grá to own our homes. People would become more comfortable or settled in renting a home from free market landlords for their lifetimes. We must review this area.
The culture of "cute hoorism" — I do not know whether that is parliamentary language — or of slippery characters must be rounded up. It will take political courage initially to address the issue, but we must regularise the movers and shakers in towns or villages or on cities' edges. The long-term benefits to society would be substantial. The essence of the amendment would go some way towards ensuring that those landlords who are not behaving responsibly now do so.
The matter of social housing provision is a bad one, but everyone would agree that the primary issue is that of deposits. A number of constituents present at my constituency offices looking for deposits because local authorities no longer give them to people who qualify for rent subsidy payments. When they meet community welfare officers, CWOs, the officers shake their hands but do not supply deposits either. I accept that it is difficult for local authorities currently strapped for cash — indeed, they have always been strapped for cash — to expend substantial sums of money that will lie in a landlord's bank account at the cost of funding for other local authority functions. This unfortunate issue must be sorted out quickly. Like me, Members from every side of the House deal with the people in question on an almost daily basis.
At least two or three people in that dreadful situation approach me each week. I hope that some Minister will take the matter on board and deal with it.
I strongly support amendment No. 13 on tying the payment of rent supplement to registration with the PRTB. Linking them would be a sensible, progressive and caring way to help those in receipt of the rent supplement. They need our support and that of society. The majority are trying to get on with their lives against the odds. Like Deputy Morgan, I have encountered many sad and lonely cases. As legislators, we and the Minister for Social and Family Affairs have a statutory duty to protect them.
Some landlords are involved in this matter. Of those I know, the majority treat their rent supplement tenants in a decent and caring way, but they are being done a disservice by the landlords exploiting the situation. In recent weeks, I dealt with serious anti-social issues involving threats of violence against owners, neighbours and so on. This side of the story must be addressed. If tenants are misbehaving, they must be challenged about their behaviour, particularly if they are in receipt of taxpayers' money. Given that we all have experience of similar situations, it is important to mention them.
Regarding the broader rent supplement issue, we must consider our housing policy. While I was a councillor in Dublin City Council in 1999, a small number of fantastic projects to house senior citizens and rent supplement tenants were commenced and worked successfully. A number of people in their 50s and early 60s were in receipt of rent supplement payments but had been on the housing list for flats in senior citizen complexes for seven or eight years. This matter should be examined.
Councillors also encountered a number of quality rent supplement recipients living on their own who would have been ideal candidates to be placed in charge of senior citizen complexes in Donnycarney, Coolock or Marino in my constituency. We must be creative. Some people in receipt of the supplement are so talented or have so many skills that it is not good enough to leave them locked in their little bedsits on their own. I encourage the Minister to consider imaginative ways to address the issue.
In the past six months, the national and international economies have changed in terms of regulation. Two years ago, "regulation" was a dirty word, but it is now the buzz word; regulation is the only game in town. We must tie these issues together. For example, the amendment states:
The landlord in receipt of a payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable of a tenant shall, as soon as practicable, submit to the Health Service Executive the registration details of the tenancy where registration is required by section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2004.
This is the important section, in that it calls for greater responsibility and clarity in the interests of the person in receipt of a rent supplement payment.
I apologise for being late. I was attending a presentation. I will briefly discuss the way in which we ensure that those to whom rent supplement is paid are tax compliant and that their accommodation is reasonable and good enough. In recent months, most of us have been concentrating on putting staff in social welfare offices, given the fact that many people are becoming unemployed. If community welfare officers are dealing with rent supplement payments, I assume that they are expected to keep tabs on the types of accommodation available and whether people are living where they should be. They now deal with as many unemployed persons as they deal with in their usual cohort, if not more. Despite the current delays in getting people their jobseekers benefit payments or their allowances, no additional personnel or support services have been placed in community welfare offices. They are being overwhelmed. They are no longer able to provide their previously good service.
I appeal to the Minister in respect of the rent supplement and so on. The majority of the CWOs' work now relates to people who have become unemployed. They must also deal with those people's applications for rent supplement payments and mortgage relief, but no additional supports or staff have been provided. I appeal to the Minister to consider this matter seriously.
Some 70,000 people are in receipt of rent supplement at present and the number is increasing. The scheme relating to rent supplement gives people flexibility in the context of being able to move home. It also assists people who do not have access to accommodation or who do not have the means to pay for such accommodation.
There is no doubt that in the past some rented accommodation was of questionable quality. The change in the economic climate has led to much more, and better quality, accommodation being available for rent. The latter can only be to the benefit of tenants. When one considers that the State will pay out €436 million of taxpayers' money in respect of rented accommodation this year and substantially more next year, it is important that such money be directed at the people who require it most. We must also ensure that these individuals will be in a position to access good quality accommodation.
Unfortunately, many people are probably going to apply for rent supplement as a result of the rise in the number of house repossessions. These individuals will probably begin by claiming mortgage interest supplement. If their houses are repossessed, they will then seek rent supplement and will finally end up on the local authority housing lists. A strong message should be sent to the financial institutions that foreclosing on people's mortgages is extremely short-sighted, particularly as this will give rise to untold difficulties for everyone involved and for society in general. If these institutions delay taking precipitative action for a couple of years, it could be of assistance to the families to which I refer. We try to be sympathetic to people who are in receipt of rent supplement.
Deputy Kathleen Lynch referred to community welfare officers. As she is aware, these individuals are employed by the Health Service Executive but they administer money on behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This is another reason to proceed with the integration of community welfare officers into the Department. We anticipate this will occur in the first half of next year and, as a result, we will have greater flexibility within our own staffing arrangements. We have been given sanction to employ an additional 115 people in the Department in order to deal with the difficulties experienced by and increased pressure on our offices. I will keep the matter under review when the new staff resources are put in place.
Various Members referred to issues relating to the registration of tenancies. All landlords are required by law to register tenancies with the Private Residential Tenancies Board. However, they are only required to register when there is a tenant in place. They are not required to register when they possess a building in which there are no tenants. Landlords have a month within which they must register. We do not want to penalise a tenant who may be moving into a property in which there may not have been any tenants in the past and in respect of which there would have been no legal requirement to register a tenancy. We notify the PRTB when tenancies are created in order that it can follow matters up with the relevant landlords in order to ensure that the proper registration takes place. We pass on to the PRTB the relevant information relating to all new claimants. It is important that the board follow up on the information we provide.
The contract we have is with the tenant. All the legal advice indicates that it is not with the landlord etc., even though many people request that their payment go directly to their landlords. Questions arise with regard to the type of accommodation tenants seek to rent and Deputies will be aware that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has introduced new regulations designed to get rid of bed-sits in the next couple of years. The latter is an important development.
The extension of the rental accommodation scheme means that more people will qualify. The scheme is operating well in all local authority areas throughout the country. The availability of social and affordable housing within local authority areas will also be of assistance in the context of alleviating pressure.
Deputy Finian McGrath was correct to refer to anti-social behaviour and the issues relating thereto. There have been a number of public incidences of such behaviour in recent months. There should be an obligation on tenants who are in receipt of State payments to ensure that they adhere to basic social norms. It had been my intention to include in the Bill a provision to ensure that tenants in receipt of rent supplement would not engage in anti-social behaviour. However, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is working on the same issue in the context of the housing Bill and intends to draft guidelines on how to deal with such behaviour. When those guidelines are put in place, we will be able to apply them in respect of those in receipt of rent supplement.
I do not propose to accept the amendment because we supply the information to which it relates in any event. Our contract is with the tenant and the PRTB is obliged to follow up on matters relating to registration. The scheme is under continual review. We are aware of the pressures that will come into play. We must honour our contracts with tenants and try to support them in the flexible manner required. Our main aim is to ensure that these people do not remain too long on rent supplement. The scheme was never intended to be of a long-term nature.
Deputy Enright referred to the number of hours people are allowed to work. If one is in receipt of the supplement, one is not meant to be in full-time employment. That is fine because the scheme is designed to support those who are dependent on social welfare payments. However, when people on long-term rent supplement are deemed eligible for the rental accommodation scheme, they can engage in full-time employment. That is an important distinction. They can take up such employment and can then obtain entry to the local authority scheme, which provides them with better prospects, more hope, greater flexibility and, eventually, better housing.
The scheme must be kept under review. In recent months the accommodation has been improving and the rents relating to it have been falling. However, tenants must ensure that they do not pay over and above what they receive in the form of rent supplement because this only feeds the market.
They do not always have a choice.
They have a greater choice now because more accommodation is becoming available.
Only in certain parts of the country. There are other areas, small rural areas etc., which did not experience the same level of growth during the property boom. It is not always an option, particularly for those who live in my area.
Tenants are being obliged to pay a greater percentage of the rent themselves.
However, they will now have more choice in respect of the accommodation they wish to rent. I accept that in small rural areas people's choices might be limited. There is a great choice of accommodation in large urban areas because properties that did not sell are now being made available for rent. We did not increase the limits this year because we did not want to feed the market. Tenants should also seek not to feed the market, particularly as they have access to a greater choice in respect of higher quality accommodation. Landlords must register with the PRTB, to which we forward the relevant information as soon as a new tenancy is created.
I do not agree with the Minister with regard to better accommodation. If a person is living in extremely poor accommodation and seeks to move to better accommodation, the first thing he or she must do is approach the community welfare officer in order to seek a deposit to secure that better accommodation. Problems immediately arise in such circumstances because the individual's existing landlord will state that a window or tap was broken, that the grass was not cut according to the agreement reached, etc. Tenants are often trapped as a result and cannot obtain a deposit to allow them to move house.
The Minister missed the point that new landlords often seek deposits of far greater value than what is really required. Community welfare officers will not provide people with deposits. They maintain that tenants must be able to save enough money for their own deposits. How can such people save €1,000, €1,500 or whatever for a deposit? It is impossible for them to do so. They are trapped and their existing landlords will demand payments from them and will not allow them to move on with their entire deposits intact. They must then go to the community welfare officer to seek a transfer. I have not yet seen, in respect of all the incidences brought to my attention — sadly, there have been many — a mechanism through which tenants can recoup their deposits when seeking to move to better accommodation. I accept the Minister's remarks in respect of accommodation being available, but I do not believe the transfer by a person from poor to good accommodation is easy. There is no mechanism in place to protect people in this instance. Community welfare officers are not in a position to follow up these cases and there does not exist, as far as I am aware, any other person to do this work, thus leaving tenants trapped in their original tenancy. These tenants are not in a position to move to better accommodation except, perhaps, under the RAS scheme.
I wish to make two brief points in regard to the mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement.
I welcome that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is developing a policy in respect of anti-social behaviour. However, I know of, as I am sure do my colleagues, many local authorities that currently have in place such policies. The difficulty that arises — the Minister will discover this when dealing with local authorities in respect of rent supplement — is that a local authority, community welfare officer or any other person given responsibility for people on rent supplement, is powerless to act where one person in a family is causing trouble as they cannot penalise an entire family owing to the behaviour of one person. I accept this difficulty is not the fault of Government, but it is a reality that makes it difficult to properly tackle anti-social behaviour.
On quality of accommodation, I agree with Deputy Wall that there is no flexibility in terms of tenants moving accommodation. On RAS, while I believe it is a good scheme a message must go out from local authorities that a person who signs up to the RAS scheme remains eligible for local authority housing. There is a huge fear among people visiting clinics that this is not the case. When an official inspects accommodation on behalf of the HSE, naturally the person in poor accommodation will fare better than the person living in good accommodation, as his or her need is seen to be greater. A person trying to do the best for his or her family by signing up to the RAS scheme is fearful of being penalised and we must address this issue.
As Deputy Enright said, it is difficult to punish a family for the activities of one of its members. The conundrum with which we are faced is that it is equally difficult to accept the torture of an entire community by one member of a family.
I agree.
We must find a balance in terms of dealing with this issue.
I wish to address the issue of transition from homelessness to accommodation under the rent supplement scheme. Yesterday, I asked the Minister to request the Minister for Finance to negotiate with the banks to ensure people do not lose their homes by the putting in place of a stay on foreclosures during the period of operation of the Credit Institutions (Financial Support) Act 2008. I believe that is a reasonable request and is the least taxpayers are entitled to from the credit institutions given they have put their necks on the line for banks.
Many homes for rent are advertised in the newspapers. Often, when a constituent seeks guidance or assistance in renting accommodation and one rings seven or eight of the numbers listed in respect of accommodation to rent one is told they do not accept rent subsidy. The reason some landlords are refusing to accept rent subsidy must ring an alarm bell somewhere. I believe that almost certainly they are not tax compliant. This matter warrants investigation and I hope such investigation will take place.
The issue of deposits is of concern to all Deputies and local authority members. I wonder if it would be possible to provide that, rather than pay a cash deposit, a local authority or community welfare officer would give a guarantee of standing in respect of a deposit in the event it is needed. We all know that in 90% of cases deposits are unnecessary as the process of transition is usually quite reasonable. The introduction of a guarantee scheme that does not involve the exchange of cash and so on might be the best option for all. I hope the Minister will consider my proposition.
