Willie O'Dea
Ceist:1. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her plans to address the increasing deprivation rate here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5029/15]
Priority Questions
Poverty Data
My question asks the Minister to respond to the recent CSO report that showed levels of poverty at the end of 2013 had risen appreciably over the previous period.
The CSO recently published its release on the survey of income and living conditions for 2013, known as SILC. This survey found that the basic deprivation rate was 30.5%, an increase of 3.6% on the 2012 figure. The two most commonly experienced indicators of deprivation were stated as “unable to afford to replace any worn out furniture” and “unable to afford a morning, afternoon or evening out in the past fortnight”. These indicators were experienced by one in four of the individuals surveyed. The rise in basic deprivation has affected all income groups and reflects the legacy on households of the economic crisis since 2008.
Since 2012 to 2013, the period referred to in this survey, there have been significant improvements in the economy. For instance, unemployment and long-term unemployment have fallen significantly. The January live register figures published yesterday show a reduction in the numbers of over 70,000 people unemployed since 2013. The unemployment rate fell yesterday again to 10.5%.
Poverty is strongly linked to unemployment and as employment increases, we can expect to see decreases in poverty and deprivation. The best way to reduce poverty is through getting a job. The Government has protected the incomes of the bottom income 20% - or quintile, as it is termed - by maintaining core welfare rates. While deprivation has increased, it should be noted that the at-risk-of-poverty rate has declined from 16.5% in 2012, to 15.2% in 2013. The at-risk-of-poverty rate for 2013 is, in fact, lower than that in 2005 at the height of the boom when it was 18.3%. A key reason for this fall is the effectiveness of social transfers in reducing income poverty. SILC 2013 shows that, excluding pensions, social welfare transfers lifted one third of the population out of poverty. In budget 2015, we further enhanced the poverty reduction effect of social transfers, such as increases in child benefit and the living alone allowance and the restoration of the Christmas bonus.
The Minister seems to indicate that trends since the end of 2013 would show a different result if these figures were taken up now.
Excuse me, it is difficult for us to hear the Deputy on this side of the House.
My apologies. The Minister seems to indicate that the position has improved appreciably since the end of 2013 to which these figures relate. The Department of Social Protection in its assessment of the 2015 budget admits, more or less, that it is regressive, like all the four budgets that preceded it. I refer to the Minister's own document which states that the distributive effect of budget 2015 is uneven, with higher than average gains for better-off quintiles - who make up 10% of the population - and that middle and lower quintiles gain less than the average, with the smallest gain in the bottom quintiles.
The statistics for the end of 2013 showed that over 30% - more than 1 million people in this country - were suffering some form of enforced deprivation. It also showed that almost one in eight children - 135,000 to be specific - had sunk into consistent poverty.
Please put your question, Deputy, as we are over time.
Is the Minister claiming that the situation has improved appreciably since the end of 2013? The Government's target is to reduce consistent poverty to 4% by 2016. In view of the fact that consistent poverty increased from 7.7% to 8.2% between 2012 and 2013, does she think she will achieve that target?
I refer to the survey published by my Department which states specifically that the particular models used are based on a model called Switch. It was not possible to take into account certain changes and this has been acknowledged. It is a comparison of social welfare and tax measures. Tax measures help people who are in work and who are liable to pay tax. Deputy O'Dea will have read the survey and he will know that it shows the impact of the USC reduction is significantly greater for everyone except the top quintile or the top 20% in the Department's survey. We focused on lifting 80,000 people out of the USC and on lowering the two USC entry rates. People earning more than €70,000 a year and €100,000 a year, paid a higher rate of USC to compensate for the reductions for those on lower incomes. This is all set out and people are aware of those changes. Those who earn €10,000 a year had previously paid the USC but now they will not pay the USC until they earn over €12,000 a year.
Surely the Minister will agree with me that the recent ESRI survey took into account USC changes and it also took into account projected increases in prices and in living standards. It concluded that almost half the population were worse off as a result of budget 2015.
That is wrong.
The conclusion from the Department is startlingly obvious: the more one earns, the more one gains, while the less one earns, the less one gains. I suggest to the Minister that this is as a direct result of all of the regressive budgets introduced by the Government. Is she aware that in countries which also had to impose austerity such as Poland, the statistics show an entirely different result? It was possible to impose austerity but to make different choices in order that one in 12 children in this country would not be living in consistent poverty. Does the Minister agree with me?
