Charlie McConalogue
Ceist:105. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans for community employment schemes in budget 2013; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49883/12]
Other Questions
Community Employment Schemes Funding
Community employment, CE, is the largest employment programme administered by the Department of Social Protection and forms an important pillar of the strategy to return those who are long-term unemployed to the open labour market. There are currently 23,300 places, including about 1,400 supervisory positions, available on CE and the revised budget for 2012 is about €340 million. There has been no reduction in the number of CE places or in the number of supervisors for 2012. The programme addresses the multiple needs of people who are often far from ready for employment and experiencing a range of social and economic problems by operating within local and community contexts and responding to needs identified by a variety of community groups.
Earlier this year, a financial review of individual CE schemes was undertaken by local staff in the Department. This was a valuable exercise which resulted in an increased understanding and improved communication between the parties involved. I want to take the opportunity to thank all of the scheme sponsors for their co-operation with this review and for implementing the necessary changes arising from it. So far, savings have been achieved in audit and insurance costs. There has been a refocusing on the importance of the programme in the lives of individual jobseekers and the supports the CE schemes give to local communities. The Department is committed to reforming CE to ensure delivery of service, value for money and the progression of individuals under the programme. The broad policy direction for CE in 2013 and future years will be based on the main action points coming from the CE financial review which was recently published by the Department. These include restructuring smaller schemes into more cost-effective units of provision. This will involve bringing together similar types of scheme and strengthening the viability of schemes, particularly in rural communities. For sponsoring organisations that have a number of CE schemes, it will involve amalgamating these into larger entities, thus saving on operational costs such as audit fees. I am also considering having schemes approved on a multi-annual basis instead of on an annual basis, as is the current practice.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
This will give an opportunity for schemes to have more focused actions in extended timeframes, which will enhance their capacity to meet the objectives of CE.
In addition, the Department is currently finalising a review of employment support schemes, which includes CE. This will provide a broader perspective on how such schemes contribute to the Department’s activation policy and how this can best be maximised.
The question to which we want to know the answer is whether the funding for CE schemes will be maintained this year. It was slashed last year, as the Minister is aware, and she is telling us that has not made any difference. A good deal of money must have been wasted on CE schemes in the preceding years because, as I recall, the cut last year was significant, yet she is telling us it made no difference. I am informed by people in the Limerick region that the operations budget allows insurance costs of €50 per person, which adds up to €850 for 17 people. That is grossly inadequate, and the sponsors must come up with the balance, which in many cases they cannot do. I am also informed that in the Limerick region the training budget, which can only be used for accredited training, is approximately €250 per individual. One would get very little training for €250. The people on the ground tell me the life is literally being squeezed out of the system and the situation has deteriorated markedly as a result of last year's cuts. Is the Minister conscious of the situation on the ground? Will she agree that these cuts are something of a false economy, because many of the services that will be squeezed out of existence as a result of these cuts will have to be taken up by the State for a far higher price?
I am happy to say I have had opportunities to personally visit CE schemes in most parts of the country and have had lengthy discussions with scheme sponsors and the people working on different schemes to see for myself the kind of work being done in communities throughout the country. I am more convinced than ever that CE has an important role to play in communities in providing the range and type of services it provides but also in providing a good-quality experience for the person who is on CE.
The review has thrown up a number of interesting points. I was surprised by the extent of administration involved in CE schemes, with almost 1,000 different companies carrying separate audit fees, and there is the issue of insurance, to which the Deputy referred.
My Department has been absolutely right in identifying these areas of very large and expensive administrative structures through very large numbers of companies and saving on those kinds of overheads. It is appropriate that my Department has been getting more favourable costings for insurance. It has been looking at amalgamating schemes which may be adjacent to each other in a particular area or town. It has also been working on future budgeting patterns for the schemes such as multi-annual budgeting which would normally be the case in organisations which are doing this kind of developmental work and supplying services to the local population.
Thank you, Minister.
I am confident the future of community employment schemes is very strong and positive and that the Government will remain committed to funding them while making provision for savings and reforms in them which will cut down on unnecessary duplication of administration. This may, unfortunately, have crept into the schemes during Deputy O’Dea’s time in power.
We should have Question Time on social protection more often because we have achieved much today. We have discovered that child benefit is increasing rather than reducing. We have learned that community employment schemes are thriving despite their funding being slashed. We have learned that delays in social welfare payments are reducing rather than increasing every day. We even learned Sinn Féin supports private landlords. Even I do not believe that.