I must begin by acknowledging that there are many excellent landlords in the country. We have all visited homes which we believed were houses owned by the people living in them. However, we also have many bad landlords. They are the people who are giving good landlords a bad name, which is what we are speaking about today. We must ensure that accommodation is of a high standard. Many landlords are good people who will make allowances for various problems that arise in a house because they recognise they are the product of everyday life.
I believe the situation in respect of landlords refusing to accept rent supplement will change dramatically in the current circumstances. When this happens, we must, as guardians of taxpayers' money, ensure that everyone is tax compliant and registered. Deputy Wall has proposed a simple formula in this regard, namely, that part and parcel of an application for rent allowance is a section which must be filled out by landlords. Landlords who are providing good accommodation and accepting rent supplement, will have no problem ticking a box which will indicate whether he or she is registered. It is a simple form which will be returned by post to the relevant authorities, which is important.
On anti-social behaviour, the Acting Chairman, Deputy Noel O'Flynn and I know, having been members of local authorities for many years, that the biggest problem facing local authorities is how to tackle families that are devastating estates. Often, having gone through a lengthy legal process in this regard, these people are the following week ensconced in a private estate and virtually nothing can be done about it. The only recourse is the community welfare officer who does not have the resources or manpower to do the job properly. Something has to be done about this. It is not good enough that a person whose son or daughter is wreaking havoc in an area can say they can do nothing about it; they can. We must ensure this issue is addressed as such anti-social behaviour is not fair to the people living next door to or in the same community as these offenders.
It is important to reiterate that the details of all new rent supplement tenancies are electronically forwarded to the Residential Tenancies Board to enable it to ensure landlords are meeting all their obligations. Given the number of tenants in receipt of rent supplement — there are 50,000 new recipients this year — substantial work is being done in this area. Of assistance in this regard is the new requirement in the budget that a person holding additional accommodation, be it a holiday home or rented house, pay €200 to a local authority. Landlords will be caught under this provision also. There are in place many mechanisms through which we can obtain this information. It is important landlords are tax compliant and the provision of this information will ensure we can follow up those who are not.
Deputy Wall spoke of people who are unable to pay deposits. The community welfare officer has discretion to give deposits. So far this year, 10,500 payments at a cost of €6.2 million were made to people to enable them to put down a deposit on accommodation. Perhaps what the Deputy outlined is just happening in a particular area. We will keep this under review in the scheme over the next year or so.
I accept what the Minister said and she has the figures for the deposits in front of her. I am not arguing that point, but people have a major difficulty in obtaining deposits. This problem has been raised in cases I have dealt with not only on the odd occasion but regularly and especially in the case of a transfer. There is no doubt in my mind that this is a major problem for people that needs to be addressed.
We have talked about anti-social behaviour. We all want what is right. I honestly believe that if documentation is submitted, as proposed in the amendment, it would put people on guard in this respect. Deputy Morgan is right in pointing out that people do not accept the social welfare commitment in this respect. There is a question mark over landlords' tax in terms of rented accommodation. The inclusion of the proposal in this amendment would put the person concerned on guard.
If someone is registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, that is the end of the matter. A fee is paid and there is no follow-up procedure. Community welfare officers, due to their workload which is increasing, are not in a position to determine whether the leased property is good, bad or indifferent. That does not happen. Therefore, it is up to the tenant and, in many cases, the public representative to fight and argue with those in the private rental sector to try to improve the standards for those who have to seek rented accommodation. If the proposed provision were included in the legislation, it would put down a marker. The Minister said that she would keep this under review; I urge and expect her to do so.
Rented properties should be subject to inspection to ensure they are of the standard any of us would consider suitable for occupancy by a tenant. At present that does not happen. We must put down a marker to landlords with properties in the rental accommodation sector to signal that we do not accept the standard of accommodation many of them offer and that this is a first step towards ensuring that they tick all the boxes; this will ensure there is an improvement in the standard of accommodation available.
As the Minister rightly said about the banks and lending agencies, it is time for them to cop on in this regard. The proposition put forward by Labour Party leader, Deputy Gilmore, of a two-year moratorium on mortgage repayments, if adopted, would, I hope, help many people get over the hurdle they face. I know from contacts I have that the number of cases being taken in the High Court involving banks and lending agencies seeking repossessions is comparable to the number of leaves falling off the trees in autumn. We must ensure the measure proposed is encompassed by the lending institutions as quickly as possible. Perhaps the banks will see sense and accept that proposal from the Labour Party leader, having regard to what is also happening in England. The inclusion of this amendment is necessary.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 67.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Burton, Joan.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M. J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Pat Carey and Niall Blaney.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 9, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"14.—The Principal Act is amended in section 198 by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3D)—
‘(3G) (i) The payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable by a person in respect of his or her residence shall be paid in its entirety by the Health Service Executive to the landlord.
(ii) The tenant shall pay to the Health Service Executive the portion of the rent for which they are liable.'".
In speaking on the previous amendment, I mentioned many of the reasons behind this amendment. In circumstances in which a tenant accepts a tenancy that is agreeable to a community welfare officer but in which, unfortunately, a landlord expects more money, the tenant must pay the additional sum from his or her own resources. This is a regular occurrence. We want the HSE to make the payment to the landlord, thus alleviating any pressure on the tenant to provide more money. Given that there is an increase in the tenancies in question, as we all agree, we must ensure there is transparency.
Every Deputy who has spoken this morning stated there are many good landlords and that, unfortunately, there are bad ones also. We are targeting the latter in this amendment. We are asking that the HSE pay the money directly to the landlord, as is the case with the rental accommodation scheme. There should be follow-on arrangements, bearing in mind that the accommodation a landlord may have might be acceptable under the rental accommodation scheme guidelines. There should be contact right across the board in this area. We should consider this and I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
Local authorities are currently required by law to ensure rented accommodation is of an adequate standard. Only a handful of local authorities carry out inspections. Last year, less than 5% of properties were inspected, which is a disgrace. Some 30% of the 5% examined were found to be substandard, yet there were only 11 prosecutions by local authorities. These statistics point to huge gaps between the floorboards. Some kind of emergency investigation is required, be it by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government or the Department of Social and Family Affairs. There is something particularly out of kilter.
The same lackadaisical approach is taken in regard to tax compliance. We know the Revenue Commissioners could deal with this more enthusiastically if minded to do so. I acknowledge a political price would have to be paid by any Government that pursued this and addressed it once and for all. It is like the plastic bag tax and the smoking ban; once they were put in place, people were considerably grateful to those courageous enough to have taken responsibility.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs has failed to keep proper records regarding the €436 million paid out to landlords in rent subsidy. The Office of the Revenue Commissioners sought the information from the Department and was trying to connect it with information pertaining to the Private Residential Tenancies Board but I understand the office is now seeking a law or regulation that would permit it to do this. There is obviously dragging of feet in terms of introducing whatever law or regulation is required to address the issue of wayward landlords, and that is most unfortunate.
It is estimated that there are some 50,000 unregistered flats and apartments. I understand this is probably a conservative estimate. If so, a radical overhaul is required urgently. I would prefer to see the Government dealing with social housing by front-loading some of the national development plan projects, such as the building of social housing and schools, perhaps with money from the National Pensions Reserve Fund. There would be a considerable return to the taxpayer because the State would no longer have to incur expenditure of €436 million, which figure is ever increasing. I hope the Minister will treat this matter as seriously as it deserves to be treated.
We need a mechanism to ensure landlords pay tax on whatever they receive through rent supplement. I made this point in my contribution on amendment No. 13 and it is no harm to reiterate it. I am not convinced this issue is being dealt with sufficiently. We must ensure under-the-counter payments are not made. They are being made at present. Even Focus Ireland cited examples of where tenants are paying their landlords a little bit more than what is required. Focus Ireland even cited instances of community welfare officers assisting tenants to pay more than what was required so the tenants would not end up homeless.
While this practice is occurring and must be dealt with, I do not believe this amendment is the way to proceed, for the simple reason that it is important that the tenant be able to manage his money and income himself. The responsibility associated with receiving an allowance and paying it to a landlord develops good money-management habits. It is important that the tenant have this sense of freedom and a sense of paying his way. However, I understand what the amendment is trying to achieve and I ask the Minister to ensure landlords are not accepting extra payments from tenants. The tenants simply cannot afford to be making them.
My views are somewhat similar to those of Deputy Enright. As we all know, there has been a massive shift towards private rental accommodation in recent years. This was obviously a policy decision taken by the Government and its predecessor as a consequence of their not providing sufficient social housing for those in need. For this reason, I counsel against the proposal in question. It is desirable that people feel responsible for their own accommodation. The amendment is such that I fear debts would mount that would be owed to the Health Service Executive rather than the local authority. This would leave people in a very awkward position, with the possibility of losing their accommodation.
Let us be honest about the fact that, in hard times, in which one might be at the pin of one's collar, the first one thing one would do if one felt one could get away with it would be to postpone paying one's rent. This would be very bad in the longer term. In the short term, one might feel one is getting away with something but the debt would continue to increase. I understand what our Labour Party colleagues may be considering in proposing this amendment but there are other ways to address the problem of people abusing the system. I would not address the problem at the expense of somebody who depends on receiving accommodation through the rental system. Unfortunately, many such people are on low incomes and would find it very difficult to meet debts if they accumulated over a reasonably long period. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment.
I have similar views. I fully appreciate the reason for the amendment in that there are issues that need to be addressed. I would not worry about the likely impact of the amendment. It could have a beneficial impact in that there could be a global negotiation of the rents being charged, with the Department having direct control. Now may be the best time to achieve this. Up to now, when there was a landlords' market, the practices described by Deputy Enright were rampant. They still are and, in many cases, landlords are receiving an additional payment. If they did not, they would not rent the accommodation. One problem that arises is finding a sufficient number of landlords who are willing to accept checks by community welfare officers and, as a consequence, meet the accommodation needs of the individuals concerned. As Deputy Seán Barrett said, this has arisen as a result of the failure by the Government to invest adequately in the capital housing programme. This situation has continued for ten years and is appalling. The Government resiled from the housing area and handed it over to well-meaning private housing agencies. I will not mention particular agencies but they effectively cherrypicked from the housing market with the result that the local authority, with the few houses left at its disposal, must accommodate everybody else. The result is turmoil. We have an appalling housing situation.
County Kildare has over 3,500 people on housing lists, all of whom, theoretically, would be entitled to rent supplement. We cannot get sufficient people willing to rent houses and accept the welfare cheque for the rent. That is a serious problem and nobody is tackling it. It will get much worse because, coming into that marketplace and competing with those people, will be those who, because of the economic situation, are looking for mortgage and other supports. On top of that, there are more and more emergency situations. In the course of their daily work, Deputies receive emergency calls that require urgent attention. It is no good for someone to tell us that it is all right, that the problem will be put through the system and perhaps in two months there will be a result. That is of no benefit to an unfortunate person who awaits an urgent response. These are issues that, in theory, are covered but, in fact, are not. We have difficulties with individual cases.
The danger of making the payment directly to the landlord is that a peculiar situation might develop in the future. I worry about that. What happens at present is tedious and long drawn out. There is, for example, the old practice of a person who moves from one rented accommodation to another where they had placed a refundable deposit — do Members remember the refundable deposit? I differentiate here between the good and the bad landlord. The bad one takes a look and tells the tenant he is sorry but he will not return the deposit because the paint was scraped off the door, or because something else is wrong. I have no problem with a case where there has been damage to the house resulting in the tenant losing the deposit. However, I do have problems with situations in which, on purely technical grounds, somebody decides a deposit is not refundable. Following that, the public authority, the HSE or the Department of Social and Family Affairs, can leave that person on the roadside and do nothing for him or her, or can provide a new deposit. The person does not have it and will not have the means to get it.
There are many such areas that must be addressed as a matter of urgency. They must be cleaned up in such a way as to provide for some kind of transparency and to ensure that the landlord does not have all the power. We must try to ensure that the unfortunate person who urgently requires a rent supplement can have access to it at an affordable rate, from his or her point of view and from that of the State. At the same time the person must be accountable to the State. We know, and learn on an ever increasing basis, that the State does not appear to have endless resources.
This is a bit like, ar an lámh amháin, ar an lámh eile. The debate is going from one side to the other.
There are the two láimhe in this case.
People appreciate the importance of the rent supplement and the importance of that relationship with the tenant. Ultimately, that is what is involved. It is an individual payment to an individual tenant, having regard to his or her circumstances. It allows that tenant the flexibility to use the supplement.
However, where a tenant requests it, the rent supplement can be paid directly to the landlord. Of the 70,000 people who are in receipt of rent supplement, 13,000 have requested that it go directly to the landlord. Our contract with the tenant still remains but that flexibility is there. I do not see any need to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
14.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on allowing rent supplement claimants on the waiting list for the Rental Accommodation Scheme switch to the terms of the differential rent of their local authority.
The thinking behind this amendment was to ensure that poverty traps for tenants do not develop and that they can be moved, as soon as possible, to the rental accommodation scheme. Differential rents would then come into play with the local authority with which the applicant would deal.
