Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and will be taken together.
Social Welfare Bill 2016: Report Stage
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, after line 33, to insert the following:
"Report on one-parent family payment changes
12. The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 178E:
"178F.(1)The Minister shall, not later than 3 months after the passing of the Act of 2016, cause to be prepared a report on the financial and social effects of the amendments to one-parent family payment made to this Act since 1 January 2012, taking into account the effects on welfare dependency and the poverty rates of those in receipt of one-parent family payment.
(2) The Minister shall, not later than 9 months after the passing of the Act of 2016, cause a copy of the report under subsection (1) to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
(3) In this section, "Act of 2016" means the Social Welfare Act 2016.".".
This amendment requires the Minister to commission an independent report on the impact of the one-parent family scheme changes and for it to be reported back to the Dáil in the prescribed timeline which will allow it to be available to the Oireachtas committee and Members well in advance of the next budget.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this amendment, having listened to the arguments put forward from this side of the House on Committee Stage. However, during the debate on the different Committee Stage amendments on this issue, I wanted the report to be produced and available within three months. I did so for a specific reason. The Minister's amendment proposes it will be produced within nine months. I proposed three months because we have real people suffering in a real way, namely, lone parents who have gone back to work but who are worse off because of the changes introduced to the one-parent family payment scheme. I was hoping we would have the report available within three months to discuss it at the Oireachtas committee to ensure it could form part of the social welfare legislation which the Minister is proposing to introduce in the first quarter of next year.
I note the amendment states the report has to be produced not later than nine months. However, I am trying to emphasise there is a certain urgency about this matter. There is the additional factor that the organisations representing lone parents will be advising a large swathe of lone parents to revert from family income supplement, an employment-related payment, to jobseeker's transition, a social welfare payment, when the back to work family dividend runs out. If this report is not produced for nine months, that will already have happened.
I am surprised by the Minister's amendment because he agreed to the amendment I and my colleague, Deputy Denise Mitchell, put forward last week on Committee Stage. That amendment proposed the report would be commissioned, produced and presented to the Oireachtas committee within a six-month timeframe. There are significant difficulties facing lone parents. We all know the poverty rates and the impact on lone parents of the changes brought in over the past several years. We know the family income supplement was not increased in this year's budget. Groups such as SPARK, Single Parents Acting for the Rights of Kids, presented the facts and figures to all Members here showing that, because of the failure to increase family income supplement, lone parents are financially better off to stay on jobseeker's payment rather than go back into the workforce. While the Minister had difficulties with the Dr. Millar and Dr. Crosse report on changes to the lone parent allowance, it showed clearly what needs to happen in this area and the impact of the changes to lone-parent payments.
It is imperative this report is commissioned, carried out and presented to the Oireachtas in a timely fashion. On Question Time this week, the Minister said he hoped to have the report produced and back to the House in June 2017. That is seven months away. With this amendment, he now wants to push it out to nine months. That is unacceptable. I know Deputy Joan Collins's amendment on this issue proposed the report would be compiled in six months. She said she was piggybacking on our amendment to ensure the issue was discussed.
I support the Minister's amendment, bar the timeframe. We need to have the report as soon as possible. I do not see the rationale for pushing it to nine months. It can be delivered within the six-month timeframe. The Minister's timeframe will not give enough time to analyse the report, given the narrow window between the publication of it and next year's budget.
This is not about commissioning a report for the sake of a report. There needs to be action at the end of that. We know the real life cases and the real impacts changes to payments have had on lone parents. Up to 22.1% of children in single-parent families are living in a constant state of poverty. These are the facts but there are real people out there behind all of that. We need action on it.
I did not get an opportunity to speak on this on Committee Stage but I strongly welcome the concept of producing a report. It is work that the committee is engaged in, as Deputy Brady said. If a report is to be produced in a meaningful way, it needs to be produced in a timely fashion so it can be analysed in advance of next year's budget.
The Minister's amendment is in two parts. The first suggests work on the report should commence within three months of the passage of this Bill and be finished within nine months of its passage. The reporting period is six months. I really do not have a problem with the six-month period for the production of the report and the research but my concern is that it could take up to three months to initiate the work on the report. While it may be in the legislation, I ask the Minister to commit that, on the passing of the Bill, the work will be commenced quickly. If the work itself takes six months, that is not the problem; the problem is the delay, or the three months it could take before beginning work on the report.
I can understand why some leeway is left in the legislation but I ask the Minister to commit to the commencement of the work as quickly possible as so the report may be delivered in a timely fashion to ensure individuals and committee members can analyse it, debate it in detail and have an impact on next year's budgetary process.
I welcome the fact that the Minister took on the arguments made on Committee Stage on the initiation of the work on the report. The facts are evident. The Minister does take them on board. The poverty rate for children in lone-parent families is 22.1%. The rate for two-parent families with fewer than four children is 7.9%. These individuals are included in the poverty traps.
It is critical that we get the report back earlier than September 2017 because we would need to analyse it and go through the evidence produced with the Minister. I welcome what the Minister has done. I did not re-table my amendment because I took from the Minister's comments last week that he would accept the proposals as they stood and have a report produced within six months.
