Vol. 838 No. 2
6. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will consider reversing the changes she made to farm assist with respect to income disregards in view of the fact that it has had a serious negative effect on the income levels of already-struggling farming families; the reasons she refuses to carry out an analysis to assess the impact these changes have had on those families; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17713/14]
30. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Social Protection if she has carried out an analysis on the impact on farmers of her changes to farm assist with respect to income disregards; if she will reconsider the changes she has made; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17714/14]
This is to ask the Minister whether she will consider reversing the changes she has made to the farm assist scheme with respect to income disregards since she came to office, given it has had serious negative consequences on farm income levels for already-struggling farm families. Second, will the Minister carry out an analysis or assessment of the impact these changes have made to farming families?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 30 together.
This year, the Department will spend approximately €91 million on the farm assist scheme and it is expected that an average of 9,900 individuals will be in receipt of this payment each week. The farm assist scheme is based on jobseeker’s allowance. For example, a person with an adult dependant and two children with a means-assessable income from farming of €15,000 per annum would qualify for a farm assist payment of €84.40 per week. Farm assist recipients retain all the advantages of the jobseeker’s allowance scheme, such as the retention of secondary benefits and access to activation programmes. Recent changes to the scheme have brought it into closer alignment with the jobseeker’s allowance scheme’s treatment of self-employed persons because, as the Deputy is aware, most of those on this scheme have an income from farming.
Farm assist is a flexible payment and any farmer experiencing lower levels of income or cash flow issues can ask his or her local social welfare or Intreo office to review the level of means applying to his or her claim. The assessment of means for the purpose of qualifying for farm assist is designed to reflect the actual net income from farming. Income and expenditure figures for the preceding year are generally used as an indicator of the expected position in the following year. However, account is taken of any exceptional circumstances to ensure the assessment accurately reflects the current situation. Since becoming Minister, I introduced this measure for both self-employed people and farmers.
Prior to that, the assessments were based on the preceding year's accounts and if a person had a catastrophic fall in income it was very difficult for that person to get farm assist benefit.
As part of the normal budget process, all potential budget measures, including any changes to the farm assist scheme, are assessed in terms of the impact they would have if introduced. Since the introduction of the changes to the farm assist scheme over recent budgets, the scheme is being kept under ongoing review. There are no plans to review it immediately but it will be examined in the context of the forthcoming budget.
The Minister outlined what she had done since she became Minister and, as she will recall, before she became Minister she promised there would no cuts to basic social welfare payments. However, like many other Labour Party promises, that is a promise she broke when it came to the farming community. In successive budgets she reduced the amount of income earned by a farmer in his daily working life over the course of a year that can be disregarded. When she came to office, 70% of a farmer's net income was used to assess his income to calculate what his farm assist payment should be. She increased that in her first budget to 85% and she subsequently increased it and now there is no income disregard when assessing a farmer's income to decide the level of his farm assist payments.
The Minister indicated in her reply that any farm family comprising two parents and two children with an average income of €15,000 would qualify for a farm assist payment. I point out to her that the average income for a farming family with a beef farm is €11,000, which means that the income of a farming family with an average cattle rearing farm would be under threshold for farm assist. With the changes the Minister has brought in, on the basis of the payment that is given to such farmers, the work they carry out day in, day out does not count for anything. They are not given any benefit for the work they do over and above the standard dole payment, up to the level of which Minister brings their income.
Thank you, Deputy. I will come back to you.
Can the Minister give me information on the number of farm families that have taken a reduction in farm assist as a result of the changes she has brought in? Will she give a commitment to revisit this and reverse the regressive changes she has introduced to this scheme?
More importantly, when I met the farming organisations and their representatives, I learned, understandably, that what they were concerned about in the run-up to last year's budget was that farmers who were experiencing difficulties because of fodder shortages were likely to have much worse outcomes in terms of their income than might have been anticipated the previous year. What I did, and have done for self-employed people also, which was not the case when the Deputy's party was in government, was to provide that any self-employed person, farmer or fisherman can go into the Department of Social Protection and bring with them details of their current accounts, especially if they have lost their business or have had a sudden catastrophic fall in income, which might happen from time to time for people engaged in farming. This is in contrast to the period when Fianna Fáil was in government when those people would have been turned away. The Deputy will remember at the time of the previous general election that there were widespread complaints from self-employed people that they could not access social welfare payments, but now they can. A total of €91 million is being spent on this scheme and I gave the Deputy the number of farm families who benefit from it.