I receive an amazing number of telephone calls relating that landlords are seeking to provide accommodation on the basis of the rental accommodation scheme. Some of these involve individual houses. Many are flats and apartments and I have even seen a retirement village for senior citizens secured by people under the rental accommodation scheme. This provides a transparent way of ensuring that those in receipt of such payments are not put into poverty traps, that there would be a mechanism that can be checked and that there would be a linkage between the local authority, the landlord and the tenant. That would be to the benefit of the tenant, which, ultimately, is the most important concern addressed by this amendment.
I do not propose to accept this amendment, although I am cognisant that we should not have any barriers to people taking up employment opportunities. The current eligibility thresholds, income disregards and different arrangements in place do not act as an disincentive to taking up employment. It is important that even in cases where people qualify for rental accommodation scheme, they should continue to satisfy the criteria for rent supplement. Once they get onto the rental accommodation scheme, they are then placed on differential rent assessment. For the purposes of this particular scheme, which I shall continue to keep under review, I believe the eligibility criteria are sufficient.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 9, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
14.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of relaxing the qualifying criteria for mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement so that these benefits can be claimed irrespective of the number of hours the partner of the claimant may be working (currently a couple can't qualify if one is on welfare but the other is working more than 30 hours per week, irrespective of means and outgoings).
This amendment again relates to qualifications for payment. My party believes these should be re-examined and we ask the Minister to do this and to bring the House a report on the implications of relaxing the qualifying criteria for the two payments, namely, mortgage interest supplement and rent supplement. If this were done a couple might qualify, irrespective of the hours that the partner of the client works. This instance comes up on a regular basis in our constituencies and clinics.
I spoke about this matter at length last night, with particular regard to mortgage interest supplement. I will not reiterate the points I made but I believe strongly there must be changes. All Deputies can cite examples of people who have been refused mortgage interest supplement because of the size of their mortgages. If anything, the social welfare system must reflect the reality of the situations in which people find themselves. This current payment does not do that. I raised some of the issues concerning rent supplement and mortgage interest supplement. The Minister's response referred to the responsibility of financial institutions, which we discussed last night also. I do not disagree that financial institutions have a responsibility, but Deputies Kenny and Gilmore have publicly called for a moratorium on repossessions. I have not heard the same call from the Government, however. At least the Minister alluded to it today and I know she represents the Government.
Last night.
It is extremely important for that message to come out loud and clear from the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach. We will find ourselves in a position — we are already seeing it at our clinics daily — where people are in grave danger of losing their homes. There is a responsibility on the financial institutions, but also on the Minister and the Department in this respect. If people can get the mortgage interest supplement it may well allow them to keep their home. They can then negotiate with the financial institutions on the basis that they have some extra income to help their repayments. The qualifying criteria must be examined in this respect.
In last night's debate, I made the point that if people do not get the mortgage interest supplement they will fall back on rent supplement and may eventually fall back on local authority housing. The Minister reiterated that point today. Some people, however, will not have the opportunity of relying on local authority housing because if they have opted to buy out such a house they must sign a form undertaking never to seek local authority housing again. Some people, therefore, will find their homes being repossessed but will never be eligible for local authority housing because they have signed away their rights in that respect. They will find themselves in serious danger either of becoming homeless or being left on rent supplement for the rest of their lives. No Member of this House could agree with or stand over that situation. Unless the mortgage interest supplement criteria are changed, and community welfare officers have more flexibility on the size of mortgages they can assist with, people will find themselves in that position.
In parts of the country in recent years, people bought out local authority houses at seriously expensive prices. Ten years ago it was a different story and in many ways such purchases were a good deal, enabling people to move up the property ladder. Many people bought local authority houses and sold them on to buy private houses. They will also be debarred, however, because they were originally in local authority housing. We must face that obstacle in the coming months and unless the criteria are changed, such people will have no alternative but to remain on rent supplement or emergency payments.
I support the essence of what Deputy Wall is trying to achieve in this amendment. I agree entirely with what he and previous speakers have said about it. The thing that concerns me most, however, is that there has been complete silence from the Government about home owners who find themselves in this situation. The Government has not said publicly that it will speak to the banks. Under the terms of the credit institutions guarantee scheme, the Government clearly has every right to negotiate with the banks and, indeed, require them to adopt a certain position, at least for the two-year period of the guarantee scheme. The Government should clarify where it stands on this matter because after Christmas many banks will foreclose on a significant number of mortgage holders. The implication for the market is quite traumatic in terms of a significant collapse of housing prices. It will have an even more traumatic effect for families with young children who find themselves in difficult circumstances when one or both partners may lose their jobs.
A person cannot transfer from their own home to rented accommodation because local authority rules and regulations do not permit it. One must first become homeless, so one stays in a bed and breakfast establishment or moves into grossly overcrowded accommodation with a relative perhaps, in some cases for several weeks before accommodation issues can be sorted out, including rent supplement and access to the housing list. It can be a traumatic experience. The Government should let people know what its intention is in this regard. What is the Government's position on this? Has it at least raised the matter with the credit institutions and, if not, does it intend to do so? Does the Government accept that it has substantial powers under the terms of the credit institutions guarantee scheme? How will it deal with the impending crisis that is coming down the line? Nobody is asking for mortgages to be written off, or that people can get away without paying for arrangements they have made with their financial institutions. In many cases, however, banks gave out 100% or 120% mortgages——
Mortgages of 150% in some cases.
——to people who because of their age, social profile or income were clearly going to have difficulty repaying them. Nonetheless, the banks shovelled such mortgages out anyway, so they have a significant responsibility to recognise their role in preventing a catastrophe from occurring across the land. Within the next 24 hours, the Government should let us know where it stands on this impending crisis.
I fully agree with this important amendment and concur with previous speakers. I do not know whether the Department of Social and Family Affairs fully appreciates the magnitude of the problem that is now unfolding before us. Anything we have seen heretofore will fade into the dim and distant past in comparison to this. A series of problems are turning up. For instance, we now have a cohort of people who are self-sufficient, self-starters and always looked after their own businesses. They did the right thing and were not a burden on the State. They bought their house in good faith and were loaned money in an economy with rapidly escalating prices. There is no doubt that they borrowed unwisely, but they were forced to do so because otherwise they would have been left without a house, renting instead from a landlord or investor. In that case, the rent would be equal to their mortgage repayments, so they were in a catch-22 situation. I can tell the Minister it is a case of "Mé féin ar an lámh eile" again. In many cases, given the unfolding economic situation, those people now find themselves out of a job. The criteria being applied to assess their cases are old-fashioned. Those criteria may have been applicable four or five years ago when people were quite happy because they had economic alternatives, but there are problems now.
I compliment community welfare officers who are adopting a human attitude to such assessments. There is a minority who do something totally different. Messages are sent down the chain that this is the answer and that going to a TD will not help. If there is one thing that revs up my engine, it is that phrase. We should send a clear message to whoever issued the diktat saying "Don't go to your local TD because they can't help you either". We are elected as public representatives and have a job to represent people, including those who are disadvantaged for whatever reason. In addition, we are not beholden to any officials or others, and do not have to account to them. I issue that fair warning as to how such people will be treated in future.
The Deputy has a great engine.
Absolutely and I will continue to try to keep it that way as well. Although it is being dealt with separately, the question of qualification under the habitual residency clause has been abysmally abused. The Minister knows about this and it was referred to yesterday. It is appalling. Irish citizens who were born in this country and emigrated — like the 42 million of Irish extraction in the United States and a very substantial number who emigrated to the UK — are being refused supplementary rent support at this moment, simply because of the habitual residency clause. It is absolutely disgraceful.
That clause was not introduced for the best of reasons. I know full well whom it was intended to deal with. Like other Irish solutions to Irish problems it is now hammering the people who are most vulnerable in our society and who can do nothing to respond, finding themselves between a rock and a hard place. I am not the only Member of this House meeting such people on a daily basis. Imagine the plight of returned emigrants from the UK, the US or anywhere in the world — they are entitled to come back to their own country. What type of a country have we become? They are now being refused rent support and other supports while the community welfare officers, in effect, gently intone, "Would you consider leaving this country?". How nice of them.
Perhaps I am too long in this House, but never in my time as an elected representative have I seen the application of that type of criteria. It is appalling that we, as a so-called caring society, should treat people like that. If there are people in this country who should not be here, why does somebody on the Government side of the House not say so? What are they hiding behind? Let them say it up-front and we can all have a look at this. Let there be no hidden agendas, no Irish solutions to Irish problems. Let us be fair and straight with everybody. Remember, we have obligations under international law and human rights commitments as well, which must be adhered to. No clever, slick anticipation or interpretation of rules and regulations and no clever responses at any level should, or will, be tolerated.
I want to mention the lending agencies and repossessions. For example, I referred to a case yesterday in this same debate, the logic of which I cannot understand. A person is on a mortgage, say, of €2,000 a month, when circumstances change. It is not a small mortgage, but there are many people on such mortgages who bought property in what they saw as good times. The Government assured them their future was secure and that this was the third richest country in the world, with 10% annual growth and with even greater growth prospects on the horizon. Everything was full of promise coming up to the general election, but what has happened now?
Family disputes can arise in a case like this, in many instances caused by the financial burden and one or other partner may leave the household, in the event. The current interpretation of the law will mean the community welfare officer will tell the remaining partner, usually the woman, in effect, "Sorry, you only get half the potential rent or mortgage support", as against what the household would receive when both partners were there. I cannot understand the logic of that. All that will happen is that she will fall further behind and be evicted. Then the Department will have to give her rent support for the entire amount in another house. Why does somebody not talk to the community welfare officers and explain to them what the consequences are? Incidentally, I received a coded message within the last few days after putting down a parliamentary question on one of these issues. A coded message came by way of the response sent out to the unfortunate constituent, which would appear to me to be a response to my parliamentary question. I recognise coded messages for what they are, and the response will be as it always was.
My last point echoes Deputy Olwyn Enright's concerns about the agreements people are being forced to sign, usually when they are under pressure, to the effect that they can never seek local authority rehousing again. Of course that is illegal. There is no law anywhere that can uphold that. It is pure extortion, an abuse of power by the authorities. They have no right to make such a demand, ever. No one can possibly determine what his or her circumstances will be like in the future, as we now know. Even the Government, which knew everything a couple of years ago, one year or six months ago, now knows nothing about anything. It can tell us nothing. The whole economy is falling apart, but it cannot tell us how it happened.
Equally, no court can enforce this agreement referred to by Deputy Enright, which countless people have felt obliged to sign, because the circumstances have changed. Once circumstances change, it is the duty of whatever Administration is in office to adjudicate on the basis of the prevailing situation. If there were more people present on the Government side today, I should love to engage with them on that particular issue.
I assume the Minister will accept this amendment because all it is seeking is, that on the passing of this Bill a report should be prepared and laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. That seems to me to be a very sensible way of approaching this particular problem.
I should respectfully suggest that, having been laid before both Houses, it should then be debated by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs so that the views of all committee members can be sought on how we deal with this unique problem. It is unique because of the state of the economy, banking and building society structures. This is something I have never seen before, and I have lived through a couple of recessions. It is unique in so far as the banks and building societies are in such a mess that strange things could happen.
I tend to ask when there is a problem how it may be solved, and what will happen if such and such an initiative is taken. Let us consider for a moment what will happen if people are thrown out of their houses. What will be done with the people? They have to go somewhere and they are entitled, under the supplementary welfare Act to seek assistance, albeit for accommodation. What is to be done with the house that has been taken from them? Is to be added to the other tens of thousands of vacant dwellings?
Perhaps the Minister might listen to a point I am trying to make here.
What are we to do with the tens of thousands of houses already vacant? This is something that has to be debated openly and positively within these Houses. Nobody is addressing the situation at all. What happens to the building industry? Are another 10,000 or 20,000 vacant houses to be added to an already very serious situation? This is not just about taking the house of a particular couple and putting them on the street. What happens after that? This is part of what must be dealt with in the resolution of the banking problem. What is the difference between toxic debt from land banks and toxic debt from vacant houses? In other words when this issue is being debated by the Government, I respectfully suggest that it take this situation into account. If the Government is to resolve the difficulties with the banks, it will have to solve the problem of toxic land banks which are the main cause of the crisis. Nobody will invest in banks without knowing the level of debt that exists in respect of land banks. There is no market for such land, and therefore no one knows its value. It could have been worth €100 million two years ago but nobody knows its value today because there is no market. It could be worth €50 million or €20 million or €70 million. However, all adding to the vacant housing stock will do is drive the market crazy altogether. If one applies the normal principle of failure to repay in the current climate, we will have a huge problem, incapable of being resolved other than by removing people from their houses, sending them to the community welfare officer and giving them a supplementary welfare allowance until such time as they can rent accommodation. Then they go back to the Department of Social and Family Affairs and get rent subsidy. It is all a roundabout.
This issue must be resolved quickly, because it will not go away. Unique situations demand unique solutions. This problem has not been solved previously, because we did not have this situation. Therefore, the thinking caps must go on in all Departments. The Department of Finance must wear its thinking cap in negotiations with banks and building societies. The Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Health and Children must wear theirs in dealing with the HSE because of its involvement with community welfare officers. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government must wear its cap when considering public housing.