I am sorry I did not get to engage on Committee Stage of this legislation. A problem everybody on this side of the House has in proposing amendments is the restriction on tabling any that would result in a cost to the Exchequer. It makes it very difficult to engage fully. I have tried over the years to table amendments in this regard and have them accepted by various Ministers responsible for social welfare.
What is being proposed is a simple step. There is a need to tidy up the legislation based on the amended version from the committee. Sections 12 and 13 are basically duplicates and should not have been dealt with in the way they were. The Minister indicated on Committee Stage he would accept the proposal on a report. His indicating this should have triggered the commencement of the work on the report, no matter how long the delay in passing the Bill in this House or the Upper House. The production of the report should be triggered immediately on the passage of this Bill. Obviously, it would take six months to prepare it but there should not be a delay. A six-month period would mean that, by the end of June next year, there would be a report. That is fair enough. The work on this should begin even if there is a delay in the passage of the Bill in the Seanad. We do not want to dictate to the Seanad what its timeframe should be.
A number of Opposition amendments tabled on Committee Stage and today propose the production of reports. When I was a member of the social protection committee during the term of the last Dáil, we travelled to Scotland to examine its equality budgeting services. One of the steps it was taking at the time might inform the work of the new budget office and the new budgetary committee set up in the Oireachtas. It would mean that, when preparing measures, including in respect of social welfare and finance, we will have taken into account the effects of those measures. In this case, the Minister would have already done some of the work because he would have already worked out the possible consequences. In this instance, we are seeking a report that will look back over a number of years to determine whether circumstances were as chaotic as those who have come to my clinic have suggested. The effects were catastrophic for them. Others might not have this perspective. These are the views that could be debated when a report comes back to determine whether changes need to be made to legislation. There could be an anomaly affecting a cohort of those in receipt of social welfare, and they might need to be protected. Ultimately, this is what social protection is about. It is about protecting people who fall through the cracks. We have information from SPARK and constituents. Probably every Deputy from every party has been asked, especially in the past five years, to propose various measures, particularly for lone parents. The latter bore the brunt of many of the cuts and the changes made to the social welfare code.
If the Minister is adamant that this must be passed, I urge him, even at this stage, to indicate that he will make the required changes in the Seanad to remove the delay. Thus, work on the report will start on the passage of the legislation, with a deadline of June 2017.
I very much take the points on board. If a detailed report is to be produced at all on the changes made over the years to the one-parent family payment, it might as well be produced sooner rather than later. We might as well have it in good time, well before the next summer recess, so we can all consider it. I would rather have it produced also. The difficulty I have is the advice from my officials. Since we are writing this into legislation, the production of the report becomes a legal obligation. If the report is produced independently, there has to be a tender evaluation committee within the Department for a specific tender. That work has started already so we have not waited. A request for tenders has to be published, possibly on the e-Tenders website. Appropriate time must be given for the interested bodies to submit their tenders. Tenders must be assessed in order to ensure the most suitable submission is selected. Then comes the awarding of the contract. Those who get the contract need to be given sufficient time to do the work.
Since the production of the report is being written into legislation, a maximum timeframe is being set out. The process is to be well under way within three months and the report is to be available and published within nine. That is not the target time but the maximum time permitted by the legislation. I am happy to remind the Deputies that we have already started the work. We commit to doing it in a much shorter timeframe than envisaged. We hope to have the job out to tender before Christmas with a view to having the work done in a timely fashion. It is then up to the individual. I do not see why he or she would not have it done by May or June to give us time to consider it before the summer recess.
That we are writing this into legislation creates a complication because we would be in breach of legislation if something went wrong. That is why the timeframes are included. I hope Deputies will take my word for the fact that the times we are including in the legislation are maximum times, not target times or intended times.
When we tabled our amendment, there was no mention of the phrase "independent report". It is preferable to have an independent report.
However, even if it is done internally, surely there can be independent scrutiny of it by a committee, for example. We can examine its content and take the issue from there. I do not know why the three-month window is necessary. The Minister has stated that e-tenders and so forth are required, but nothing would happen for three months. We need to move on this immediately. There is no reason for not starting the report's compilation within two or three weeks. That work should commence this side of Christmas, not in three months' time.
I urge the Minister to reconsider this amendment. We need to tighten the process. Nine months is too long. A report should be concluded within six months and scrutinised by a committee. It needs to be brought before the Houses before June at the latest, as the Minister stated, so that everyone can examine it over the summer.
Does the Minister wish to respond?
I have nothing further to add.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Staon, 28; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Bailey, Maria.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Brophy, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Canney, Seán.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Collins, Michael.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Coveney, Simon.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, John.
- Harris, Simon.
- Harty, Michael.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
- Moran, Kevin Boxer.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Neville, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connell, Kate.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Ring, Michael.
- Rock, Noel.
- Stanton, David.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Adams, Gerry.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Collins, Joan.
- Connolly, Catherine.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Kenny, Gino.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nolan, Carol.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Brien, Jonathan.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- Smith, Bríd.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Staon
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Curran, John.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Lahart, John.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Rourke, Frank.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Troy, Robert.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Regina Doherty and Tony McLoughlin; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and John Brady.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, to delete lines 1 to 7.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, to delete lines 8 to 13.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
“Child Poverty annual report
16. The Minister shall prepare and lay a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas on the State’s child poverty rates which will be carried out annually and that this report shall be issued to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection.”.