The Deputy cites Poland as an example, but our child benefit payment, which went up in the recent budget and which anyone who looks at the impact of a budget will agree is extremely progressive, is €135 per month. Is the Deputy seriously suggesting we move to the Polish system of child benefit, under which the payment is well below €30 or €40 per month?
I am talking about child poverty, not child benefit.
The Deputy is suggesting ---
Different countries have different payments. The Tánaiste is misleading the House.
The Deputy is implying that the Polish social welfare system is better than Ireland's.
It has a lower level of child poverty than Ireland.
The Irish social welfare system provides an income which is many times that provided under the Polish system. The Deputy drew on the example of the Polish system.
Has the Tánaiste read the UNICEF report?
I am just pointing to the facts. The recent increase in child benefit brings the payment to €135 per child per month and it will be increased again in the next budget. I have already undertaken to do this. The child benefit payment in Ireland is going up, while the payment in Poland is relatively quite small.
Yet we have more children living in poverty.
One-Parent Family Payment Eligibility
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Ceist:2. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her response to the Central Statistics Office SILC finding that the number of lone parent households suffering enforced deprivation has risen to 63%; if in consideration of the SILC findings and in the absence of affordable after-school care, she will abandon her plans to lower the cut-off age for the one-parent family payment to seven years to avoid the significant financial loss that will be suffered by thousands of lone parent households as a consequence of the intended cut from 2 July 2015. [5031/15]
My question highlights the rocketing rates of deprivation among lone-parent households, as indicated in the recently published CSO survey of income and living conditions, SILC. The report highlights the fact that 63% of such households are now living without basic necessities. Considering the absence of affordable after-school care facilities, will the Minister abandon her plans from 2 July to lower the cut-off age for the one-parent family payment to seven years?
The one-parent family payment scheme supports close to 70,000 recipient lone parents and their children, at an estimated cost of €607 million in 2015. Despite significant investment, lone parents continue to experience higher levels of consistent poverty than the population generally. The best route out of poverty is through employment. The one-parent family payment scheme age reforms aim to reduce long-term social welfare dependency and associated poverty among lone parents and improve outcomes for their children. On foot of the reforms, lone parents will have enhanced access to education, training and employment supports with the aim of assisting them into employment.
Some 30,200 one-parent family payment scheme recipients will transition from the scheme on 2 July when the maximum age limit of the youngest child will be reduced to seven years. This is the same as in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The majority are expected to move to the jobseeker’s allowance transitional arrangement. Under this arrangement - the money will stay exactly the same - lone parents whose youngest child is aged seven to 13 years are exempt from being available for and genuinely seeking full-time employment work, thereby reducing their child care requirements and giving them flexibility. However, it is proposed to encourage these lone parents to become involved in education and training. Then, when their children are more mature - over 13 years and in secondary school - they will have a better chance of being able to take up full-time or part-time employment as their family circumstances permit.
If this cut goes ahead, it will result in a further significant loss of income for thousands of lone parents and an increase in deprivation. Will the Minister to confirm that almost 12,000 lone parents will suffer a financial loss of up €86 per week if she proceeds with the cut? Her response to a parliamentary question I tabled in January stated 6,400 lone parents would suffer a loss of up to €36.50, that a further 4,500 would lose up to €57 per week, while 800 lone parents who are also carers would suffer a loss up to a staggering €86 per week. Given the SILC statistics and her reply to my question, will she now consider abandoning her plan to lower the cut-off age to seven years in July, particularly given that she has not delivered on her promise to deliver a Scandinavian model of child care?
First, we need more and better access to affordable child care services. Anyone who is a parent or who has family members, relatives or friends with child care needs will know that child care in Ireland is extremely expensive. We need to address this issue, particularly for low income families, whether they are headed by couples or lone parents. That is one of the priorities of the Government.
On the seven years age limit, that is the relevant age in most Scandinavian countries which the Deputy has argued have the best outcomes. It also applies in Britain and Northern Ireland, where the Deputy's party is in government. I must stress to him that the aim is to focus on opportunities to engage in training and education because if one leaves employment, the opportunities to go back to either education or training until people reach their forties or fifties and their chances of securing employment are much reduced. The critical way to improve people's income and reduce their chances of living in poverty and to increase the chances of their children doing well at school and finding a job is to provide a mechanism through which they are encouraged to work.