I cannot stress enough the importance of this amendment, even though it does not seek something immediate, but asks that something happen as soon as the Bill is passed. The amendment should be accepted by all here. It is not a party political issue, but a real problem for which people are awaiting a resolution. Everybody has an interest in finding a solution to this problem, whether one is a person with growing debts for either rent or mortgage repayments, a property owner who is renting property or a building society or bank that has loaned money.
I have always found it peculiar that one of the conditions in respect of rent allowance was that a couple did not qualify if one was on welfare, but the other was working more than 30 hours. There is no reference to the amount one is earning if one is working over 30 hours. A person could be earning more money on 25 hours. It is all about ticking the box. People could be earning €12 an hour and working 25 hours or €8 an hour and working 30 hours, but they would be better off if they were working 25 hours at €12 an hour.
I have never been able to understand the ceiling of 30 hours. Perhaps the ceiling should be an amount earned rather than the number of hours worked. If somebody was working 31 hours, he would most likely go to his employer and ask him to take two hours off him so as not to lose his rent allowance. This issue needs debate. The acceptance of this amendment would give a guarantee to the House that a report will be produced on the implications of any changes. A committee is the right place for such a report to be debated and it could then come back to the House with its report.
I will be as brief as possible. Like most other Deputies, I have some experience of the difficulties faced by people in this regard. I wish to mention a particular case that has come to a conclusion. In this case a couple went to Start Mortgages when they were under pressure to meet payments other than their loan repayments. They were encouraged by advertisements to put all their borrowings into one loan. Unfortunately, through no fault of his own, the man lost his job. As soon as the first payment became overdue, it became a legal issue. When the couple eventually got a loan elsewhere, one they thought they were fortunate in getting at the time, they discovered on Christmas Eve, six months later, there was an outstanding bill of €12,000 for the legal case that had been entered, although nothing had arisen from it. Eventually, this was settled for €10,000 and the couple had their loan facilitated by the local authority.
There are implications with regard to such cases. The requirement that people sign an agreement that they will never be housed by a local authority again is unjust and perhaps close to illegal. In the current situation, where so many people are losing jobs and where many may have stupidly over-borrowed, we should face the facts. Everybody was being encouraged to buy their own home. They were sitting in queues outside offices to ensure they would get these homes and loans were being offered by several banks, not just one. Now these people have lost jobs and found themselves in extraordinary situations, we should be considerate of their situations and be sympathetic.
I understand our counterparts across the water have made allowances on account of the current situation in recent announcements and I urge the Minister, in conjunction with the Taoiseach and the Government, to do something similar. We have a crisis and it must be dealt with. I support my colleagues Deputies Enright and Barrett on the issues they have raised. There are technical issues in the system that have no logic. Just because somebody works over 30 hours in a low-paid job, does not mean he or she is making a fortune or is self-sufficient.
Another case I am aware of is that of a person who was self-employed until recently, but now has no work. However, his mortgage is ongoing. There is significant difficulty in obtaining social welfare assistance for this person because he does not have the stamps required. We are in a unique position. Nobody is happy with the situation or proud of it. I do not wish to cast aspersions across the House about the position we are in, but young couples are in extraordinary situations and have mortgages they cannot meet. I urge the Minister, as a goodwill gesture, to accept the amendment in order to alleviate some of the problems. Accepting the amendment will not cost any money. It will only facilitate the drawing up of a more logical process and give us the opportunity to debate the issues.
I share people's concerns about the number of people who must fall back on mortgage interest supplements and those people who are in danger of losing their homes. We discussed some of the issues surrounding this last night and earlier today. The problem is evident in the number of people making new applications. We had 7,000 at the end of October and I suspect that number will be substantially higher by the end of November. Unfortunately, we can anticipate great demand again next year.
Deputy Barrett is right about the surplus of houses. What good will the surplus be to the banks even if they reclaim the houses? In the current market, they will probably end up selling them for less than the mortgage handed out initially. The situation has a serious impact on the families involved and on the community. The amount of money we anticipated spending on this area this year has fallen far short of what is required. We reckon now that the amount required to be spent will be €26 million and the provision for next year is €31 million. However, looking at the outturn for this year, I expect more will be required next year as well.
The scheme is one that has always been used by a small number of people. However, as demand increases, we will have to examine the needs of the applicants. It is a means-tested scheme and those who qualify get it.
In some ways this counteracts the argument regarding working for 30 hours because one is still obliged to remain within a particular limit. However, it is designed not to be a disincentive to people to enter full-time employment and by limiting this to one group, one always tries to encourage people to take up employment. However, I accept these are changing and difficult times.
It should be noted that the social welfare budget is not limitless. A total of €19.6 billion has been set aside for next year, which constitutes an extraordinary amount of taxpayers' money as a proportion of next year's overall expenditure. Consequently, one must ensure that it is targeted at the right people and those who need it most. I intend to carry out a review of the mortgage interest supplement and the criteria surrounding it soon. However, I am unsure what information can be derived in respect of applicants, those who do not qualify etc., because the scheme operates through the community welfare officers. Nevertheless, I will ascertain what information can be gleaned. As the scheme operates by regulation, it would not require further legislation, were the Government to introduce any changes. While I do not propose to accept the amendment on the report, I acknowledge such an amendment is designed to allow debate on a particular issue, which is the reason it was tabled. However, as Members have suggested, this might be a matter the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs may decide it could usefully examine. I will be consider it over the next couple of months in any event.
I believe the sincerity expressed regarding the amendment by Members is a reflection both of its wording and case history with which they have had personal dealings. Great research undoubtedly is needed on the qualifying criteria for the mortgage interest supplement payment by the applicant. The Minister correctly observed that few applications had been received heretofore, as the number of applications only has increased within the past year to 18 months. Previously, it had been a matter of showing one's account and demonstrating that interest was accumulating, after which a community welfare officer would make the payment. However, a change has taken place in this regard. Community welfare officers now insist the original loan agreement must be produced and if they discern anything wrong or perceive any additions in respect of seeking the mortgage, they will refuse payment. This is happening at present, presumably nationwide, and the need to examine this issue has never been more overwhelming because, unfortunately, as the Minister noted, the numbers are increasing.
A different emphasis has been placed on processing such applications than was the case heretofore. On numerous occasions, I have been obliged to write to lending agencies asking them to produce the original documentation in order that the person affected could make an application, which would not be accepted otherwise. This amendment was tabled with such cases in mind and because the matter was discussed by the Parliamentary Labour Party and elsewhere. Members' concerns arise from personal contact with such situations and they considered it necessary to table this amendment, which I intend to press.
I wish to express my disappointment. Members have gone through the process of debating the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2008, which is on Report Stage today. However, the Minister has not accepted any measures that have been tabled. It sounds as though she agrees in theory with much of what has been said. The amendment contains nothing that is offensive to, or critical of, the Government. It contains nothing that would imply a loss of political capital by the Minister, were she to accept it. This amendment reflects the extremely difficult position that many people face at present. While the Minister has stated her intention to produce a report, this amendment exerts pressure to ensure such a report is actually produced. With respect, although Members have been waiting for a report on lone parents from the Minister, her predecessor, the Minister, Deputy Cullen, and his predecessor, the late Séamus Brennan, Lord have mercy on him, no action has been taken.
People are in danger of having their houses repossessed, some of whom are unaware they are in such danger. They may be in the position outlined by Deputy Noonan yesterday regarding a family he knows, in which two children and both of their spouses work in a company he believes to be in serious danger of closure. This will mean a further two couples whose houses will be repossessed next year. This urgent matter cannot wait and must be dealt with and the Minister should take on board Members' comments.
I will briefly reiterate a point I made yesterday. I tabled a parliamentary question on this subject following Committee Stage and it transpires the Department and the community welfare officers do not even hold data on the number of people who applied for, but were refused, mortgage interest supplement. The Minister's report must start with the most basic information in respect of who is unable to get the supplement. The only time statistics are collated is when applicants appeal a refusal. While I am sure a majority do so, it is possible that not all applicants appeal because of their disillusionment with their interaction with the system, having been refused in the first place. A report on this issue must begin with the basics and accepting this amendment at least would confirm that the Government in good faith intends to deal with this issue, because this is not evident at present.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider her decision. In any parliamentary democracy, if someone comes up with a perfectly reasonable request to the effect that a report be produced that could provide information for further debate, it always is good for a government to have the input of positive contributions from its opposition. I do not understand how a government can refuse to accept an amendment calling for the production of a basic report.
The Minister's reply also referred to the fact that the taxpayer only can pay so much. All Members agree with that point and they acknowledge the budget for social welfare is large. However, everyone pays PRSI to be used at a time of need and this issue goes beyond that. Moreover, in respect of much of what has been discussed in this regard, I do not seek the taxpayer to fork out. This issue must be resolved by those banks and building societies that gave out such loans in the first place. My point is that as part of the current negotiations with banks and building societies about recapitalisation and saving their businesses, the Government should play an active part by throwing this issue into the melting pot for debate. The financial institutions should then come up with a solution that Members may not be able to formulate in the space of half an hour's debate in the House. The taxpayer should not be obliged to pay everything and the building societies and banks must find a system, although I am unsure how, to deal with how repayments will be made or how different payments could be made at different times to catch up and similar matters. Ultimately, when it comes to paying off the loan, hopefully the house in question will have risen in value again and will be worth more than what actually was owed. It would be better to have people remaining in their homes and seeing it out to the end, rather than being kicked out on the street.
Members should put on their thinking caps and should not engage in party politics. If the Minister refuses to accept the amendment, the division bells will ring and Members will be taken from their lunch tables who will not know on what amendment they are voting. I suggest that were one to conduct a survey of every Member of the House asking them whether they agree with voting for the production of a report following the passage of a Bill, they all would do so. However, if the Minister sticks to her guns and refuses to accept this amendment, the division bells will ring, Members will march in, the Minister will win and that will be the end of it. This is an appalling way in which to run a parliament.
It is not appropriate to insert a provision seeking a report into a social welfare Bill.
Of course it is.
It is appropriate to discuss the issue in this House, it is appropriate for the Government to take action, it is appropriate that the financial institutions should take their responsibility and that both Opposition and Government Members serving on various joint committees should continue to highlight the issue. The bottom line is that people are benefiting from the mortgage interest supplement and more will do so. As it is a demand-led scheme for those who qualify, there is no question of it not being made available to people.
Members merely seek a report.
People are being refused because of the size of their mortgages.
Last year 4,111 people benefited from the scheme. This year 7,000 have benefited already, and probably many more will have benefited by the end of this month. I indicated that of course I will continue to review it — I refer particularly to the mortgage interest one because it is only in these months that we are seeing an increase in its use — to see whether the scheme is effective, is meeting people's needs and is being applied fairly throughout the country.
The amendment merely seeks a report and it is not appropriate to provide for that in legislation. I do not dispute many of the points that have been made about the financial institutions, about the importance of the scheme and about the impact it can have on families and on communities, but I do not propose to accept the amendment.
The amendment is in order.
I listened to all the contributions and I did not speak earlier because I would agree with everything that has been said. There is nothing surer than that research must be done on this area. As soon as the Minister leaves this House, given the figures that will be generated in the next few months on the mortgage assistance which her Department must give, there is nothing surer than that she will need to commission a report. That report will be about the level of activity in the service, how it is delivered, how much help people need, why they need that help, what is the proposed length of time for which they will need that help and the different types of mortgages that will be in play.
The Minister makes the argument that it is not right to ask for a report within the social welfare Bill, and I accept that. I am sure that it would be sufficient if everyone could agree that a report will be done, but it must be done urgently. It is not merely about the gathering of statistics because one could bring any community welfare officer in here and he or she would tell the Minister the facts and figures on what they have encountered over the past few months.
It is not good enough that at a time when ever more people are falling back and relying on the State, to which they contributed handsomely over the past number of years through tax and social insurance contributions, this restriction comes in. The Minister cannot do that. People must feel that when they need help the State will be there to pick up the pieces for them. That is the purpose of the social insurance fund. The type of research and report needed must be done as a matter of urgency because we are not certain exactly what type of help will be required; it will be different across individual cases.
There is one issue which has not been raised, and I am reluctant to raise it. In the past number of years some break-ups resulted in the family home being sold and the profit divided between the two parties involved, irrespective of whether they were married. Neither party has had enough money to buy a home of his or her own and yet is precluded from going back on the State's housing list because he or she has funds under the means-tested element of the scheme. That is something that needs to be included in the reporting system. Where does that leave people? It is the most peculiar system I have ever come across. The system does not encourage thrift or savings. No matter how little one has in the bank, one cannot benefit from State aid because it will be means-tested against one's claim. That is something that needs to be put into the report as well.
That report could and should be done in a matter of weeks. The Minister would be foolish to say "No". She and I know that in a matter of weeks she will be looking for this anyway.
I am pressing the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Curran, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Pat Carey and Niall Blaney.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, to delete lines 36 to 42 and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 42.