The amendment seeks to get an annual report commissioned on child poverty levels. I outlined some of the poverty rates affecting children, for example, it is 22.1% in single-parent families. The national figure for children living in a constant state of poverty is more than 11%. On Committee Stage the Minister outlined that a number of different reports are commissioned on an annual basis and he outlined one but, unfortunately, the latest figures we have are already out of date because they are from 2014.
I do not see how we can make reasonable assessments or how the Minister can put together a budget without having available the most up-to-date figures for child poverty. The amendment asks the Minister to have compiled and presented an annual report on child poverty figures. As there is no statutory footing for the other annual reports mentioned by him, there is no legal obligation. We are asking for such a report to be enshrined in legislation in order that it would be produced on an annual basis and we would have the most up-to-date figures. If we follow the Minister's logic on the reports commissioned on an annual basis, we will only receive the child poverty rates for 2015 in the next couple of weeks. As those figures are already out of date, it makes no sense. It is a simple amendment that would ensure we would be statutorily bound to have the report compiled and published. We could then make a reasonable assessment of the targeted measures that needed to be put in place. I do not see how the Minister can talk about lifting 97,000 children out of consistent poverty by 2020 or 2021 without having the most up-to-date figures available that he could analyse. Last week he said on Committee Stage that we needed the most up-to-date figures; therefore, he actually agreed with the principle. We are asking him to follow through on it and ensure we would be statutorily bound to have the report produced and presented in order that we could analyse it.
We have no objection in principle to the amendment. The point that has just been made by the previous speaker is valid. The Government's commitment was to reduce the incidence of consistent poverty among the population as a whole to 4% by 2016. When last measured - the figures were for early 2014 - the level was 8%. We are, therefore, operating in a vacuum. We cannot reasonably ask the Minister what progress has been made almost three years down the line because we still do not have the latest figures. Is there any mechanism by which the poverty figures could be made more relevant? The latest figure, again for 2014, for the incidence of consistent child poverty is about 12%, or nearly one in eight children. The actual figure is 134,000, which in this day and age is shocking in a developed economy. The Minister may tell us that the position has improved substantially since 2014, but anecdotal evidence is all we have to go on because we do not have the up-to-date figures. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul tells us that it has never been busier in terms of the amounts spent and the numbers of telephone calls received. On the figures for the levels of homelessness in Dublin, the number of people sleeping on the streets has more than doubled in the past 12 months. Even though I have not seen the official figures for Limerick, I would say the numbers there are probably even worse. I know this from my observations in walking around the streets. The hostels are full. They are now giving sleeping bags to people to sleep outside in this weather, which, again, is quite remarkable and it is evident to anybody walking the streets of Limerick. I am constantly stopped by people who ask for my help in getting into a hostel. When I make inquiries, I find that, almost invariably, the hostels are full, which means that people have nowhere to go for the night. The problem is becoming acute and we have all the signs that the Government's consistent poverty reduction targets are not being met.
I must ask about the validity of having a programme to reduce the incidence of consistent poverty to a certain percentage by a certain year when we do not have the figures for that year. We have no mechanism by which to measure it. Can we make it realistic? As Deputy John Brady rightly said, when one is planning budgets and legislating, one has the levels of child poverty and consistent poverty among the population as a whole in mind. In order to introduce the proper targeted measures to alleviate these levels, what one needs first are the figures. Figures will always be dated to some extent. The latest report will be for a period some three or six months ago, but it is unacceptable that the most recent figures we have in discussing budget 2017 are for early 2014. I ask the Minister to tell me whether the matter can be rectified because, clearly, the position is unacceptable.
I do not propose to accept the amendment which calls for an annual analysis of child poverty rates and a report thereon to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and issued to the Joint Committee on Social Protection. There is already independent annual reporting of child poverty rates through the CSO in the survey on income and living conditions, SILC. The survey is carried out as part of an EU-wide survey overseen by EUROSTAT and allows for cross-European, country by country comparisons. It forms the basis for further extensive official reporting on child poverty rates through the publication of the annual social inclusion monitor, the annual national reform programme and the Better Outcomes, Brighter Futures annual report. The purpose of my Department's social inclusion monitor is to report officially on progress towards meeting the national social targets for poverty reduction. The monitor is published online and deposited in the Oireachtas Library for the consideration of the Members of both Houses. Social Inclusion Monitor 2014 is the latest such report and was published in April this year. It includes a specific section on the child social targets and related indicators for children and young people. The findings of the monitor are used in reporting on progress towards meeting the national social targets for poverty reduction in the national reform programme. There is also independent annual commentary on child poverty in the Children's Rights Alliance's annual report card and other social monitoring by groups such as TASC.