There are approximately 10,000 farming families overall, and approximately 1,500 of those are in Donegal. The changes the Minister introduced to the income disregard means that for those 1,500 families, their income has been reduced and, as they come up for review, they are being assessed on the basis of an income of 30% less because the Minister has changed the basis from 70% of income being assessed to 100% of income being assessed. No benefit, incentive or recognition has been given for the fact that day in, day out those families work not only a 40-hour week but in many instances 12 hour days to run a family farm. The Minister is not giving any recognition to the fact they are working full-time. Instead she is bringing their income up to the level of the dole, which is a payment for people who are normally out of work and who we hope will be able to go back to work. However, those farming families work day in, day out. There needs to be recognition that they are in employment, carrying out a valuable role within their community and contributing to the rural economy. What the Minister has done is left many of those farmers in a situation where they get no benefit or reward for the daily work they carry out.
Thank you, Deputy.
It is totally unfair. It is affecting 1,500 families in Donegal and 10,000 nationally. It is totally against natural justice and it will drive those farm families off the land.
I must call the Minister.
I ask the Minister to reverse the situation she has introduced and bring about a fair situation-----
The Deputy is over time. I will have to turn off the Deputy's microphone if he continues.
-----where they are given some reward and incentive for the work they do daily.
I call the Minister for a final reply.
I would give the example of a farm family who have a gross income of €19,600 and costs and expenses of approximately €14,800, leaving them with an income of €4,700. That farm family would get a payment of €310.20 per week. That is in line with the benefit that both self-employed people and jobseekers would get. It is a significant support to the family. Obviously, the Deputy would like to see it increased.
Or not cut, as the Minister has done.
We will look at that in the context of the budget, but it is a significant support of €310 a week for such a family. It is an important support, in addition to other supports such as the rural social scheme and other schemes, which my Department offers widely to people from farming families. I recognise what the Deputy said about the significance, contribution and hard work of farming families being an enormous contribution to society. That is the reason, despite extraordinarily difficult budgetary pressures and legacy debts that were bequeathed when we came into office, that we have emphasised continuing the support-----
The Minister cut the farm assist payments. She is driving people off the land.
-----at the level of €91 million per year. Assistance of €310 a week to the kind of farming family the Deputy is talking about is a significant assistance.
It was greater.
I must proceed to the next question in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
If conditions improve, we may be able to improve it.
7. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the consequences for women of changes to the State pension introduced by her; if she will introduce a new homemaker's credit; if so, the date of same; and if she will gender-proof her future proposals, including her plans to move to a total contributions approach. [17651/14]
My question asks whether the Minister will introduce a homemaker's credit scheme to ameliorate the gender discrimination that has resulted as a consequence of changes to the State pension scheme.
As provided for in budget 2012, from September 2012, new rate bands for State pensions were introduced. These additional payment rate bands more accurately reflect the social insurance history of a person and ensure those who contribute more during a working life benefit more in retirement than those with fewer contributions. People who have insufficient contributions to qualify for a full contributory State pension may qualify for a means-tested non-contributory State pension. In addition, some affected persons may be entitled to a qualified adult increase on their spouse’s or partner’s pension payment. The increase is paid directly to the qualified adult.
The homemaker’s scheme was introduced in 1994 to make qualification for contributory State pension easier for those who take time out of the workforce for caring duties. The scheme allows up to 20 years spent caring for children under 12 years of age or incapacitated people to be disregarded when a person’s social insurance record is being averaged for pension purposes.
The success of all these measures in ensuring equality of outcomes for men and women is evidenced by the poverty statistics, which show that women over the age of 65 are less likely to be in poverty than men of the same age. The most recently published actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund confirms that the fund provides better value to female contributors than to male contributors. It also examined the changes in the contribution rules and the associated rates of payment to be introduced in September 2012. It found that those with lower earnings and those with shorter contribution histories will continue to obtain the best value from their contributions.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The introduction of homemaker credits would give increased recognition to women carers’ work to ensure child rearing and caring duties are rewarded. However, their introduction would raise a number of issues, most notably cost. Such costs would be expected to increase very significantly over time. I will keep this under continual review as the economy recovers. A total contributions approach to pension qualification will replace the current average contributions test for the contributory State pension in 2020, although that date is subject to change. Issues such as equality of outcomes for women and men, and homemaker's credits, will be considered carefully in the context of that reform.
The change the Minister introduced has led to a situation, since 2012, where people with an average of fewer than 40 weekly contributions per year over their working life are seeing their pension entitlement reduced by €1,500 per year. That is a substantial reduction and more significant than the reductions affecting other categories of workers. I highlighted this issue at the time the change was introduced, pointing to the substantial impact on women in particular. A recent report in the Irish Examiner indicated that the Minister's Department made her aware of the negative consequences of this change.