This amendment was brought on foot of submissions and our own experience of the mortgage interest supplement. I am sure every Deputy received submissions from FLAC and other housing organisations. One of the points made by FLAC is that the changes in the Bill will further restrict access to the mortgage interest supplement by reducing the duration of the payment and excluding specific mortgages from support by inserting new definitions of mortgage interest. Increased administrative powers will be delegated to the HSE. Unless a new mechanism is set up to deal with it, the present arrangement will result in the community welfare officers being overcome with work. In that situation I do not see how any further workload can be added.
As I stated on the previous amendment, the existing legislation is sufficient with regard to the qualification aspect of a person for mortgage interest relief. If the timing is to be decreased or some specific mortgages are to be excluded, we would defeat the purpose of payments from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I am sure that is not the intention. The Minister has outlined the projected figures for November, December and January and these indicate mortgage interest relief is on the increase.
If it is the case we will now see restrictions put in place in the present application, it seems we will increase the pressure on the unfortunate person who must look for this payment. Our worst days as public representatives are probably when we see someone who cannot pay his or her mortgage or get agreement with the lending agency. These people may have gone to the Money Advice and Budgeting Service which is a great organisation that has done tremendous work in helping so many in this position, but they may not reach an agreement there either.
If we are to increase the pressure on these people by decreasing the ability of a person to make an application, we are surely creating a case that will cause major concern to the family unit. Deputy Kathleen Lynch has mentioned cases where some people are trying to buy out a portion of a mortgage from a partner or former partner where there has been a breakdown. In this instance, if both parties are suddenly unemployed and restrictions have been increased in the application for mortgage supplement, havoc will be created.
I do not see a need for this. I have seen instances where the community welfare officer insists that the original loan application be the base of negotiations but this will create difficulty in the current economic climate, unless the Government provides a measure for mortgage protection in the next year or two. Families may be now subjected to further tension and problems in the making of an application in this regard. That is why our spokesperson, Deputy Róisín Shortall, felt the whole section should be deleted, as the current position is good enough. The mechanism is available and the process has been put through scrutiny in the last number of months because of increased numbers.
I do not see the need to make changes as the mechanism exists and community welfare officers, to my knowledge, use it to maximum effect with regard to qualification for mortgage interest relief. I ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment and leaving the matter as it is. In fairness to the Minister, she has indicated she is willing to consider the issue going forward in order to ensure all the problems will be considered. There are many problems, including family and partnership break-ups and people trying to buy out portions of mortgages. These problems are all related to the family being under sustained pressure while trying to own its home.
The one light at the end of the tunnel is that we have seen recent decreases in interest rates, which has been a major help for some people trying to address this problem. I can see no logic in changing the framework to make it more difficult to obtain a mortgage or rent subsidy payment.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. We are trying to give legislative provision for regulations and strengthen the legal basis for those regulations. The section provides for amendments to the legislative provisions and we feel they are necessary for both the rent supplement and mortgage interest supplement. Regulations already set out the maximum rent levels that apply to rent supplement, having regard to the family size, the location of the premises and the period to which the limits apply. The primary legislation is being amended to provide for the making of regulations to specify the maximum amount of rent supplement payable having regard to family circumstances and the location of the residence in respect of which the rent supplement is payable. It is a technical amendment to strengthen the legal base for the relevant regulations.
The section also contains provisions to make regulations setting out the conditions and circumstances under which the mortgage interest supplement can be paid and the duration of the payment. It shall be limited to the amount the HSE determines appropriate but the HSE must have regard to the family circumstances of the person concerned, as well as the other conditions as prescribed in the regulations governing mortgage interest supplement. This is not to disadvantage people but to give a legal basis for the regulations which have been made.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 18 is out of order.
Amendment No. 18 not moved.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 10, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following:
"(4) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of people in receipt of rent supplement on the waiting list for the Rental Accommodation Scheme.
(5) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the reform of the Rent Supplement Scheme.
(6) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on paying Rent Supplement in advance rather than arrears.
(7) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on requiring landlords to register with the PRTB in order to be eligible for rent supplement.".
I have spoken to this amendment already and do not propose to delay proceedings. I know Members wish to discuss other amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are out of order.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 13, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following:
"(2) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of eligible persons and proportion thereof availing of the Back-to-School Clothing and Footwear Allowance.".
I have put down this amendment because of the financial difficulties being faced by families, particularly when children are returning to school. More people have been brought in under the scheme this year but according to surveys done by various organisations, it is still inadequate in meeting the needs of the child.
Research carried out by Barnardos indicates that between €375 and €405 is required to fund basic costs of sending children back to school and there is a substantial shortfall for many families. This has not been helped by the decision on the school book scheme by the Department of Education and Science, which will put much pressure on families that are already hard-pressed.
Figures published by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in June, when it concentrated on back to school issues, and earlier this week show substantial increases in the number of people using the organisation, which is of real concern for everybody in the House. The matter must be examined and we should consider the adequacy of this scheme to see if it can meet the needs of people that it currently does not.
Were the back to school clothing and footwear scheme seriously examined, many savings could be made in its administration. I do not understand why someone must re-apply each year. People must fill in detailed forms before having them stamped by their schools. I understand the need to ensure the allowance's claimant has a child going to school, but the administration could be well done through the school. The school need not ask whether the person requires the allowance, only whether the child is still attending. The duplication in forms has never made sense.
The amount available to be drawn down by a family has never made sense either. In the past ten years, children have become twice as big as we were when we went to school. The footwear they need cannot be covered by the money given by the Department. Not only must we take all of these factors into account, but we must also consider to whom we are giving the money, why we are giving it and, despite how obvious the scheme's name is, to what use it is put. How can one best ensure that families qualifying for the allowance get sufficient money to clothe their children when returning to school? I know of no family that can cover the costs of uniforms and other necessities.
Fashion changes and young people are notorious in not wanting to wear what their parents buy for them, but the number of children who do not wear jackets, for instance, when exiting their schools, particularly secondary schools, is extraordinary. Why is this the case? The Green Party would say it is due to global warming and that we no longer need clothes, but that is not the reason. Rather, jackets are too expensive and cannot be covered by the money the Department gives families.
During the 1980s, the progression evident outside the labour exchange was amazing. During the first six months of a person's unemployment, he or she was well dressed, well kept and still in the mode of looking for work. Gradually, his or her appearance started to go downhill. Three years after first being made unemployed, he or she still had the same jacket, although it was not in the same condition.
The same trends are evident in terms of school uniforms and the kinds of clothing that we need. Constantly, a friend makes the point that we do not dress for the type of weather in which we live whereas all other Europeans do. However, they have a higher standard of living than we do. Even during our boom times, our treatment of those families and school-going children that needed our support was poor.
More people will seek the back to school scheme. Regarding the notion that, come August, there will be a radio campaign to advertise for applications, why will the scheme not be rolled out in June when schools will be about to finish and why will those who were on the scheme in the preceding year not be written to in an effort to determine whether their children are still in school and dependants? The duplication in the scheme is worrying.
Community welfare officers and workers in the Department of Social and Family Affairs have been referred to throughout the debate. They operate under the rules that we lay down. We must reconsider the scheme and expand it significantly. The clothing and footwear costs of putting a child through school have increased sizably because their needs have increased.
The back to school clothing and footwear allowance is an important scheme. This year alone, 103,000 households and 200,000 children have benefited from it. As I have extended the thresholds, a further 18,000 families will qualify next year in addition to those who would have qualified under the current thresholds. I chose to extend the thresholds to make it more widely available rather than to increase the amount involved. Since it is the clothing and footwear allowance and not the book allowance, a fact that should be recognised, the amount of €305 is not bad and would cover uniforms and clothes. In the past 12 months and in recent years, the prices of clothing and footwear have decreased by 7% and 24%, respectively. However, there can be pressure where young people want labels, fashion and so on. It is all the more reason for school uniforms, which do not demand expensive shops. A simple top of navy, grey or so on with a crest ironed or stitched on can be just as distinguishing a factor.
Books are expensive, but Deputy Kathleen Lynch's suggestion that the clothing and footwear allowance should be paid through the school is interesting. When I was Minister for Education and Science, people did not want the book allowance to be paid through the school because they did not want to be identified in the school.
Not paid through the school. The paperwork would be done through the school to check whether someone was still attending the school.
Many parents do not want schools or teachers to know their circumstances.
They must still go to the school to get the form signed.
The school knows. It must stamp the form.
The form only states whether someone is in school.
That is what Deputy Kathleen Lynch is asking for.
A promotional campaign undertaken last June while children were still in school suggested that people should purchase early. There is always a danger whereby people who get money and, instead of spending it on a uniform, use it for a holiday during the summer months may find themselves being stuck in August or September. The scheme is available from June to the end of September, but we promoted it in June and August. I will examine the take-up levels in those months. Many people only start to focus closer to the time.
I anticipate that many more people will apply for the scheme next year, when our spending on it will have increased to €39 million. The 18 year olds in respect of whom child benefit payments will no longer be made will instead receive €520 in compensation if they are in education. This will push costs up, but I welcome the fact that more people will be able to benefit from the scheme during a particularly difficult time for families next year.
I do not know whether many of the people who have approached me concerning sending their children back to school have been on holidays. It is unfair to claim that people will spend the money on holidays or so on. They receive the allowance because their incomes are low and they could not otherwise afford sending their children back to school. Their incomes are so low that, for many, holidays are something about which they have heard but of which they have not had the pleasure of experiencing. People will not collect the allowance to go on holidays. The Minister's unfair comment immediately creates the notion that people on such allowances are scamming the system or do not need them, but they need them to send their children back to school.
Much of what I will say will relate to child poverty levels, which I will also discuss during the debate on the next amendment. As is evident from Deputy Kathleen Lynch's examples, the provisions in the Bill will not help people sufficiently. The Minister must consider the scheme's operation. If savings can be made through operating it more efficiently, people can avail of it, which we would all like to be the case.
There are some social welfare payments in respect of which it would be possible to pay the allowance automatically. However, there are other circumstances where people might be in employment or on contributory payments where we would be obliged to consider the household income, etc. We must be in a position to know a family's situation on the occasion of its making an application. It is not quite as easy as it appears.
I accept that this is an extremely valuable payment for people who are obliged to pay for clothing and footwear. For example, if one has two children, the payment is €610. This sum is perhaps larger than any other which a person may previously have held in his or her hands. It is important that we focus on what is required. However, we will certainly promote the scheme from an earlier date next year in order to discover what will be the take-up in respect of it. As already stated, we anticipate that demand will increase over the next 12 months.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 19, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the introduction of a second-tier, employment neutral, child income support payment to target child poverty levels.".
I tabled this amendment on Committee Stage and I am reintroducing it now because I am concerned about the lack of progress regarding the supplements paid to families, particularly in respect of children. The programme for Government contains a commitment to amalgamate the qualified child allowance and family income supplement in order to develop a second tier of income supports targeted at the poorest families. There has not been any progress in respect of this commitment.
NESC compiled a very good report on this issue and discovered that the outcomes for children, in terms of efforts to tackle child poverty, were unsatisfactory and that child benefit is extremely inefficient in the context of tackling poverty. NESC recommended the establishment of a new second tier support for families on low incomes.
The Minister placed on record some figures in respect of the EU-SILC report, which was published yesterday. The CSO also published a report yesterday which contains some interesting statistics and which indicates that 20% of children living in Ireland last year were living in poverty. It also states that the children most at risk are those who are underprivileged and that almost 40% of the total number of people living in consistent poverty are children.
There is a real need for the payment to which I refer because it will be targeted at those who need it most. I intend to press the amendment because I want progress to be made in respect of this matter. It is important that a report be laid before the Houses and that we obtain clarification on where the Government stands and in respect of its views on progress being made. Unless amendments of this sort are taken seriously, matters will be placed on the long finger. I do not want to have to table this amendment again next year in respect of the relevant legislation because progress has not been made.
The lives of children who live in poverty are substantially different from those of their peers. There are children attending school today who have not eaten a hot meal, who have no heat in their home or who do not own a coat. One of the criteria used to judge whether a child is living in poverty is whether he or she only possesses one pair of shoes. Many of us may find it difficult to imagine trying to live in such conditions. However, almost 20% of children in this country are obliged to live in consistent poverty. Targeting the payment represents the only way that real improvements will be made. The changes in the qualified child allowance and family income supplement were not sufficient in the context of improving the lives of the children to whom I refer.
I strongly support the amendment. Children are among those who are most at risk in society. The relevant agencies have indicated that the level of child poverty in this State is significant. The evidence in this regard cannot be disputed. I accept that it is not easy to deal with this matter because of the complexities and difficulties involved. However, a resolution must be found and Deputy Enright's amendment offers some guidance to the Minister in that regard. I hope she will give serious consideration to accepting it.