I do not believe it would be useful at this time to provide for further analysis and reporting of the same data. However, I am attuned to the arguments made by Deputies John Brady and Willie O'Dea that we need the figures more promptly because we want to make decisions based on up-to-date information rather than information that is very much out of date. We are using the poverty and inequality statistics from 2014 and a lot has changed in the economy since. The 2015 figures are not yet available and I am told by the CSO that they may not be available until the new year. Therefore, we will receive the 2015 figures in early 2017, which is not really satisfactory. Obviously, one cannot get the 2016 figures in 2016 because they are collated over the course and to the end of a year, but one would hope to receive end-of-year statistics within a quarter or two. We should have received the 2015 statistics in the middle of 2016 and should receive the 2016 statistics in the middle of 2017, but the statistics are collected by the CSO, not by my Department. They are collected independently. Inserting something in social welfare legislation which would require us to do it would not make it happen. We do not have the capacity to take over the job of the CSO and start collecting and reporting on the statistics. That is not our role but that of the CSO, as it should be. If we were to insert a provision into legislation which would ask us to do something we could not do, we might as well ask ourselves to collect trade or other statistics and publish them annually. That is the function of the CSO. I will engage with it to see if there is anything we can do to have this information published more promptly in order that we could act on it. The effect of the amendment is undeliverable. Deputy John Brady is asking the Department to become a statistics agency, but we are not in that business. It is not what we do and we should not do it.
I do not agree that it is undeliverable. The Minister agrees and acknowledges that we need the figures, yet he says the Department's hands are tied because the CSO delivers the figures which are already two years out of date. We know about the impact and the reality behind all of the statistics. Deputy Willie O'Dea is right. We know about the impact on families and young people, in particular, living in emergency accommodation.
We know the impact the cuts to child benefit have had on families and children. From the annual reports from organisations such as Barnardos and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul we know the impact that the failure to restore the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance is having on families, particularly on children.
It is irrational to expect us to make assessments going into a budget based on figures that are two years old. There is no legislative obligation on the CSO or on any of the other bodies that compile these statistics to present them before the Oireachtas. The amendment would create a legal obligation to have this report carried out. I do not care if it is done by the CSO or another organisation. We need a report showing the latest figures for child poverty so that we can have an informed debate on those figures and make rational decisions in budgets.
It is grand for Deputy O'Dea to come in here and say that we need the figures. However, there is an amendment before the House. That is the template. The roadmap for getting those figures is tying it into legislation. If the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, I will press it to a vote. Deputy O'Dea has the roadmap here to deliver those figures. I will press the amendment to a vote and I ask Fianna Fáil Members to support it. They are sitting on the fence as they did with the report on lone parents. Fianna Fáil tabled an amendment looking for a report within three months and then sat on the fence when the Minister talked about delivering that report on lone parents in nine months. Sitting on the fence is not good enough. We have the roadmap to deliver the statistics so that we can make informed decisions and have an informed debate on the matter. If the Minister is not willing to take the amendment on board, I will press it.
We did not sit on the fence. We pushed the case and we very strongly supported the Sinn Féin amendment on Committee Stage, as the Deputy will recall.
The Deputy sat on the fence here, in fairness.
I understand the Minister's statement that when it is put into legislation there must be a certain amount of leeway. I expect to see that report by May or June and I will be asking serious questions if I do not see it by May or June.
The Deputy asked for three months and is letting the Minister away with nine.
Deputy O'Dea, without interruption.
We are still living in a democracy; Sinn Féin is not in charge here yet.
Deputy O'Dea thinks his party is in charge.
Deputy O'Dea, without interruption.
Let me speak.
Deputy Brady will get another opportunity.
It ill behoves the Deputy to come in here and make pleas on behalf of people when his party is presiding over starvation levels of social welfare in Northern Ireland.
If Fianna Fáil acted like a republican party, it might help us to unite the country.
I ask Deputy Brady to respect the House and the Chair.
There is no bigger partitionist party than Deputy Brady's.
I think we are all agreed that the figures are out-dated. The figures from 2014 showed a 12% rate of consistent child poverty. There has probably been an assumption that the figures have improved much more than they actually have between 2014 and 2016. I would agree that when the reality becomes evident and we get the figures it will become evident that the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance should have been adjusted upwards in order to target child poverty.
However, the amendment does not achieve that. The Minister has said, and I agree, that CSO publishes the figures on an annual basis. However, it is not a question of publishing the figures on an annual basis; it is a question of publishing more up-to-date figures on an annual basis. The figures that are published are wrong. The amendment simply calls for the Minister to publish figures which he is doing already. We want to see more up-to-date figures and the amendment does not provide for that.
That is a very good point which has been well made. Like everyone I want to see more up-to-date statistics. They will always be a bit out of date. The year ends on 31 December and the statistics will always be a quarter or two quarters in arrears. We would like to see more up-to-date numbers in order to make decisions based on them. The amendment does not provide for that and simply provides that I should prepare a report on the State's child poverty rates to be carried out annually. The Deputy is either asking me to do something that is not my function, which is to become a statistical collection agency, which I cannot do, or else is asking me to take the out-of-date statistics from the CSO and put a Department cover on them.
The amendment does not really achieve anything. We should be trying - I will be doing it and I encourage the committee to do it - to engage with the CSO to see if we can get much more up-to-date numbers than we have, which might be useful.
We are looking for a legal obligation. Deputies should not come in here and say there is anecdotal evidence that poverty levels for children are lifting. The resources of organisations such as Barnardos and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are stretched. The reality contradicts any anecdotal evidence that might be out there. Things might be improving for a small proportion at the top - those who never saw any austerity measures implemented against them by Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or the Labour Party.