Regarding lone parents who are carers, I want to be very clear that those in receipt of domiciliary care allowance will not be affected by these changes. If they wish to do so, however, they can become involved in all of the back-to-education initiatives.
The Tánaiste's logic is that if one drives lone parents further into poverty, they might come out at the other end. However, what the SILC statistics show is that driving them further into deprivation is making it even more difficult for them to get out of poverty. There is no Scandinavian model of child care available here and the Tánaiste has not addressed that issue. It was her promise, not mine. Is she aware that figures from the tenancy protection service which was set up to deal with families at risk of homelessness indicate that the majority of cases with which it is dealing involve lone parent families? Many of these lone parents used the additional funding they received through the one-parent family payment which is now to be cut to top-up their rent supplement payments. Is the Tánaiste aware that one of the effects of the cut will be to drive lone-parent families into homelessness and further into deprivation? In that context, I ask her again to reconsider the 2 July deadline and ensure no family will suffer deprivation because of the cuts.
First, in the budget we introduced an additional payment for those with children who went back to work.
That amounts to €30 per week per child. Neither the work done by the ESRI nor the other analysis includes that because it will come into effect this year. The Deputy has chosen to ignore the fact that if someone has three children, that is €90 a week additional to family income supplement-----
It is the Minister's answer to her parliamentary question.
-----to assist them with regard to going back to work.
I know the Deputy has a difficulty with people going back to work, education and training.
I have no difficulty. These are the Minister's figures.
Please, Deputy.
His party seems to want welfare rather than work. The evidence around the world is that if people go to work-----
The Minister continuously twists it.
The Deputy has not taken into account the back to work family dividend-----
I have taken into account the Minister's answer.
Please Deputy.
-----which for a lone parent with two children is worth €60 a week.
These are the Minister's figures, not mine.
There are other Deputies who have questions.
For a lone parent with three children who could be going into employment or self-employment-----
The Minister dreamt it up.
-----that is €90 a week. The Deputy's figures do not take that into account-----
I refer to 21 January.
-----because that scheme is coming in-----
Does the Minister remember the democratic programme?
-----in advance of the changes the Deputy is talking about.
We have to move on to Deputy Healy's question.
I reiterate that what almost all lone parents want to do is get involved in education and training as soon as their family and household circumstances permit them to do that. For people who are full-time lone parents not involved in work or study outside of the home, there is no change to their payments, and that is the vast majority of people. The Deputy is very well aware of that.
Disgraceful.
Child Poverty
Seamus Healy
Ceist:3. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection in view of 400,000 children living in households experiencing multiple forms of deprivation and 135,000 children suffering daily material deprivation, according to the recent Central Statistics Office, SILC, report; the number of children living in consistent poverty, meaning they are living both at risk of poverty and experiencing deprivation, having doubled from 6% to just under 12% between 2008 and 2013; international comparisons that show how Poland and Chile have done a more effective job in protecting children during the recession than Ireland; and the cumulative reductions in child benefit per year from 2008 to 2015, including the reductions introduced by her (details supplied), if she will take immediate action in advance of the next budget to fully restore these child benefit reductions; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5089/15]
There is a frightening scale of child poverty in this country, and professionals dealing with vulnerable families have known that for a number of years. We had further official confirmation of that recently with the Central Statistics Office SILC figures and the UNICEF report of last year. Surely that is a wake-up call for the Minister and her Department to address this issue. I ask that as a first step in doing so she would reverse the savage cuts to child benefit implemented in recent years.
Child benefit is a universal payment made to families with children. It assists those families with the cost associated with raising children. It is paid to almost 1.2 million children in over 600,000 families. The estimated expenditure in 2014 was €1.9 billion.
In budget 2015, the Government committed a further €96 million for children, including an increase of €5 per month in child benefit. A total of €72 million extra will be spent on child benefit in 2015 with €22 million provided for expenditure on the new back to work family dividend, and an additional €2 million on the school meals programme. Altogether, the Department of Social Protection will spend €3 billion in providing income support for families through child benefit, qualified child increases for welfare recipients, that is €30 per week per child for somebody on a social welfare income, family income supplement and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance.