This is an issue that has a particular impact on women who were excluded from work by the marriage bar. What does the change the Minister introduced say to women who gave up work to care for children and elderly relatives? The care they provided subsidised the State by enabling its lack of investment in services and supports. Are we saying to these women who sacrificed their careers that we do not value their contribution? Will the Minister introduce a homemaker's credit scheme to bring up these women's credits and ensure their entitlement to a full State pension rather than the current situation where they lose out because of their contribution to society?
In 1994, as Minister of State in the then Department of Social Welfare, I was involved, together with the Minister at that time, Michael Woods, in introducing the credits scheme. I recognised that access to State pension and retirement entitlements is very important for both men and women. It was a landmark scheme introduced by the Labour Party and Fianna Fáil in government.
The Deputy is suggesting that we make significant enhancements to that scheme. It certainly is an issue I keep under constant review. Many people, including many women and particularly those of limited means, have an entitlement to a non-contributory retirement pension and may also qualify for a qualified adult payment in respect of their spouse. To change the scheme would probably involve a very significant cost. In each social welfare budget for the past three years, I have provided in the Estimates of the Department an extra €200 million or thereabouts for additional pension and retirement benefits in a context where we have far more people reaching pensionable age and living for much longer. The improvements in the economy will dictate whether I am able to increase the budget more significantly than that.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I hope she will consider enhancing the scheme by introducing a homemaker's credit.
The Minister referred in her reply to the actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund. Does she accept that an actuarial review is only that, and that it does not deal with issues such as unpaid caring work? Indeed, it deals only with payments in and out, taking no account of the caring work to which I referred.
As I said, I was involved in the introduction of the credits scheme in 1994, in conjunction with the former Minister for Social Welfare, Michael Woods. That scheme represented a landmark breakthrough in retirement provision. It is an issue we need to keep under review and monitor closely. Any change, however, is dependent on resources. In each of the past three budgets, in difficult economic circumstances, I provided an extra €200 million or so of additional funding for pensions against the background of the large and welcome increase in the number of people reaching pension age and the fact they are living much longer. It would require substantial additional resources to enhance the scheme further.
8. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will state definitively her Department's official position on and assessment of the true extent of rental top-ups being paid by persons to ensure they qualify for rent supplement; if she has been made aware even anecdotally of the fullest extent of the practice; her view on whether this is an indication of the inadequacy of the design of the current rent supplement regime; if such information will have an impact on future policy decisions of her Department in this area; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17730/14]
10. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the increasing difficulties in which tenants on rent allowance are finding themselves when having to negotiate rent with their landlords after rent has risen; if her attention has been further drawn to the discrimination by landlords against tenants on rent allowance and the difficulties tenants are having in finding alternative accommodation as a result of same; if there are exceptional circumstances where her Department can assist tenants financially or otherwise when they are having difficulties negotiating rent with landlords; if it is a fair situation that a tenant on rent allowance should be left to negotiate rent when rent has risen and rent allowance has been cut; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17647/14]
The shortage of local authority housing means that many people are almost exclusively dependent on the rental sector. Market rents are significantly higher than the rent caps prescribed by the Department, which means tenants are obliged to pay top-ups to landlords. At yesterday's meeting of the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, representatives of Focus Ireland and Simon Communities of Ireland indicated that the Department is well aware that topping up is happening on a widespread basis and is in denial regarding the position in which people are finding themselves. Will the Minister comment on this practice of topping up?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 10 together.
There are approximately 78,000 rent supplement recipients, at a cost of €344 million for 2014. A top-up payment occurs where the applicant declares a rent lower than that actually being charged by the landlord. No evidence has been presented to the Department showing widespread incidence of illegal top-ups, although I am aware of reports of the problem. All such offences should be reported to the Department, which has specific legislative powers to deal with them.
To qualify for rent supplement, the tenant, landlord or landlord's agent must complete the rent supplement application and declare that the information provided is correct and accurate. The application form clearly states that making a false statement or withholding information may lead to prosecution. In June 2012, in order to improve the governance arrangements, the Department introduced powers of inquiry for staff to request formally and oblige landlords to provide information in respect of rent supplement tenants.
Prospective tenants, including those seeking to access rent supplement, are finding it increasingly difficult, particularly in Dublin, to secure appropriate accommodation due to the reduced availability of rental properties. As I have indicated, it is very much a supply issue. Despite pressures on the social protection budget, the rent limits were increased in line with market rents in some areas, including Dublin and north Kildare, in June 2013. Further increasing the limits at this time will not resolve the supply issue and would result in additional increases in rental costs for all persons renting, including working people making payments out of their wages. I have no plans to revise the current limits or the maximum rent review process at this time.