We are talking about children who are caught in consistent poverty. Barnardos, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other organisations are stretched to their limits, particularly at this time of year and also when children go back to school in September. We are asking for a legal obligation to deliver this report. It is not up to me in an amendment to instruct the Minister where he should go to get that report. He is the Minister and he has a huge team of officials around him. It is their job to put in place the mechanism as to how this report should be delivered.
The Minister should not sit on the fence and say that the amendment does not show how the figures will be delivered. That is not my job. My job is to put in place legislation that will tie the hands of the Government so that we get an annual report on the latest most up-to-date figures on child poverty. The Minister is well paid and I am asking him to do his job. He has a huge team of officials around him. He should talk to the CSO. I do not care who he talks to. I am asking him to support the amendment, enshrine it in legislation and get this report. There is no point in coming in here year-on-year saying that the figures are out of date meaning we cannot have a rational debate and cannot make an informed decision. Anecdotal evidence means absolutely nothing. We need the most up-to-date figures so that we can analyse them.
I hope the Minister is sincere; I take him at his word. He says he wants to lift 97,000 children out of consistent poverty by 2020. How can we deliver that if at that stage we will be making decisions based on statistics from 2018? It is incomprehensible. I ask the Minister to take this on board and support the amendment. If he wants to take children out of consistent poverty, we need the latest figures.
I wish to clarify in case there is any misunderstanding about what I am saying about the anecdotal evidence. I am saying that consistent child poverty was 12% in 2014. Consistent poverty in the population as a whole in 2014 was 8%. The Government's proposal is to reduce that to 4% - to halve it - by 2016. All I am saying is that because the figures are not up-to-date we do not know if that target has been achieved or whether it is anywhere near being achieved. The anecdotal evidence from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and others suggests that it has not been achieved.
Having listened to the debate, I find it incredible that the Department cannot act on this. One of the major factors in alleviating the rate of child poverty is the Department of Social Protection. Surely that Department should be modelling the effects and impacts its policies and payments are having on consistent poverty rates on an ongoing basis.
It seems incredible that the Department could not do this, or is not already doing it. We know what the standard rate measure is for consistent child poverty. There is a percentile figure for median income. The Department has figures for the numbers of people who are transitioning from jobskeeker's allowance into work and who are in receipt of jobseeker's benefit and family income supplement, as well as the number of lone parents in receipt of payments. It also has figures which indicate the lack of any increase in these payments in previous years. It could be modelling these figures on an ongoing basis and there is absolutely no reason it should not be doing this in its day-to-day work. Surely, when it is preparing a budget and looking at whether a specific payment should be increased it looks not only at how much the measure would cost but also at what the potential impact would be. I hope that is what it does in deciding whether payments should be increased.. It beggars belief that, in this day and age, a Department the size of the Department of Social Protection does not have these figures, has to wait for the CSO to supply them and is not doing this work on an ongoing basis. If it was to lay a report before the House that would differ slightly from the report of the CSO to be presented a year later, so be it. At least it would show the Department was being proactive in some way, was actually modelling on a rolling basis and measuring the impact of its own policies and payments.
I thank the Deputy for his comments. He is quite right in that there is no realistic prospect of meeting the 4% target in 2016. That target was set long before the financial crisis, but we do not yet know how much progress we have made in getting to that point. That is why I would also like to see up-to-date numbers.
Deputy Thomas Pringle asked about the impact of measures. The Department engages in social impact monitoring and we can publish the information. We are ready to publish, if it has not already been published, information on the social impact assessment of the changes made in the budget and how they will affect poverty rates, for example. Anything we do must be done using the baseline data provided for us by the CSO which tells us how many people and children there are in the State, etc. We make social impact assessments of any policy or proposed policy change. We have all of that data, as well as the ESRI SWITCH analysis model to assist us, but it must all be based on some baseline data, the data collected by the CSO, the State's statistical agency. The Department does not conduct the census and does not collect that data. Employment data are collected by the CSO. We make the social impact analysis of policy changes. It seems that Deputies John Brady and Denise Mitchell are tabling the wrong amendment. They are looking for an annual report, not a report which would be timely. There is nothing in the amendment about the figures needing to be up-to-date; it would just require the production of an annual report. It would not require the report to include up-to-date numbers or the figures for the previous year. If there was to be a statutory obligation applied to anyone, it should be applied to the CSO, not the Department.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 35; Staon, 27; Níl, 55.
Tá
- Adams, Gerry.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Burton, Joan.
- Collins, Joan.
- Connolly, Catherine.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Clare.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelly, Alan.
- McDonald, Mary Lou.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nolan, Carol.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Bríd.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Wallace, Mick.
Níl
- Bailey, Maria.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Brophy, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Canney, Seán.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Collins, Michael.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Halligan, John.
- Harris, Simon.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
- Moran, Kevin Boxer.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Neville, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connell, Kate.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Ring, Michael.
- Rock, Noel.
- Stanton, David.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Staon
- Aylward, Bobby.
- Brassil, John.
- Browne, James.
- Butler, Mary.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Casey, Pat.