I did not even know that one.
Can we have a question, please?
There is a commitment in the programme for Government for the Pathways to Work proposals to target realigning one third of community employment schemes towards labour market activation measures. What is the position on this? There is also a commitment, incidentally, in the Fine Gael election manifesto - a historic document which will no doubt be preserved in the archives in Dublin Castle or someplace - which states on the specific expansion of 5,000 community employment schemes:
This will offer community employment places to people currently on the live register. We will reform community employment to make it more market-orientated with many more placements in private sector businesses. With this aim in mind, we will cut the length of the standard community employment scheme to six months, except for specific progression purposes, and strengthen the programme with regard to job search support.
What has happened to this commitment?
The Minister agrees the community employment schemes are of great benefit to those who work in them, serve the people well and provide a significant social dividend. With much of the cost-saving measures that the Government is trying to implement like local government reform, it is more about saving money than actually reforming. I have had several schemes in Wexford on to me stating they really could not suffer another cut in funding. They now have to fund-raise to survive. One cannot put a price on the social dividend that community projects like this provide for the State. It would be a false economy on the part of the Government to cut the schemes’ funding in the upcoming budget. Not only would it be socially damaging but it would also be economically damaging in the long term. It is important the Minister does not allow any cuts to the schemes.
Are there any plans to increase the numbers participating in community employment schemes? Separate to this, is the Minister aware the changes brought about last year excluded two categories from the schemes? In figures the Minister gave me last week in a reply to a parliamentary question, I note there are now 712 fewer people participating in schemes at this stage than there was last year. Of those, there is a substantial drop, 24%, in those in receipt of disability allowance and a 32% drop in those receiving the one-parent family allowance.
Are there any plans to reverse this? Are there any plans to deal with discrimination or the effects of the exclusion of those categories of people who were able to use the scheme to come out of the poverty trap and gain access to vital training?
The other question relates to the extensions. They do not apply to a community employment scheme for one year. This is of no use to many of the participants. They do not have full access to the training courses required because they may take longer than 12 months.
I regret that the facts are inconvenient for Deputy O'Dea. As a consequence of the review, many community employment schemes have applied for additional places. This is a strong sign of how much the services provided by the schemes are in demand. In the context of the budget, this is something I will be discussing with my colleagues.
Since I became Minister, I have set up two additional opportunities which are available for those who have unfortunately become unemployed. The first is the national JobBridge internship programme, which currently has more than 5,000 participants, with a further 5,000 having completed the programme. This is available to the private sector and to the public, voluntary and community sectors and it has been highly successful. A recent independent report by Indecon indicated that approximately 50% of the people who have completed an internship have gone on to obtain further employment. The second is the creation of local development networks, which have been popular with local partnerships such as Leader programme companies. More than 5,000 Tús places have been provided. It is a one-year programme which has proven most popular and beneficial to the areas in which it has operated. I hope we will be able to provide more activation places, but this is something I must negotiate with my colleagues in the Department of Finance. It will be especially helpful for people who have unfortunately ended up unemployed long-term because of the recession. It is important to create as many opportunities and pathways as possible to allow them to get a fresh start, whether in their areas of expertise or experience or in completely new areas. The Government has set out to do this.
Rent Supplement Scheme Payments
John Halligan
Ceist:106. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will examine the cases of persons (details supplied) in relation to community welfare offices having flexibility in making payments. [49921/12]
Seán Fleming
Ceist:108. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on whether reductions in rent supplement has led to an increase in homelessness; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49901/12]
Thomas Pringle
Ceist:125. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will examine the cases of persons (details supplied) in relation to community welfare offices having flexibility in making payments. [49920/12]
Richard Boyd Barrett
Ceist:131. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will respond to evidence that new rent allowance limits are resulting in tenants becoming homeless and or living in overcrowded situations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49916/12]
John Halligan
Ceist:141. Deputy John Halligan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will respond to evidence that new rent allowance limits are resulting in tenants becoming homeless and or living in overcrowded situations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [49917/12]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 106, 108, 125, 131 and 141 together.
There are currently approximately 89,000 persons in receipt of rent supplement, for which the Government has provided €436 million in 2012. Revised rent limits are applicable to new rent supplement tenancies from January 2012 and existing tenancies on review. These limits were set up after an analysis of the most up-to-date market data available. Special provisions can be made in exceptional circumstances, including, for example, people with disabilities in specially adapted accommodation or homeless persons.