In view of the ongoing difficulties, the Dublin local authorities are engaging with the Department in developing an inter-agency intervention system to identify vulnerable families who are in receipt of rent supplement and at risk of becoming homeless due to the imminent loss of their tenancy. These cases will be assessed on an individual basis having regard to individual circumstances, and families requiring additional support will receive the necessary assistance, financial or otherwise.
The fact that approximately 78,000 people are in receipt of rent supplement shows that a significant number of landlords are accommodating and negotiating with applicants of the scheme. I am aware of the practice by some leading property websites of asking potential landlords whether they will accept rent supplement tenancies.
That practice is extremely unfair and it is leading many landlords more or less to tick the relevant box on online forms and indicate they will not accept rent supplement. We are asking a number of agencies to reconsider their practices in this regard, particularly as they involve a very unfair attitude abroad towards people who are in receipt of rent supplement.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Department is aware that some leading property websites ask potential landlords to indicate whether they will accept rent supplement tenancies. It is the Department’s expressed position that this practice should cease and the matter has been raised with the leading websites. However, it is open to any person who has been refused a private tenancy and who feels discriminated against on the basis of his or her gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the Traveller community to refer a discrimination complaint to the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Acts.
I assure the Deputies that departmental officials administering rent supplement have considerable experience in dealing with customers of the scheme and will continue to make every effort to ensure their accommodation needs are met. While the majority of persons are in a position to engage successfully and negotiate with landlords, any customers experiencing difficulties should continue to engage with departmental officials.
I just do not know in which country the Minister is living. She certainly is not aware of the reality that exists for people who live in the larger urban centres throughout the country. She is in complete denial. It is an awful pity that, instead of carrying out a head count with regard to who was present in the Chamber yesterday, the media did not observe some of the committee meetings which took place in the complex yesterday. For example, the Joint Committee on Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht discussed housing with representatives from Focus Ireland and the Simon Community.
Hear, hear.
Those from the Simon Community indicated that the problem in respect of housing has reached crisis levels. It is no longer just people who have - I hate to use this word - traditionally been considered homeless who have nowhere to go. In that context, I am aware of increasing numbers of families, particularly those with children, who are being made homeless. The representatives from both organisations indicated that the crisis to which I refer is on the verge of becoming a disaster. I do not know what we have to do to get the media to pay attention to what is happening to a significant number of people. I met a family last week - I deal with such families every week - who slept in a car with their child. They approached the local authority and asked what they should do the following night and they were told to find a relative or friend with whom they could stay. The family in question has been homeless for eight weeks. I could give a litany of people who are in the same position. The Minister and the Government are in denial.
I deal extensively with people in my constituency in the context of queries relating to housing. The Deputy indicated that the family to which she refers has an issue with a local authority. I am not quite sure which local authority is involved. The solution is to build a supply of houses.
The Minister is in government.
Will the Deputy allow me to answer? I listened very carefully to her.
Rent controls are needed.
Figures issued on 1 November 2013 indicate that there are fewer than 1,500-----
Introducing rent controls would be the socialist approach.
-----properties available to rent in Dublin.
How many of the landlords involved accept rent allowance? Is it one?
On the same date four years previously, there were some 6,700 properties available for rent. The actual solution to this problem will involve the recommencement of housing construction, which the Government is-----
When is the Government going to do that? When is it going to build council houses?
Large sums of money have been allocated in respect of housing construction. I hope the level of investment in this regard will rise significantly during the coming period as we seek to increase the rate of construction from approximately 6% of GNP to probably double that figure. That will address the supply issue. Chasing rent increases will not give rise to an expansion in supply.
Exactly. Introduce rent controls.
At present, landlords are ticking boxes - and certain agencies are inviting them to do so - to the effect that no one in receipt of rent allowance need apply, which is wrong and unfair.
Fine Gael will not allow the Minister to introduce rent controls.
Deputy Broughan should take it easy and remember the Constitution.
The Minister is in a prison designed by Fine Gael.
Deputy Broughan should remember what is in the Constitution.