- Cassells, Shane.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Curran, John.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Lahart, John.
- MacSharry, Marc.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Rourke, Frank.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Troy, Robert.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and John Brady; Níl, Deputies Regina Doherty and Tony McLoughlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 14, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“27. (1) The Minister shall review the impact of the eligibility criteria on seasonal and parttime workers in terms of their access to Jobseekers Benefit with the intention to consider the possible increase in the payment from 6 to 9 months and from 9 to 12 months and shall bring forward a report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on same within 3 months of this Bill being enacted.
(2) The Minister shall review the impact of the €12.70 rate per day for subsidiary employment earnings on seasonal and part-time workers and consider the potential for increasing the payment and shall bring forward a report to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on same within 3 months of this Bill being enacted.”.
My two amendments ask for two reports to be brought forward on the passing of the legislation. They relate to the impact social welfare changes over the past number of years have had on seasonal and part-time workers. In the debate on Committee Stage the Minister said this seems to have been raised in Donegal in particular in recent times and I have been raising it for a couple of years. It is positive that the Department is at least aware that it is being raised in Donegal.
The reductions in the length of time somebody can be in receipt of jobseeker's benefit, from 12 to nine months and from nine to six months, have had a disproportionate impact on seasonal workers. It is particularly acute in the context of the fishing industry because the length of the season has declined significantly over recent years, leading to the situation where workers can get jobseeker's benefit during the lay-off period but, because of the new time limits, they transition to jobseeker's allowance prior to the commencement of the season when they restart work. This means a substantial drop in income for many of them and I know of one couple both of whom work in the fishing industry and who suffered a reduction in income of some €120 per week between the two of them. This is a huge reduction, particularly given that the fishing industry has depended on the mix of social welfare, jobseeker's benefit and the working year, so that people can be available to work in the factories at short notice when work becomes available. The response of the Department will be that a person can move on to jobseeker's allowance but the means test assessment of earned income from six or eight months beforehand reduces the payment he or she gets. This is fine for the Department because it saves it money but it affects the ability of people to stay in the area and be available for work when work comes back again. It has got to the perverse stage that even IBEC is complaining about it because the effect on the availability of workers is making things more difficult for employers.
It is important, therefore, that we look at the implications of reinstating the original periods applicable to jobseeker's benefit. In response to parliamentary questions I have submitted in the past, the Department estimated that it would cost approximately €39 million nationally to reinstate them which, in the overall scheme of the budget of the Department of Social Protection, is not significant at 0.03% of its entire budget. It would make a significant difference, however, to the day-to-day lives of people who cannot get alternative work because of the lack of alternative available employment where they live.
The second part relates to the rates for subsidiary employment, where people can access their jobseeker's benefit on the basis of having subsidiary employment of less than €12.70 per day or €4,500 per year. This had a stark effect last year in south-west Donegal where the Department, for some unexplained reason, decided that part-time farmers were self-employed and were not available for work so refused them jobseeker's benefit. The practice for many years was to work during the fishing season and sign on for jobseeker's benefit during the off period, while continuing to farm for 12 months of the year. Subsidiary employment is employment one can do while doing one's main employment and this is what farmers had been doing until the Department decided to assess them as self-employed. I had 21 cases, probably only a small proportion of the total, of which 18 were successful on appeal and where the social welfare office accepted they were not self-employed and so could have jobseeker's benefit.
The €12.70 per day rate has not been increased since 2007 but it should be looked at again with a view to increasing it. Hopefully, the report I am proposing would address this. In responses to my parliamentary questions the Department was not able to put a cost on the effect of increasing the rate, which makes an even greater case for carrying out a study on its impact.
I urge the Minister to take on board my two amendments. The Department could very easily prepare the reports as all the information should be readily available. It is important that these matters are discussed in the social welfare committee so that they can feed into the budgetary arrangements for next year.
Within our own party this issue has been raised consistently by my colleague from Donegal, Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher, and he has given us a very good briefing on the situation. It is a problem that particularly affects, but is not exclusive to, Donegal. We put down an amendment on Committee Stage seeking what is being sought here, namely, a report, a study on the situation. It is clearly unsatisfactory and there are a number of possible solutions. The purpose of putting down an amendment was to get the Minister to do a report so that we could look at the solutions and hopefully advise him on the best one to adopt. I did not get a chance to check the record this morning but my recollection is that the Minister gave an undertaking on Committee Stage that he would carry out a study of this problem and report back promptly and I would like him to reiterate that today.
There is a real problem. In the current system, for part-time and seasonal workers to qualify for jobseeker's benefit they have to have paid 117 contributions over a three-year period. This equates to 39 contributions per annum, which is nearly impossible to achieve with seasonal work. If subsidiary income of a part-time farmer or fisherman exceeds €12.70 per day, €63.50 per week, they are not entitled to jobseeker's benefit. Clearly that is wrong and out of sync. It probably relates to jobseeker's benefit paid on the basis of hours worked, rather than three days or fewer per week. The other difficulty with the present situation is that when one social welfare claim ceases a person has to make 13 contributions to get back into the system again, which is not appropriate for people who do seasonal work.