I support the amendment. We all pay lip-service to children and families. However, regardless of the family or other circumstances in which they live, children expect to have a certain lifestyle. Peer pressure is an extremely important factor in children's lives. When we refer to such pressure, it usually brings to mind teenagers. However, peer pressure starts at a very young age. When they are first affected by it, some children probably do not know what the term "peer pressure" means or what it implies. As everyone is aware, Christmas is almost upon us. Let us consider the case of two four year olds in a crèche or preschool facility, one of whom has asked for a particular doll — and her buggy and various accessories — that has been advertised on television. What will be the position if she receives this present, while her counterpart, who also wants it, does not and receives a lesser present instead? There is nothing to indicate that children are not affected when they do not receive that for which they have been hoping.
I thought I might be sued if I made my next comment, but that cannot happen because I am speaking under Dáil privilege. Perhaps it was because it reminded me of my childhood, but I did not like Angela’s Ashes. However, one aspect of the book struck me as profound, namely, the fact that children feel humiliation. It is not just adults or teenagers who are affected in this regard. When their parents are not financially secure enough to provide them with a comfortable home and the same supports to which certain of their peers have access, children feel humiliated, not just on their own behalf but also on behalf of their parents. That feeling of humiliation never leaves them. We should strive to eliminate feelings of inadequacy among particular children with regard to the financial position of their families. Certain youngsters feel that they are somehow lesser beings because Santa Claus did not give to them the toys other children received.
Child poverty is very obvious when one looks closely enough. A child living in poverty is one who does not have a coat, who attends the funeral of a grandparent but who is not dressed in a suit and tie, who cannot go on a school trip or who does not receive a bicycle when everyone else living on the road gets one. As adults, we have all passed the stage of feeling peer pressure and we now know what is truly important, namely, the support, encouragement and love one obtains from one's family. When we were children, however, we were of the view that material possessions, etc., were all important. We want to get rid of child poverty in order that every youngster can feel free to harbour the same ambitions as their peers.
It is not as if we came to a realisation about this matter following a sudden flash of blinding light. Those who carried out research into child poverty and indicated the remedies that might be used in respect of it were obliged to highlight the problem for us. We should strive to get rid of child poverty and, in that context, I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
I support the amendment, particularly as it relates to protecting the health and welfare of children. Many families are finding it difficult to meet the cost of sports gear, namely, hurleys, football boots, hockey sticks, rugby balls and kits. Associations such as the FAI, GAA and IRFU are doing their best. A gap is being created between the children whose families can afford the cost of kits and those whose families cannot afford them, thus leading to a degree of resentment on the part of children. Also, a problem arises in regard to what the children who do not have the gear are to do. Many children who get involved in anti-social behaviour and all the problems generated in that regard do so because they have nothing else to do.
I have argued long and hard for local authorities, when dealing with planning applications, to ensure play facilities are provided in all housing estates, irrespective of the cost of homes therein. The quality of local authority housing is excellent as is evident from those I have seen in Kildare. They are of first-class quality. In the private sector, in particular, provision is not made for small play areas — these would not take from the overall estate — where children can play among their peers. This would help us to overcome some of the problems generated by anti-social behaviour.
The local club with which I am associated provides facilities for 30 to 40 children, who may also play on the local pitch. However, much more can be done. I believe that the cost factor is what prohibits many families providing the impetus for their children to get involved in social activities. Often, children do not get involved in school sports for the same reasons. Despite the availability of the back to school allowance, the cost to families of sending their children to school is great. Children should be given an opportunity to get involved in every aspect of social recreation. It is sad that some children are unable to do so because their families cannot afford kits and so on. This should not be the case.
I support the amendment from the perspective of providing an alternative to anti-social behaviour and of drug barons pulling children into their webs. One can read every day of the week in the newspapers about children as young as ten or 11 years being used as mules for drug barons. This is reflective of the experience of many of these children who were unable to get involved in the bigger picture of social and community life in their areas. I support the amendment.
No one could argue with the points being made in regard to child poverty. However, the progression of a second tier of income support is a complex issue. The National Economic and Social Council, NESC, and Dr. John Sweeney was unable to come up with a solution when it discussed the issue. What will support our thinking in this regard is the research being conducted in regard to family income supplement, FIS, in terms of low take-up and so on. As I indicated earlier, I intend to publish that research when I get it. This research will inform all of our debate on that matter.
Child poverty is an issue of concern to all of us. It was and is an issue of particular concern to Government. I accept the figures released yesterday show that children continue to be the age group most at risk of poverty. That is not to suggest 20% of children are living in poverty, rather, 20% are at risk of poverty. The consistent child poverty rate fell last year. Obviously, as more people will lose their jobs this year, more children will become dependent on social welfare and that figure will change again next year.
Deputy Lynch spoke about Angela’s Ashes. It was probably the rain rather than the family situation that she did not like. One of the most exciting and interesting initiatives of my career was the development of the national children’s strategy which gave children a voice for the first time. What was significant was how the children were able to look beyond the immediate, toys and so on, and to speak about their families in terms of their families being the most important people in their lives. They were able to articulate their feelings and so on. While there is a sensitivity there, I do not believe it is a sensitivity in terms of what is the biggest toy Santa can bring. Adults impose those values on children.
As an aside, I recently took my two nephews and niece to the new three-storey toy store in Ireland. While they were accompanied by their generous aunt, the two boys, despite the availability of every toy a child could want, chose a fire brigade and some lego, which are simple toys.
The Minister got off lightly.
Yes. I think they were boggled by the amount of toys in the store. We all know that Santa is a generous man, but he too is finding it difficult to come up with all the presents children want this year. We are trying to address the issue of child poverty in so many ways, including through child benefit, family income supplement and other payments such as the back to school allowance, which we have just discussed, and through encouraging people back into employment and targeting the particularly vulnerable groups such as lone parents. I cannot say we will within any short timeframe come up with proposals in regard to the second tier. There is no consensus on the issue.
I would genuinely be interested in hearing from Members on this issue. Of all the groups at risk of poverty — there have been significant declines in respect of poverty rates for the elderly — children remain the most vulnerable because there is so little they can do for themselves. Children are dependant on everybody else. I would genuinely like to hear from Members their views on the second tier issue. While it is included in the programme for Government, the lack of consensus makes it difficult to address. I cannot accept the amendment.
The second tier is included in the programme for Government but the lack of consensus makes it difficult. The Government was aware of the lack of consensus on this when it was included in the programme for Government, which makes one wonder what exactly goes on at the negotiations in regard to what is to be included in that programme. The programme for Government is like a book of fiction if this is what can be said after the event. The programme for Government contains commitments in terms of what is to be delivered in five years. I accept the first line states "in economic circumstances" but the Minister did not make that argument when responding to the amendment.
I appreciate the Minister's remarks in respect of the children's strategy and the report of the Ombudsman for Children last year, which dealt mostly with teenagers who also stated that their families are the most important people in their lives. That is good as it shows that overall children are happy. However, children not only know the circumstances in which they are living but are aware of the circumstances in which their peers are living, which is where the difficulty arises. The Minister, as former Minister for Education and Science, and everybody else, will accept that one can tell immediately when one enters a classroom what children are living in poverty, even if one knows nothing about their backgrounds, by the condition of their clothes, hair and skin, which is sad.
I will not press the amendment. However, if substantial progress has not been made on this following publication of the report on FIS, I will return to this issue. While there are many payments available in this area, the reality is that children remain the most vulnerable group and that these payments are not removing enough of them from that group at a rate we would like. It is important we introduce measures that target children who are most in need. Currently, this is not being done effectively.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 26 has been ruled out of order.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 20, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall, within 3 months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on eligibility criteria for the Early Childcare Supplement.
This amendment relates to the early child care supplement. The period for which it is given was reduced by six months in the budget and the reason given was that children aged five and a half are at school. As far as I am aware the age limit at which children start school has not changed since the early child care supplement was introduced. Therefore, that is an unusual argument to make.
In regard to the package of cutbacks introduced in this legislation and in other areas, while we can look to outside economic forces, to some degree, as contributing to the current position, the forces at work within Government during the past 11 years have also contributed. Responsibility must be taken for a failure to achieve as much as we could have when money was available and for the waste of money expended across all Departments during that period. Furthermore, the way decisions were made and announced to gain the maximum political goodwill, particularly in the run up to an election, has led to some of the problems we have.
The early child care supplement was introduced without any adequate research being undertaken in this area On six separate occasions during the previous Dáil Fine Gael asked the then Taoiseach and the then Ministers for Finance, Health and Children and Social and Family Affairs, the cost of this supplement and on each occasion a different answer was given. No homework was done before this supplement was introduced. It is as if it almost came out of the blue to the Government that because the supplement was linked to child benefit, it would have to be paid to parents whose children were living abroad. This provision was introduced to assist people in meeting the cost of child care in Ireland. That difficulty for families was the expensive cost of child care provision in Ireland. As a result of its introduction, Irish parents who still have to pay for expensive child care provision are the ones who are being penalised because not enough homework was done on the reaching of a decision on this matter in the first place.
The arguments in this respect are fairly straightforward. Which one of us as a politician looking for votes would argue against mothers being given extra money in whatever way? That was probably the reason this measure was introduced in the first instance. In the run up to the election, following which the early child care supplement was introduced, child care provision was the issue of concern to people we heard on the doorsteps. The Government introduced the early child care supplement.
A group met in Buswells today — they have gone now since 1.30 p.m. — regarding the national child care standards in Ireland. That group along with every other pre-school scheme in the country are lobbying on behalf of these groups. Most of them who are supposed to be self-sufficient at this stage simply cannot charge mothers — usually they are mothers on low income or mothers who are just finding their way in getting back to employment — the fees necessary to ensure that the schemes continue.
We are now facing the first downturn in the economy in many years. It is a serious one and nobody should dismiss it lightly. We are looking down the barrel of a gun and we do not know the half of it yet. No one in here is diminishing the scale of the crisis that is about to hit us and that has already hit some people. If the money allocated for this child care measure had been directed in a different fashion, our circumstances in terms of child care provision would now be different. The introduction of this measure was a political ploy deliberately designed to garner votes and, cleverly, it achieved that, but it did not give us the type of infrastructure we need in terms of child care provision.
We can all be a little bit cynical and practical at this stage and say that with the downturn in the economy and the amount of women and men coming out of employment there will not be as great a need for child care outside the home. The difficulty with that philosophy is that we all know that children need the interaction of other children and, in most cases, the type of help and preparation provided outside the home to get them ready for school and to enable them attain their full potential within the education system. A cutback is proposed in the moneys that were to be distributed to parents of young children. If we had a proper debate on this matter in the first instance, we would have quickly realised that this measure would not achieve what it was intended to achieve, namely, to increase the number of child care places or to help parents provide the type of child care they wanted for their children.
We are really arguing about pulling out the plug when we should have been talking, in the first instance, about turning off the tap. I support the amendment, but we should have had a clearer and fuller debate about this matter before this supplement was introduced.
I support the amendment. Child care is one of the areas of Government failure. I do not merely throw that comment across the floor to score a political point. The critical issue for families is for them to secure a reduction in their child care costs, as this cost is equivalent to a second mortgage. The difficulty is to find a way to achieve a reduction in this cost. There are a number of options available to the Government. It should perhaps have invested in facilities and made those available to people to run child care facilities. There were many more imaginative approaches that could have been taken outside, apart even from CE schemes, that would have helped facilitate the reduction of child care costs and the provision to parents of far greater access to child care.
There is more to the issue than just child care. I agree with the comment of the previous speaker, Deputy Lynch, on exposing a child to interaction with his or her peers, which is important, but the lack of child care facilities is preventing enterprise, blocking talent in the home and hindering people who could otherwise become entrepreneurs and provide significant job opportunities to society. It is unfortunate that those people are being hindered in that way.
Society has changed as a result of the dispersal of people from Dublin and other cities throughout the State to areas such as my own in County Louth or the adjoining counties of Meath and so on. The extended family support, with which we are all familiar, is no longer available to people to allow them utilise that traditional source of child care, which very often was the parents or the grandparents of the householders. That is a major difficulty for people trying to deal with this important matter.
I do not heap responsibility for that on the Minster's shoulders. That is not my intention. It is a Government failure that the critical area of not only our society's development but our economic development was blind-sided and major opportunities were missed. I look forward to the day when a Government, sooner rather than later, will recognise the importance of the issue and deal with it comprehensively because a comprehensive impact is required to lessen the burden I have described. I support the amendment.
The early child care supplement was introduced to support people paying for child care but at the same time the Government had to recognise those people who were looking after their children in their own home, which is the reason the payment was made available to everybody and not, as stated in the Fine Gael proposal, for child care expenses. That would only be for people most likely working outside the home. Because it is a family payment under EU rules, it must be paid to people whose children are living abroad.
We can sometimes lose perspective on this issue. It is only 1% of the total budget that is paid to children living abroad. Those rules worked in our favour a number of years ago when Irish men worked in the United Kingdom. Their families were living here but child benefit in the UK was much better than it was here and Irish families benefited. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the money is going the other way. That is an aside.
In the context of having to make savings in all Departments, the Office of the Minister for Children determined this was an area where one could make savings but still meet the criteria originally behind it, because it was designed to support people in those years before a child was in full-time school. The age of six was chosen because that is the compulsory school age but the vast majority of children are in school by the time they are five and a half. Throughout the country most children are in school by the time they are four or four and a half, so it is still meeting that need for those children. The amount is €1,100 per year. Families will continue to get €6,000 for that period up to the time when a child reaches the age of five and a half.