There are approximately 90,000 individuals and families on the housing waiting list nationally. If we are truthful with ourselves, we must accept there is going to be an avalanche of repossessions. This means the numbers on the waiting list are going to increase. The number of social housing units that will be built in the next year will only run into the hundreds. This will in no way be sufficient to meet requirements. We are going to be obliged to rely on private rented accommodation for a period until supply meets demand. I am of the view that said period will be of a significant length. The Minister is in government and she cannot consider this matter in the context of a silo-based approach. There is a need for a wide-ranging strategy in respect of housing. In the short term, the Government must change its approach to this matter, particularly as increasing numbers of families are finding it impossible to rent properties. Regardless of whether the Minister believes it, this is happening. Focus Ireland, the Simon Community and daft.ie have all indicted that it is happening. We cannot just keep denying what is taking place. The Government must take action to provide for the people to whom I refer.
There is no doubt that supply is a problem. However, price is also a problem. Rent supplement has been reduced, while rents are increasing. I know many people in Wexford who have been obliged to make up the shortfall which has resulted from this. In Dublin, rents are going through the roof. There is a good reason for this. Huge numbers of apartments - including a number I developed - have been sold, en bloc as opposed to individually, for less than half the amount that it would cost to build them today. An individual customer who buys an apartment or a house is obliged to pay market value. However, speculators have bought blocks of properties for half the market value. As a result, an increasing number of rental properties are in the hands of fewer people. This has led to the development of a cartel in the rental market. Due to the fact that they own so many rental properties, speculators can dictate the price.
Hear, hear.
Yesterday, I was contacted by three young men in their early 20s who are seeking to rent an apartment in the docklands area of Dublin. They were asked to pay €1,800 for the privilege. This is because there is a cartel in place as a result of the fact that a small number of people own all the apartments that are available.
The first step in solving this problem is for the Minister to recognise that an emergency exists-----
That is right.
-----and that emergency measures are required to deal with it. I have been informed by officials from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council that, for the first time ever, they have nothing to offer families seeking accommodation. They cannot even provide homeless accommodation. The officials in question are just telling people to go away. What is the Minister going to do about this? We all know there is a need for social housing. The Government is planning to build approximately 500 council houses at a time when 95,000 are needed. The 500 houses to which I refer will not even match the number of people who will go onto the waiting list this year as a result of their own homes being repossessed because they cannot repay their mortgages. Private landlords are pulling out of the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, and leasing arrangements because they can obtain higher rents elsewhere. In such circumstances, the Government's plan is absolutely done for.
What does the Government propose to do? That is what we want to know. We do not want the Minister to utter nonsense about supply. The Government should commence building social housing units now and, in the interim, raise the rent cap in order that people might source private rented accommodation. We know that the latter is not a long-term solution. What solution does the Government have for families who are currently homeless and on the streets with their children?
If Deputy Boyd Barrett actually goes around Dublin city, which I am sure he will, he will-----
I do so every day.
I am glad to hear it. Perhaps he might count the number of boarded up units throughout the city which are owned by local authorities. This is not a matter which is proper to the Department of Social Protection, but I am happy to say that the practice known as "voiding", where perfectly good homes can be closed up and the contents, including fireplaces-----
That only happens to a fraction of such houses.
The Deputy is very familiar with what is involved. He should not go into denial.
Yes, we are aware of what is involved. It is only a fraction.
It is a significant number.
So it has nothing to do with landlords.
If money was given to the local authorities, they could open up those void units very quickly.
The Minister has the floor.
All these houses are important, particularly to the families who get them. There are far too many boarded-up houses in different parts-----
I checked the position in Wexford last week and I discovered that there are fewer than ten boarded-up homes.
The Government is starving local authorities of funding.
The first and immediate action to be taken in the context of supply is to bring to an end the practice of boarding up houses and apartments and to ensure new tenants are moved into such dwellings immediately upon their becoming vacant.
The Government should give money to the local authorities to allow them to do that.
Exactly.
Local authorities have significant funds.
Please.
It may have escaped the Deputy's attention but much of taxpayers' money goes directly to them.
Fine Gael and Labour control those local authorities.
That is the reality.
The Minister should talk to the city managers. They will tell her a different story, as will the accounts of local authorities.
People pay significant amounts of tax. More importantly-----
The Minister should be allowed to conclude.
Deputy Wallace suggested there is a cartel in operation. I will bring that matter to the attention of NAMA and the Minister for Finance in order that they might investigate what is happening.
NAMA is the cartel.
Please, Deputy.
Am I actually allowed to talk to another Deputy and reply to a question?
Answer the question.
Am I allowed to reply to Deputy Wallace's intervention?
The Minister to conclude. You have the floor.
Many teenagers would not behave like that. I wish to reply to Deputy Wallace. The Deputy has made a significant point, which I will bring to the attention of my colleagues in government, specifically the Minister for Finance, as well as NAMA and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. It is an interesting observation and I will have it examined - with due respect to Deputy Wallace, if his colleague will allow me to speak.