This is having a very real impact on many people in County Donegal and elsewhere. It is also creating skill shortages for employers who need this type of worker. If it is going to make people worse off, they will not work in these businesses. I would like the Minister to reiterate his commitment to have a study carried out in order that we can consider it at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social Protection to recommend some humane solutions that would bring a degree of fairness and equity into the system.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute on Report Stage of the Bill, as I did on Committee Stage, working with our spokesperson, Deputy Willie O’Dea, who has submitted the amendment on our behalf. This time last year when I was not a Member but had worked for many years as a public representative in County Donegal, particularly with seasonal and part-time workers, I asked Deputy Willie O’Dea to submit an amendment to the Social Welfare Bill 2015 and he was glad to do. We were told at the time, however, that it involved a potential charge on the Exchequer and it was ruled out of order. We had to find another way to introduce it this year and we did so on Committee Stage. The Minister said: “I do not know if the Deputy would be willing to accept that we will report on all of these issues next year but that this would not be written into the legislation to give us some flexibility around it.” I know that Deputy Willie O’Dea withdrew the amendment at the time because we were taking the Minister’s commitment in good faith. The report should be available by the end of March or shortly afterwards.
Any objective report would highlight the anomalies. The income of those who work part time or seasonally supplements their social welfare payments, but now there is no incentive to do this. I know of a company in the north west which required 17 people to come out for a few days last week. They said they could not do so because it would break their continuity and that if they earned more than €12.70 per day or €63.50 per week, would make them ineligible to receive unemployment benefit. That amounts to an income of €3,302 per year which should not be sufficient to deny anyone the right to obtain a social protection payment. We all realise the important role of seasonal and part-time workers in fisheries, agriculture and the hospitality sector at peak periods. This measure has serious implications for all of the people concerned.
I am pleased that the Minister gave a commitment to come back to the Dáil. Perhaps he might confirm that commitment today. I know that many Members are asking for reports, but this would be a specific one and if the Minister were to give a commitment to review the matter, we could move on. Without second guessing those who would prepare the report, they would see the anomalies and make recommendations that would be in the interests of everyone.
While I do not propose to accept the amendment as a legislative obligation, I will ask my officials to examine the issue of jobseeker’s benefit and the treatment of part-time and seasonal workers, including those categorised as having subsidiary employment. We believe this work could be done in approximately four months. The matter has been raised several times, particularly in the context of the position in County Donegal but also in other counties, by the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, as well as by Deputies Thomas Pringle, Willie O’Dea and Pat The Cope Gallagher.
It is important, in the interests of equity and fairness, that the conditions for receipt of jobseeker’s benefit apply to all recipients, including those who could be categorised as seasonal and part-time workers. To qualify for jobseeker’s benefit, a person must be unemployed, be available for and genuinely seeking work, have had a substantial loss of employment and as a result be unemployed for at least four days out of seven. The jobseeker’s benefit scheme provides significant support for individuals who can work up to three days a week and receive a jobseeker’s payment.
Jobseeker’s benefit is paid in respect of a day’s unemployment. Where a claimant has fewer than 260 PRSI contributions paid, he or she is entitled to six months or 156 days of jobseeker’s benefit. If he or she works three days a week, he or she is paid jobseeker’s benefit for three days a week. This means that he or she can be paid jobseeker’s benefit for three days a week for up to 52 weeks. Where a claimant has more than 260 PRSI contributions paid, he or she is entitled to nine months or 234 days jobseeker’s benefit. If the claimant works three days a week, he or she is paid jobseeker’s benefit for three days a week. This means that he or she can be paid jobseeker’s benefit for three days a week for up to 18 months.
Changes to extend the duration of the jobseeker’s benefit scheme would have to be considered in an overall policy and budgetary context, but they would have to apply to all recipients of jobseeker’s benefit. Where a person exhausts his or her entitlement to jobseeker’s benefit, he or she must pay 13 additional PRSI contributions to requalify. This requirement is in place to ensure the person has a reasonable connection with the labour market before he or she can requalify. Where a person does not qualify for jobseeker’s benefit or has used up his or her entitlement to jobseeker's benefit, he or she can apply for jobseeker’s allowance, which is a means-based payment and paid at the same weekly rate as jobseeker’s benefit.
For an occupation to be considered “subsidiary”, it must be employment that could ordinarily have been followed by the persons concerned in addition to his or her usual employment and outside the ordinary working hours of that employment. It must also be the case that the earnings from that occupation do not exceed €12.70 and-or that the person has at least 117 employment contributions in the past three years. Where a person satisfies the 117 contributions rule, he or she can earn more than €12.70 a day in subsidiary employment and continue to receive jobseeker’s benefit, subject to there being no change to his or her subsidiary employment. If a person does not satisfy the 117 contributions rule, the level of eligible earnings or profit from the occupation cannot exceed €12.70 per day. However, where the level of eligible earnings or profit is in respect of a longer period, it can be averaged in order that the daily average does not exceed €12.70 per day or, over the course of a seven day week, a maximum of €88.90. Seasonal and part-time workers who have paid or credited contributions in either of the last two complete income tax years are awarded credits. Credits protect social insurance entitlements by bridging gaps in an employee’s social insurance record, where the person is not in a position to pay PRSI. In combination with paid PRSI contributions, credits can assist employees in qualifying for short-term schemes such as jobseeker’s benefit and enhance the level of benefit for long-term schemes.