The CSO SILC release for 2013, which takes the data from 2012 and 2013, which was the height of the crisis we inherited, shows that 11.7% of children were in consistent poverty, a slight but not statistically significant increase on the 2012 rate. On the other hand, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children decreased from 18.8% in 2012 to 17.9% in 2013. I have already commented in the House today on the importance of social transfers in Ireland in reducing poverty.
The figures for 2013 show that social transfers reduced the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children from 45.5% to 17.9%, thereby lifting a quarter of all children out of poverty. This equates to a poverty reduction effect of 60.7% in 2013, an increase on 2012 when the poverty reduction effect was 50.1%. Ireland is among the best performing member states in the EU in this regard.
The economic recovery this Government has delivered is not an end in itself; what is critical is that it enables us to secure a social recovery, starting with raising living standards. That process started this month, as tax reductions for all workers and the €5 increase in child benefit took effect for all families. Child benefit will remain as a universal payment because of its crucial importance to mothers in particular and to men parenting their children on their own, and I intend to increase it again in the budget later this year.
There are 135,000 children living in material poverty in this country, and approximately 400,000 households are suffering deprivation. That is 30% of the population according to the Central Statistics Office. Child poverty has doubled in the period of the recession, from approximately 6% initially to nearly 12% today. The UNICEF report shows that children here have fallen further and faster into poverty over and above any other developed country. Child benefit was cut over the period of the recession by various amounts. For example, a family with three children has lost €1,416 per annum or €118 per month. That has driven children and families into poverty.
Prior to the last election the Minister made child benefit a priority and told the public not to vote for Fine Gael because it was proposing to cut child benefit. I ask the Minister now to reverse the cuts she has imposed on children and families.
The United Nations Human Development Index Report 2014, which measures people's well-being, including that of children, places Ireland No. 11 just after the Scandinavian countries. We are among the highest performers in the world in regard to the human development index because of our strong social transfer system. The Deputy refers to Poland and Chile. Poland is No. 35 on the index and Chile is No. 41. Those are the countries to which the Deputy wants Ireland to aspire.
To go back to Deputy O'Dea's earlier question, with regard to Poland, the lowest rate payable per child in child benefit per month is €18. In terms of that being an aspiration for Ireland, €135 per month per child, which we hope to increase this year again, is a significantly better performance than the two countries the Deputy quoted so admiringly. The highest amount payable in Poland for children in larger families is €28 a month compared to our €135 per child. With regard to Chile, is the Deputy aware that the family support payment, the subsidio único familiar, is US$13 a month for a three year contract period? That is it.
The Deputy should consider what the reality is in Ireland. We have a huge amount of work to do to get more people back to work and, in particular, to help lone parents back to education, work and training because the Deputy is correct in saying that the greatest difficulties are being experienced by lone parents. However, as Professor John FitzGerald says, our system of social transfers is so strong it lifts 50% to 60% of children out of the risk of poverty.
The Minister is being deliberately misleading with regard to Chile and Poland. No one has suggested that Ireland should have levels of child benefit comparable to those countries.
The Central Statistics Office and UNICEF have stated there are frightening levels of child poverty in this country, that they have increased substantially in recent years, that if they are not tackled, they will create significant problems in the future in respect of dependency and that young people and children will not be looked after properly as a result of austerity. The levels are frightening. The Minister believed previously that child benefit should be increased and protected. Will she do this and reverse the cuts she has imposed on families and children in the past few years?
I am responding to what the Deputy asked in his question, in which he said Poland and Chile had done a more effective job in protecting children. If his idea of effectiveness, in economic terms, is that US$13 a month for a family for a three-year period is better and more effective-----
The Minister is deliberately being misleading.
Whoever researched the question for the Deputy included this in the question. If the Deputy thinks the payment in Poland of €18 to €28 per month is better than €135, I am not sure how he can make the economics better. He should acknowledge that in the human development index, HDI, Ireland is eleventh in the world after the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland, whereas, unfortunately, Poland and Chile are 30 to 40 points behind us.
With regard to child poverty levels in Ireland, a very important issue, in the Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures policy framework for children the target is to lift 70,000 children out of poverty by 2020. Much of this will depend on one or more of the parents of the children finding employment, the children receiving a good education and then being given an opportunity to secure employment.