The other change that was introduced related to not paying the money on a quarterly basis. We discussed the matter last night. That is utterly reasonable. One gets the payment from the time the child is born until he or she is five and a half and not for the couple of months before and after. I accept that should not have been put into the scheme in the first place, but it was done in an effort to recognise the pressures on families and to be as generous as possible in that regard. It was an additional family payment to support all parents in trying to rear their children, especially in those expensive years when child care is involved. At least by making the savings in the way we have done, by cutting the age back to five and a half, we recognise that children are in primary school full time by the age of five and a half.
The problem was child care and the solution did not deal with that for many people. The vouched system to which the Minister referred would at least have been for the cost of child care. People within the home who are caring for their children would still have been able to avail of it and would like to have been able to avail of it, so the vouched system would have worked for everyone. Most people would still like the opportunity, be it only to go out to meet other people and to socialise or to attend a part-time course or whatever else. People would have liked to have been able to avail of that and it would have got over the need to have the money paying for child care in other countries where the costs are negligible compared to what we are paying in Ireland.
The measure was introduced in a rushed fashion even though there were alternatives. The Minister's argument about the age of five and a half is contradictory because she admitted that most children have started school by the age of four and a half so if she really believed in her argument she would probably have changed it to four and a half. The vast majority of children have started school by four and a half and they have certainly started by five. However, I do not ask the Minister to cut it back further.
Mistakes were made when the measure was introduced and that is why the Minister has to make cuts at this point. It may be only 1%, as the Minister indicated, but I am not sure that is the exact figure. An amount of €8 million is meeting the cost of child care abroad. The Minister supplied figures yesterday for fraudulent claims of child benefit and this issue is linked because there are fraudulent claims in regard to this payment also and that is costing the taxpayer on the double. That issue needs to be addressed.
The Deputy is correct in so far as fraud control and abuse is concerned. Where we find that people are defrauding the State by claiming for child benefit and there is a knock-on effect, obviously both payments are stopped and efforts are made to try to recoup the money. We will continue to do that.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 20, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
23.—Where a recipient of fuel allowance expresses a preference for the payment of the sums due to him or her by way of two lump sums, it shall be lawful for the Minister to make such payment by way of two lump sums.
The thinking behind the amendment is based on the fact that most local authorities have installed oil-fired central heating in many homes and the cost of fuel. A senior citizen will have a huge bill once or twice a year. If the amendment is accepted it would mean they would be able to meet the cost of a fill of oil or to fill the shed with turf or other fuel such as timber. Currently, the fuel allowance is part and parcel of the main social welfare payment. It is more and more difficult for senior citizens to meet the cost of filling an oil tank, for example. The cost of a tank of oil is in excess of €500. That is a huge amount of money for a senior citizen to come up with twice or even three times a year depending on the size of the house. If lump sum payments could be made at specific times a person could arrange to fill their oil tank or whatever fuel source they wished.
The amendment is simple and would benefit senior citizens. The fuel allowance has always been considered of importance to older people to ensure they can afford to have sufficient heat in their homes during the winter months. Up to now people generally had back burners and one could buy a bag of coal or sticks every week when a person came to the house selling fuel and the money was available to pay for that. Because local authorities have installed oil-fired central heating the situation has changed and a person is required to have a lump sum to pay for a fill of oil. It is very difficult to have a large amount of money available, irrespective of how prudent a person is with his or her social welfare payments. In some instances people seek help from community welfare officers but it is unlikely that they would get a positive reply given that they are in receipt of a fuel allowance.
This is a simple change that will not put any extra cost on the Exchequer but it would be of great benefit to senior citizens whose lives have changed for the better through the welcome provision of central heating in local authority houses. In general, a lump sum payment would be of benefit even for senior citizens who do not have central heating systems. The senior citizens to whom I have spoken are delighted with the changeover to central heating but they have a problem meeting the cost of a fill of oil. They would welcome a lump sum payment twice a year, as that would allow them to get a fill of oil and they would not have any problem heating their homes for the rest of the year.
By accepting the amendment the Minister would make the lives of those in receipt of the payment easier and that would be to the benefit of everyone.
I support the amendment. I will be brief because Deputy Wall has outlined what needs to be said. We were told at a recent committee meeting that a survey was carried out by the Department and a majority of recipients wanted the fuel allowance to continue to be paid on a weekly basis. Deputy Shortall was mindful of that, which is why she used the phrase, "Where a recipient of fuel allowance expresses a preference". There is a substantial and growing minority who would prefer to have the fuel allowance paid in two lump sums. Age Action Ireland conducted research that is more recent than the Department's that showed there is a substantial minority who would prefer two lump sum payments because of the type of heating system they have. This is an administrative issue. It will not cost any more money and it would make life easier for many people. A substantial number of people are not getting enough money in social welfare payments per week to allow them to put money aside to get a fill of oil. It puts them at an enormous disadvantage and that is why many are not purchasing it. If one enters their houses, one will discover a two-bar electric radiator plugged in to heat the home. This is not a solution, particularly for the elderly. This amendment is extremely important and I hope the Minister will accept it. I have not had much luck in that respect thus far.
The fuel allowance scheme is constructive and excellent, which I appreciate. The additional allowance made available this year, while not enough, is welcome. However, time has moved on. To be fair to local authorities, they are installing central heating systems in an increasing number of homes. They are working their way through their stock at a more reasonable rate than that of recent years and I acknowledge their progress in this regard.
The amendment, which I welcome and support strongly, offers a very practical solution. We filled our almost-empty tank at home the week before last and it cost €580. If anyone believes this was a rip-off, he or she should let me know. People in receipt of fuel allowance are unlikely to be able to raise such a sum without going to a moneylender or another lender. Other speakers made the point that there is no evidence the amendment will cost the Exchequer an extra cent and I agree with them. If there is a difficulty with the two-payment system, the Minister should let us know. It seems straightforward to me.
A growing number of people are using oil-fired central heating because of growing refuse charges. The cost of disposing of ash from coal and timber fires is significant and increasing. I warmly support the amendment and hope the Minister will accept it.
It is not just pensioners who benefit from the scheme; approximately 300,000 people benefit from the allowance, at a cost of €170 million. One should also consider those who benefit from the household benefits, which allow them to obtain electricity or gas units. The total value of the fuel allowance and the household packages amounts to between €1,200 and €1,300 per annum, depending on whether the recipient lives in a smokeless fuel area. The allowance represents a significant help towards meeting the cost of fuel.
One difficulty that arises is that one could only make the two payments to somebody in receipt a long-term social welfare payment.
It would be a good start.
We must consider the matter in respect of pensions. In this regard, it is some time since the research was done, which I accept. Central heating systems have been installed in many local authority houses in particular. Many of the systems use gas, which, unlike oil, is paid for on a monthly basis.
Many parts of the country have no gas.
I realise that.
Despite all the difficulties associated with budgeting this year, I was glad to be able to extend the fuel allowance period by two weeks to 32 weeks. People certainly welcomed this move. The increase of €2 brings the total to €23.90 in a smokeless fuel area and this is a significant contribution.
I did not have time to consider the proposal in respect of this Bill but I will consult the groups representing the elderly with a view to determining whether they recommend strongly its introduction in next year's Bill. I will determine whether it can be done in a practical way.
If the amendment were accepted, the purchaser would be able to seek the best bargain from the oil suppliers. This would be a wonderful option and would allow the buyer to obtain fuel at the right price. If the Minister is willing to consider the proposal in next year's social welfare Bill, I will not press the amendment. If not, or if she is saying she will consider it just for the sake of it, I will need to press it.
I will certainly consult the groups that have represented the elderly over the years. The issue will arise as to whether certain individuals should be given a lump sum of €300 or €400 in September, and another after Christmas. It would be up to the groups to advise on whether this is best for some particularly vulnerable individuals. We must weigh up the pros and cons.
One matter that would have to be considered is administration. At present, the system is very easy to administer because one just attaches the payment to the book. We would not want an undue administrative cost associated with a scheme from which only a small number would benefit. That is why I need time to consider the matter properly over the coming months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 20, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"23.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need to increase the Living Alone Allowance.
This is a very important amendment from the Labour Party's perspective because the most vulnerable are those who are living alone. Unfortunately I was not present yesterday when the clawback of the rent subsidy was discussed. Those living alone, especially senior citizens, will really suffer because of it. They may go to the post office on 1 January 2009 and receive a new book stating they have received an increase of €6.95 but, on the same day, they will receive a document from the HSE stating their rent has increased by €5. I cannot believe the Minster did this. It is unbelievable and the most horrendous act of any in this area. We have discussed landlords, etc., at length and know from visiting the individuals in question that they are the poorest of the poor, yet the clawback was made. There was no logic to it and it was mean and unacceptable. The clawback, in so far as it will affect individuals living alone and senior citizens, will come back to haunt us.
I heard the Minister state rent did not increase in four years. So what? If it has not increased, the Minister should put in place a mechanism whereby the most desirable scheme will be realised over the coming four years. The taking of €5 from individuals in one fell swoop was the worst of all the 32 cuts. It represents a false dawn for those affected. When they get the book into their hands, they will expect to receive the money indicated therein. On the following day, they will see that €5 of the rent subsidy has been clawed back. There is an urgent need to consider the position of those living alone. There is no doubt but that they are the most vulnerable, regardless of age or circumstances. Some of them are in horrendous circumstances due to rogue landlords, who, in many instances, have them in fear of seeking alternative accommodation. The landlords say they will not return the tenants' deposits and that they will take cases on foot of the tenants doing this, that and the other.
This amendment is the most important of all. I ask the Minister to consider, when reviewing the budget, the introduction of some mechanism to address the clawback, although it may not be possible by accepting my amendment. It was a horrendous act to do that to senior citizens, giving them the idea they would get €7 when, in real terms, they will get €2. I ask the Minister to look at this. These are the most vulnerable people in society. They visit me in my clinics, or I visit them and see the conditions in which they live. There is a need to increase the living alone allowance and this issue is tied in with the previous amendment on the fuel allowance. Both are important to the people concerned. It is vitally important that they have a satisfactory living, one that is acceptable to all of us. None of us wishes to see people come under pressure or to see a situation where the people who are in receipt of these payments now find it difficult to survive.
This amendment offers a way to overcome that. I ask the Minister to consider it, and to look at the clawback in respect of the increase in the rent subsidy. It is wrong to do this. Local government rules contain a clause whereby nobody in local authority housing is allowed suffer that situation. I am not sure about the details, but a circular letter was sent by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to local authorities in 2004, in which he gave a directive that they could not take any more than 15% of any social welfare rise for rents. This was especially the case for senior citizens.
I cannot understand how the Minister agreed to take 60% or 70% from senior citizens in this instance. This is not acceptable given the cost of living and all the rises in electricity, gas, fuel and transport. Everything has gone up and yet the Minister hammered those people. She hammered the senior citizens and those who are least well off in society by clawing back this payment from them. In a throwaway remark that I happened to hear one night, the Minister said the payment had not risen in four years. It is nobody's fault other than the Government's that it had not risen during that time. If it had risen year by year, the Minister would have conformed to the local authority directive that only 15% of the rise should be taken back.
I ask the Minister to consider the living alone allowance. I ask her to reflect on the clawback in the rent subsidy increase and make it possible for the person living alone, man or woman, in whatever circumstances, to have his or her standard of living improve to a level acceptable to us all.
When a person finds himself or herself in a position to be eligible for the living alone allowance, the reality is that the only expense in the house that lessens is that of clothes and perhaps, in a small way, of food. Every other household bill remains the same as if two people were in the house. This has been brought home to me time and again by people who find themselves in this position. Their income has reduced because now only one payment comes in and they find it impossible. The cost of everything, oil, insurance, car, etc., must be met by a single person. It is very difficult and we must examine the situation.
I thought the Minister was considering this issue prior to the budget but that does not appear to be the case. I support the amendment because I believe this difficulty must be addressed. It has not been addressed in many years.
I concur with what the previous two speakers said. One can sit down and do the simple mathematics here, taking the case of a couple, both on old age pensions. One can see that, in comparison to somebody on a pension living alone, their circumstances are astronomically better. Nobody suggests for one minute that where there is a couple living together on a pension they should suffer in any way. If there is one group, apart from children, in danger of living in consistent poverty, it is people who rely on State benefit and live alone. As Deputy Enright rightly said, the cost of heating one's accommodation is the same, repairs and maintenance are the same and the cost of food is the same. There are all the expenses of a household but on a very limited income. The living alone allowance is the way to deal with this. That way, no other group is detrimentally affected.
We must take a serious look at this. It is not right to allow this group of people to suffer. They have been there all along and it is ten years since this allowance was increased. It is very worrying that the Minister has allowed this situation to happen. The allowance is the mechanism to treat it. I urge the Minister to take a serious look at this and to accept the amendment.