For the reasons I have detailed, I do not propose to accept the amendment. The rules are extremely complicated and I am struggling to understand them as I read the reply. It does merit some work and a study by the officials to sketch what changes might be made. We have discussed this issue and think we can certainly have it done in approximately four months and come back to the committee with it.
If the work on the report starts from today and the amendment is accepted, it will be at least three and a half months before the time period runs out because the Bill must pass through the Seanad and be signed by the President in order for it to be enacted and the three month timescale to kick in. It is welcome that the Minister has reduced the timescale from 12 months to four since Committee Stage last week. That is the nub of my concern. Unless there is a legislative deadline as there will have to be in the case of this amendment, the work will slip and the report will not be brought forward. I was worried last week by the Minister’s response to the amendment when he said he would report on all of these issues next year.
That reference to next year could mean budget day next year with the report coming back to say nothing can be done or that it has been decided not to do anything. Another year will then be lost for those seasonal workers and others who are directly affected by this. It really affects them in their daily lives. As such, the three month deadline must stand and at present the three month deadline means 14 weeks rather than 16 weeks. The Minister states in his contribution that he can do it. I do not doubt that the Minister, as he says, wishes to have it done within four months but with the best will in the world, it will slip and fall through the cracks in the absence of a deadline. We could very easily end up in the budgetary process next year before there is any conclusion in relation to the work.
The Minister referred to the 117 PRSI contributions where subsidiary employment does not kick in. None of these workers are affected by that. They would love to have 117 contributions in the previous three years. They would all love to be making 52 contributions every single year. It is not that any of these people do not want to work. In fact, they are extremely hard working, but the work just is not there. That is the simple fact of the matter. It is not likely to be there. This will roll out and affect other sectors nationally as well, which is important.
I thank the Minister for his response. Rather than to have to wait until such time as the Bill is enacted before the three month period starts, it would be good to have an assurance from the Minister that the study and report process can commence shortly. It is not necessary to wait until the Bill is enacted. If it is not written into legislation, we can start it immediately and have it more quickly. The various changes to social protection eligibility have worked negatively against seasonal and part-time workers and impose a real and serious hardship on families, communities and employers. It is leading to skills shortages in seasonal and part-time work businesses. It is not just employees who are in touch with us, but employers who are not able to get workers. It is understandable to say that if one is offered employment, there is a dignity attached to it but many of those who are working in Deputy Pringle's town of Killybegs are travelling from my area of west Donegal, which is almost 30 miles away, and other places. There are overheads and expenses involved and, as such, €12.70 is much too low. Hopefully, those studying the matter and preparing the report will come up with realistic recommendations for the Minister.
I imagine the €12.70 figure relates to what used to be £10. As such, I suspect it has not been increased for a very long time. I want to be as helpful here as possible and to understand this better myself. I am having trouble understanding how this impacts on individual cases and I would welcome a report to understand it myself. I can direct officials to get started on that straight away with a view to having it in March or April to inform any budget decisions we might make. As Deputy Pringle mentioned, if we are talking about €30 million or €40 million, it may not appear to be a lot in the context of a budget of €20,000 million, but that is not far off what is required to reinstate the telephone allowance and is almost double the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. It would, therefore, be one of those many things one has to make choices about and, as such, I would like to know what the choices are exactly and how much each potential change would cost. That is why it would be valuable to do this work. We will certainly get it done as soon as we can.
We need a deadline for this and it should be included in the legislation to ensure that it is met. From my own work, I know that if one does not have a deadline, things tend to get extended and to run on. There is nothing like a deadline to focus the mind and ensure that a report is brought forward and published. That is vital. The €39 million element relates to the proposed section 27(1) set out in the amendment. In relation to the proposed section 27(2), the Department is not even aware of any potential costs of increasing the subsidiary employment element. We need that deadline to ensure the report is brought forward and happens. For that reason, I intend to press the amendment.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Staon, 26; Níl, 51.
Tá
- Adams, Gerry.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Burton, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Clare.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Nolan, Carol.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O'Brien, Jonathan.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Ryan, Brendan.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Bríd.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
Níl
- Bailey, Maria.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Brophy, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Byrne, Catherine.
- Canney, Seán.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carey, Joe.
- Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Creed, Michael.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Daly, Jim.
- Deasy, John.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Doyle, Andrew.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Harty, Michael.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McEntee, Helen.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Joe.
- McLoughlin, Tony.
- Mitchell O'Connor, Mary.
- Moran, Kevin Boxer.
- Murphy, Dara.
- Murphy, Eoghan.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Neville, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connell, Kate.
- O'Donovan, Patrick.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Ring, Michael.
- Rock, Noel.
- Stanton, David.
- Varadkar, Leo.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Staon
- Brassil, John.
- Browne, James.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Casey, Pat.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Curran, John.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Lahart, John.
- McGrath, Michael.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murphy O'Mahony, Margaret.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Loughlin, Fiona.
- O'Rourke, Frank.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Scanlon, Eamon.
- Troy, Robert.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Thomas Pringle and Bríd Smith; Níl, Deputies Regina Doherty and Tony McLoughlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.