With regard to the specific case referred to by Deputies Halligan and Pringle, I understand the person concerned contacted the Department regarding his entitlement to rent supplement on 7 November 2012. According to the information available to the Department, the person is not known to be homeless, nor is he known to be residing in a homeless unit in the Dún Laoghaire area. I presume the earlier reference to evidence refers to the recently published report by Focus Ireland, Out of Reach: The Impact of Changes in Rent Supplement. I remarked earlier that this was based on a small sample of ten cases out of approximately 89,000 who have been granted rent supplement. Approximately 42,000 of these cases were negotiated since the changes in rent supplement were implemented. Department officials continue to liaise with regard to the particular circumstances in the case of the individual referred to. I understand he is a separated person and that the family home will be sold in several years' time. He was on illness benefit but, as I understand it, the illness benefit ran out. The person has made other applications to the Department and is currently receiving payment from the Department in respect of a basic income supplement.
The evidence is piling up to the effect that the cutting of rent allowance caps by the Minister is leading directly to homelessness. On three occasions before the summer I was contacted by dozens of families who were threatened with homelessness or had been made homeless as a result of the rent allowance cuts. Since then Focus Ireland, Threshold and other Deputies have raised the issue, but the Minister has stated there has been no incidence of homelessness due to these changes. Again, today, I have presented the Minister with two concrete cases. One involves a former council worker who had worked for 40 years. He had a heart attack, followed by heart surgery during which stents were inserted. He had to leave his job as a result and is now being denied rent allowance. When he met the rent allowance officer and explained that the rent for the place in which he had been living for many years was €800, she laughed at him and suggested he need not bother applying. He is now threatened with homelessness. The other man was a barber who lived in the place where he worked. When he lost his job he was made homeless and is now living in a hostel in Bride Street, although he is from Dún Laoghaire, because he cannot get a place within the rent caps.
I went on the www.daft.ie website today to look for accommodation at or under the rent allowance cap in Dublin. Not one place of accommodation in south Dublin was available at or below €475 per month. These people are facing homelessness. One of them has been made homeless, along with dozens if not hundreds of others. What will the Minister do about it? Will she raise the rent caps back to sustainable levels or introduce rent controls if bringing down rents is the real agenda? At any rate, she should stop this policy, which is making people homeless.
Deputy O'Dea also has a question. I can only call the Deputies who have put questions.
I wish to follow up on the comments of Deputy Boyd Barrett. I am unsure from where the Minister is getting her information. I can submit several concrete examples from my city in which the rent allowance cap has led to homelessness. I can provide actual instances. Despite the information the Minister received from her Department to the effect that it is not causing homelessness, manifestly it is doing so.
Is the Minister aware of a widespread practice whereby the landlord and tenant collude to leave the rent at a certain level to qualify for rent allowance, while the tenant pays a top-up sum under the counter to the landlord? Strictly speaking it is illegal, but it is taking place and it is causing great hardship. It is the only way around the cap. Is the Minister aware of it?
I wish to inform the Deputy from Dún Laoghaire that the rent limit for a couple with three children in Dún Laoghaire for a three bedroom house is €950 per month.
I was referring to a single person. The figure is €475.
For people at work who are paying tax, it represents a lot of money to pay rents to landlords of €950 per month.
If that is the Minister's concern she should introduce rent controls rather than make people homeless.
These taxpayers are paying tax and PRSI. Deputy Boyd Barrett seems to be on a mission to raise rents for landlords, but I believe he is wrong to try to raise rents for private landlords.
I am saying the Minister should introduce rent controls.
It is great to hear that logic from the Labour Party.
The Minister should introduce rent controls. She should get out of the bubble.
We are paying for it.
Why does the Government not build social housing?
Taxpayers in this country will pay €435 million in rent supplements to private landlords.
The Minister to conclude.
Coming from Dún Laoghaire, Deputy Boyd Barrett may feel that €435 million is a small amount of money but it is not a small amount of money to me.
Here is a man with a heart condition who will be homeless as a result of the Minister's policies.
Dún Laoghaire and the south-side may well be different. The Government is currently supporting 89,000 persons in rented accommodation.
That is Chairman Mao stuff.
One can scoff at that, at a cost of €435 million.
That is the conscience of the Labour Party Chairman Mao.
Some 42,000 rents have been renegotiated so far this year using the limits.
The Minister should go on daft.ie and find somewhere for €425 in south Dublin.
The concerns of Limerick were not addressed at all.