It has been policy for a number of years in my Department not to increase the living alone allowance but to put all the increases into primary payments so that all pensioners benefit. I fully accept that a person who suddenly finds himself or herself in the position of living alone has all the expenses as were outlined. The house does not become any smaller and must be heated etc. The policy has been to try to increase all the payments.
Deputy Enright is correct that I was sympathetic to this issue prior to the budget. I made the unusual statement last week on Committee Stage that if I had received more money, or less money, in the budget package I might have been able to do something about this. If I had received less money, I would have targeted fuel and living alone allowances. If I had more money, I might have been able to provide the increase we gave, the €7 in the pension, plus the living alone allowance. It fell the way it did.
Despite the fact that this has been policy over the past number of years, I have a certain sympathy for people who find themselves living alone, particularly those on a very limited income. It just was not possible to deal with the matter this year and there will be many hurdles to get over in the future in this regard.
Poverty statistics show clearly that people living alone are much more at risk, whether they are of working age, lone parents or pensioners. Arguments could be made in favour of this allowance. However, given the amount in the budget this year, and in order to try to give everybody increases of 3.5%, it was not possible to put the money into the living alone allowance. The 3.5% increase will now be substantially ahead of inflation next year, given the way inflation figures are going.
With regard to Deputy Wall's point about the rent supplement, it is true the rent supplement has not been increased. The personal contribution has not been increased in four years but in that time social welfare payments increased by €70. It was always the intention that the rent supplement would be about 10% of the basic social welfare payment and it is important to try to catch up with it.
If the people in question were to go into a council house, apartment or flat in the morning, they would end up on the lowest line of the differential rate, at €26 or more, in Dublin or Limerick, for instance and would have to take an immediate hike. With the pressure we are putting on councils to house people it would be an even bigger burden for them to have a very big increase. The aim is to try to bring the basic minimum contribution that a person on rent supplement pays in line with the differential.
I accept the point that smaller steps might have been easier over the past few years but, for different reasons, and because money was more flúirseach——
It was not coming.
——it was not done at that stage. It is still reasonable to expect that people should pay that minimum amount of money towards the very substantial supplement they receive.
I accept that and that there is a differential between a person in a local authority, and one on rent subsidy but I cannot accept that the clawback should be such a high percentage of the increase in social welfare payment. I have no problem that the Minister should try to bring this in line, raising it over a period of time. I accept that should be the way. However, the fact that 60% or 70% is being taken back in one fell swoop, because people expect they will get €7 of an increase, is a big problem. I guarantee that the people who are expecting that do not anticipate a second whammy, namely, that they will have to pay €5 extra when the cheque arrives from the community welfare officer.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 32, inclusive, are related, and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 20, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:
"23.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of relaxing the qualifying criteria for Back to Education Allowance so that unemployed persons can claim it within three months of the start of their claim.
This relates to the ever-increasing numbers on the live register. The late Deputy Séamus Brennan, God rest him, as former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, accepted that the period of time at that stage, 15 months — which had come about as one of the savage cuts implemented by the present Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Coughlan — was too long and he brought it back to 12 months. At that time Deputy Willie Penrose was calling for it to be nine months but the then Minister, former Deputy Brennan, was not in a position to do that because of the budgetary constraints. However, times have changed dramatically, and I believe this is an opportunity for the Minister to look at this. Twelve months is too long a period to be on social welfare payments before a person may go back to education. The first time a person may contemplate going back to education is when or she is laid off from work, and has to make a decision. If he or she decides on going back to education, naturally, he or she wants to start as soon as possible.
However, the 12 month period is far too long. We believe it should only be three months. There is a decrease in the numbers entering third level and the universities still have places to fill. Given the world situation, there may be a decrease in the numbers of foreign students coming here, and given all the statements from the university presidents as regards funding costs etc., places are available in all faculties.
A good friend finally got into the system after the frustrations of having to wait for more than a year. He is now pursuing a master's degree course having successfully taken his primary degree. However, he had to suffer the frustration of waiting for a year before he could start, which is far too long. We now have an opportunity to act, bearing in mind the plight of so many who have lost their employment, and who must now make a decision as regards further education. It must be remembered that many of those now unemployed include people who dropped out of university and even second level, to avail of the opportunity to earn high wages when the construction industry was at its height. We now have the opposite situation, and many of those would be willing, capable and able to move onto third level, if given the opportunity. However, a 12-month wait is far too long, and now is an ideal time to reactivate educational opportunities for these people, and for that reason the Minister should accept this amendment.
This issue has been debated back and forth, at Question Time and during earlier Stages of this Bill. The Minister acknowledges that the allowance is important, and yet there have been no changes in this year's budget that might make it easier for people to qualify. I am particularly concerned about two categories in this regard. First, in order to enter third level education, people have to be unemployed and must be on the live register for a year. The second category refers to people on the minimum wage. Both categories are important, but having failed to persuade the Minister with regard to the first, I suspect it will be virtually impossible to persuade her of the value of the second. I cannot ignore the fact that people with ability in low paid jobs should be given the opportunity to avail of this as well, but today I shall concentrate on the plight of the unemployed in this regard.
This is extremely important, not only in terms of giving people a second chance but also providing many with their first opportunity of entering third level education. When we have discussed this on a number of occasions recently, the Minister has always replied to the effect that people who are made redundant can get it, as can those in a national education action plan, NEAP, area. However, of the 9,796 participating in 2008, those who got statutory redundancy amounted to 113 and those in NEAP areas came to 75. Those figures were not used in all the time we have been discussing this issue. It means in effect that the number qualifying for the back to education allowance under statutory redundancy and NEAP guidelines is less than 200. It makes a nonsense of the replies we have received to date. They were factually correct, but the reality is that significantly more people are not getting the back to education allowance.
I do not know about other Members, but I receive more queries regarding third level than second level because of the fact that the waiting period is a year. The Minister has said on "Prime Time", in the House and so on that the numbers participating are increasing, which is the case. However, that increase is at second level. When one looks at the figures for 2007-08, the numbers who have used the back to education allowance to access third level have dropped by more than 100 on the previous year. Therefore the back to education allowance is not working, particularly for people who want to go to third level, and it is very difficult to qualify.
I made the point before that if a person is unemployed, having been laid off in October, he or she will not be eligible by the following October, not having been on social welfare for 12 months. Effectively, he or she is waiting almost two years, certainly 23 months, before availing of the allowance, in those circumstances. A change to this makes common sense from the perspective of giving people an opportunity to go to third level. It also makes sense because all it will cost the Exchequer more per person per year is the €500 extra payment he or she gets under this allowance. I therefore urge the Minister to accept these amendments and make a change in this regard because it is an extremely important issue.
With regard to Deputy Shortall's amendment No. 31, will the Minister outline the criteria for the type of employment considered for the back to work allowance? How is it assessed and decided and what types of payments are made for what types of work? Is it a question of getting into a job or are ancillary costs taken into account regarding such work?
It is regrettable we only have ten minutes left, because we could have done with an extra two days, at least. The Minister's colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, continually mentions a high knowledge economy, as do the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach. We have an opportunity with amendment No. 30 to do this and to facilitate people getting back into education, or in some cases to attend third level for the first time.
The amazing thing about the amendment is that it is cost neutral as the Exchequer would be making the payment in any event, whether jobseekers allowance or benefit. Therefore, I hope the Minister can explain the difficulty in terms of bringing the qualifying time back to the three-month period. Now that the number of unemployed people is increasing — currently 275,000 plus and I heard Fr. Seán Healy say this morning the number could reach 400,000 by late next year — surely they would be better off if they were gainfully employed in education rather than seeking employment that, in the majority of cases, will not be available.
I support the amendments on the back to education allowance. I urge the Minister to be conscious that many young people who are now unemployed left the education scene just before or after their leaving certificate, lured into employment by the attractive incomes and salaries available in the building industry and other manufacturing industries with opportunities for overtime. Many of these people are now unemployed, increasing numbers of them having become unemployed during the past six months.
The Minister must, as a result of the many courses available currently and the many places unfilled within the education system at third level, recognise the opportunity available to her to shorten the period for which people must be out of work before they can avail of the back to education allowance. If we are serious and determined to ensure that as many people as possible can avail of the opportunity to improve and upskill, why create a hindrance to allowing them back into education? I support the amendments wholeheartedly. I urge the Minister to reconsider the criteria and to consider including distance learning as an option for the future.
I support the amendments. More people are looking to return to college because of the level of unemployment and their awareness of the need to upgrade their skills and more inquiries are being made in our offices about the back to education allowance. In the current climate, it makes sense to facilitate those who wish to return to third level education in the hope of increasing their skills and their employment prospects, rather than forcing them to remain out of work and draw social welfare or the jobseekers allowance in order to be eligible for the back to education allowance.
The loss of income is substantial if a person goes off the jobseekers allowance. A person on a low income wishing to return to education is only entitled to €4,103 per year in educational support, whereas a person with a social welfare background is entitled to €25,266 a year. Over a three-year degree course, this amounts to a €63,489 disparity in essential support. This anomaly limits the incentive for low-paid workers to return to full-time third level education to improve their skills and future job prospects. Essentially, people who want to escape the low-paid trap are penalised for working. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the amendments.
This is one of the common sense amendments that has been tabled to the Bill. The amendment must work out cost neutral. Even if it was not cost neutral, the Minister would still have to pay the allowance in the future to people interested in returning to education, whether at second or third level. The money must be paid anyway. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Government will continue to allow people become entrenched in long-term employment when the solution is there. Now that we expect to see the type of savings in FÁS that we should have seen over the past eight years, why not spend those savings on the people on whom it should have been spent?
Deputy Tuffy informed us recently that the universities had spare capacity of 12,000 places after all offers were made in October. The universities are crying out for funding and we now have a redundant workforce crying out for education. Why not marry one with the other? It is incomprehensible for the Minister not to do this as it is a common sense proposal. I appeal to the Minister to take this suggestion on board. Let us upskill the workforce as FÁS puts it so that we ensure that when the upturn comes, as it will, we will have a workforce prepared for it.
As Deputies know, I am usually committed to the back to education concept for everybody, particularly those who are most vulnerable and those on social welfare. One of the few positive features of the live register published yesterday was the 24% increase in the number of people availing of back to education provisions. The fact there may be more at second level rather than third level is reflective of the vulnerability of that particular group.
It is reflective of the fact it is a six-month rather than a 12-month requirement.
Deputies should be aware that if these people start at second level, they will be able to continue on to third level. The provisions allow them greater opportunities because they are the group most likely to remain unemployed, particularly if they do not even have a leaving certificate.
The Minister is ignoring the issue.
I do not accept the criteria should be reduced to three months. I have said this before, but it is significant. This is a scheme that is in place to support people who are on social welfare. If we changed the provisions, we could get young people finishing their leaving certificate in June and signing on for three months and getting €200 a week despite the fact they fully intended to go on to third level education. This must be avoided.
It does not. The Minister is being disingenuous.
This must be a scheme that is designed to support people on social welfare. We must obviously consider people in the context of those getting statutory redundancy. Few enough have got statutory redundancy, but, unfortunately, as numbers increase, we will draw their attention to the fact that they are the people who can qualify immediately.
Many people will lose jobs and not get statutory redundancy.
People on the national employment action plan also have a shorter timeframe. I am working with my colleagues, the Ministers for Education and Science and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with regard to FÁS and the spare capacity in the institutes of technology, universities and further education courses to see how we can support these people. It can be done through FÁS and through training or through the back to education allowance. We are actively working on this to see how we can facilitate the maximum number of people possible.
The scheme is not cost neutral. Last year, it cost €62 million and it will cost more this year and next as, hopefully, many more people will be on the scheme. People going on the scheme get the maximum rate of the allowance. Therefore, a person on half rate jobseekers allowance for some reason, such as working part-time, will get the maximum rate as soon as he or she qualifies for back to education allowance, along with the book allowance, etc. As late as this morning, I spoke with officials about ensuring that nobody is in any way disadvantaged by virtue of the changes in the criteria for the jobseekers benefit. We have seen to that to ensure the window that has always been allowed will continue to be allowed. My aim and intention are to ensure we encourage as many people as possible, particularly those becoming unemployed, to avail of the back to education scheme.
I will keep the situation under review over the next few months to see how we can support these people.
As it is now 3.30 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Andrews, Chris.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Behan, Joe.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Áine.
- Brady, Cyprian.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Browne, John.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Carey, Pat.
- Collins, Niall.
- Conlon, Margaret.
- Connick, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Michael.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Flynn, Beverley.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Harney, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kennedy, Michael.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Brien, Darragh.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Hanlon, Rory.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Rourke, Mary.
- O’Sullivan, Christy.
- Power, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Mary.
- White, Mary Alexandra.
Níl
- Bannon, James.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Ulick.
- Carey, Joe.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Coonan, Noel J.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Creighton, Lucinda.
- D’Arcy, Michael.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Feighan, Frank.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Flanagan, Terence.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lynch, Ciarán.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McEntee, Shane.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Donnell, Kieran.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Mahony, John.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Reilly, James.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sherlock, Seán.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Tuffy, Joanna.
- Upton, Mary.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Pat Carey and Niall Blaney; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
The Bill will now be sent to the Seanad.