I wish to provide clarification regarding questions that were asked on 10 December last, in respect of which I have written to Deputies Willie O'Dea, Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Richard Boyd Barrett. Further to Questions Nos. 2 and 7 on that date, I wish to provide updated clarification regarding the housing assistance payment, HAP. Under the HAP scheme the renter will source his or her own accommodation in the private rented sector and the tenancy agreement is a matter between the tenant and the landlord. Unlike rent supplement, however, the local authority will make the housing assistance payment directly to the landlord and the householder will pay a rental contribution to the local authority based on the differential rent scheme. I hope this clarifies the questions raised regarding the housing assistance payment on the previous occasion.
That will be noted.
National Internship Scheme Administration
Willie O'Dea
Ceist:4. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will review the operation of JobBridge in view of the use of this scheme to hire instructors for training schemes for jobseekers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [5030/15]
I wish to ascertain the Government's response to the circumstances outlined in the question.
To respond to Question No. 4, I believe the Deputy is referring to a recent report on job clubs prepared by the internal audit unit of the Department. In preparing the report the Department’s internal auditor raised a query relating to the appropriateness or otherwise of one job club hosting a small number of interns in a role of job club instructor. It is important to note in this regard that the Department funds the operation of 50 job clubs located around the State. These job clubs are operated by 46 separate contractors - mainly local development-partnership companies, LDCs. The job club in question is a community based, not-for-profit, social enterprise. Departmental records show that it is one of two job clubs which have hosted JobBridge interns.
Department management has considered the query raised by the internal auditor and is satisfied that the use of interns did not give rise to any cause for concern in this instance. In this regard, JobBridge has been criticised on occasion on the basis that some of the opportunities offered are so-called "low level" jobs. In this instance, some reports have queried the appropriateness of the internships on the basis that the opportunities offered required "higher level" qualifications. In fact, what this case shows is that JobBridge offers a broad range of internships to respond to the needs and aspirations of the complete spectrum of jobseekers, including those targeting specific sectors but lacking critical real workplace experience in their chosen field. I am satisfied, therefore, that no question arises about JobBridge as a consequence of this case. It was our internal audit that raised issues, as it should have, and brought them to the attention of the Department. In this case, the issue was examined and it was deemed appropriate.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. However, I seek clarification. Those involved in the JobBridge scheme are unemployed persons who are looking for work, even though they might not be recorded statistically as being unemployed. In this case, I understand people who are unemployed and hoping to find a job after a period on the JobBridge scheme were providing coaching for other persons who were unemployed and looking for a job through the job clubs. Is the Minister of State saying the Department has concluded that this is perfectly in order? What about the issues raised by those who carried out the audit? They are worried about a lack of oversight which might result in a situation where this is replicated elsewhere. Clearly, they did not think it was appropriate.
I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to clarify the matter again. The advertisement for this post required a FETAC level 6 qualification, which is quite a high qualification. It was to enable people to gain experience. The job clubs are contracted to provide training, work with curricula vitae, CVs, and so forth for those who require it. The question raised in the audit was whether the job clubs were able to do this, as well as providing mentoring and training under JobBridge. Owing to the level at which the positions were advertised, FETAC level 6, the extra capabilities given within the job clubs allowed that mentoring and experience to take place. It is something we constantly monitor. There are 9,000 monitoring visits a year across the scheme and we carry out internal audit projects, as shown in this case. The job club is still engaging in CV preparation for jobseekers and the activation process. It was being enabled to provide an additional service. Mentoring had to be provided for the person participating under JobBridge. I am happy that the mentoring and training were taking place and that we did not decrease the capability of the particular job club programme involved. It was carrying out what it said on the tin, as it were.
Perhaps my thought processes this morning are a little slow, but I am still confused. Is the Minister of State saying the job club in question was properly and fully staffed with the appropriate staff and that the interns were brought in to assist the existing staff? The newspaper reports on the audit report suggest the work of two senior staff in a job club was effectively being done by interns under the JobBridge scheme? Which is it?
I will endeavour to provide the Deputy with a full written response to that question. As I said, the positions were advertised at FETAC level 6. The aim was to give the JobBridge interns practical experience. Job clubs are local not-for-profit community enterprises. The one we are discussing is located in Kilkenny and has provided a very good service for the community in the area for some time.
The audit was to make sure the organisation was providing the service it was contracted to provide under the Department of Social Protection. The auditor had a query but management was satisfied it was honouring the full contract. I am satisfied with the information, as given. On the points the Deputy asked me to clarify, I will revert to him and clarify them in full.