I welcome the Minister and his officials. It is proposed to break at 4.15 p.m. for the Order of Business in the Dáil and to conclude at 6.30 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed. It is also proposed to resume at 10 a.m. tomorrow and conclude at 12.30 p.m. if the committee has not completed its consideration of the Bill today. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008: Committee Stage.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-Section 175 of the Principal Act is repealed."
The object of this amendment is to remove the cohabitation provisions within the principal Act as they apply to lone parents. There is general agreement that this should be done. It makes no sense to operate a system whereby lone parents are forced to remain in that situation indefinitely to have access to some kind of welfare support payment. This has been discussed for a very long time and there is all-round agreement on the need to remove those provisions. I propose that we do that here and now.
I support the amendment. It is an issue that has been much discussed but on which there has been very little progress. I too would like to see action it. Fine Gael, therefore, supports the amendment.
I too support to this amendment. It makes sense. I urge the Minister to take it on board.
I do not propose to accept the amendment. The removal of section 175 from the principal Act would remove the condition which precludes cohabitees from claiming the one parent family payment, a social assistance payment, designed to help parents bringing up a child without the support of a partner. I have previously acknowledged the implicit disincentive to forming long-term relationships that the current terms of the one parent family payment places on lone parents and I acknowledge this is an issue that must be addressed. That is why the new social assistance payment for lone parents and parents on low income currently being devised in my Department will remove the contingency of lone parenthood as a qualifying criteria for the payment. Instead, the new social assistance payment will be made to all parents living alone or with a partner with young children on low income. Cohabitation will, therefore, no longer be an impediment to payment.
In addition to the new income support payment, other measures are being put in place to expand the availability and range of education and training opportunities for lone parents, to extend the national employment action plan to focus on lone parents, to improve the provision of quality affordable child care to lone parents, and to improve the provision of information to lone parents. This integrated package of supports has the long-term aim of assisting people to achieve financial independence through supporting them into education and training and, ultimately, employment, the avenue that is widely agreed to offer the best route out of poverty.
What is the Minister's timescale for achieving this?
I intend to have this in the new Social Welfare Bill at the end of this year, for next year. This impacts on a couple of other issues within the social welfare system that have to do with not just lone parents. We want to get matters right in dealing with people on a single basis. There is no disagreement and we all want to do this, but it is not simply a matter of removing that in isolation. It has ramifications for some of the other areas as well. We should be in a position to do it in the next Social Welfare Bill.
Does this mean the Minister expects to be in a position at that point to introduce the new payment for low income families with children? A kite was flown yesterday in respect of child benefit. Is it dependent on raising the funding for the new family payment from other sources, such as, for example, the taxation of child benefit?
I did not see the article to which the Deputy refers in yesterday's newspapers. My understanding is that it is utterly independent of the issue we are discussing at the moment.
One of the changes that flagged, along with ending the cohabitation rule, is the introduction of a new payment that will be available to all low income families, irrespective of whether there are one or two parents.
I have had discussions with some of the stakeholders on this issue and there is substantial disagreement among them, as the Deputy is probably aware. It is not resolved. I have an open mind, but it remains to be seen whether we will go down that road. Some believe it is tantamount to going back to the days of creating further poverty traps. I am much more inclined to link the type of payments we have, which are incentivised under the FIS scheme, that is, paid to people specifically in and at work. There is an incentive to be in the work place. However, there is quite a difference about this among some of the stakeholders. Some favour it, but others are vehemently against it and would consider it a serious backward step to go down that road.
Is that as regards cohabitation facilities?
I am talking specifically about child income support and creating a new secondary tier, which is the issue the Deputy is referring to, I believe.
If the Minister expects to be in a position to introduce proposals for next year's Bill, what area specifically is he talking about in respect of lone parents?
I am specifically talking about the cohabitation rule. If I can move on the other areas, I certainly will, but I am specifically responding to the Deputy as regards the cohabitation issue, which I want to remove from the system.
Is it not very difficult to do that without introducing a new payment?
Not necessarily, as it depends how it is done. There does not have to be a secondary payment in parallel to do it. There are other methods of payment within the system that may be used.
I should have thought this would constitute a disincentive for people to marry.
The Deputy is right in a sense. I want to ensure in removing the cohabitation rule, that the payments left in place do not mean there is a disincentive for people to go to work in terms of loss of income or whatever.
There is also a question of a disincentive for people getting married, if they are better off as two lone parents.
Clearly that is one of the issues we want to avoid. As the Deputy knows, in the taxation system people are treated on an individual basis. Some might say that is not fair, as well.
We should be doing it now, because there is agreement. I should like to press the amendment.
We are discussing the one-parent family issue, on which I have tabled two amendments. Is it in order to deal with them now, although officially they are not grouped?
It is.
On the issue of lone parents going back to work, does the Minister propose to make any changes as regards that in the next Social Welfare Bill as well? On the general points raised in both Deputy Shortall's amendment and ours, I know the Minister will be in consultation with the social partners and so on, but does he propose to publish his intentions prior to the Social Welfare Bill, or will they just be announced in the budget? It is important to have a degree of discussion beforehand rather than something being presented as a fait accompli with any prior public debate.
I should obviously like to have agreement in place, no question. That is my approach at the moment and many of those groups are involved in the discussions on that as well. I should like the way forward to have been agreed with the various stakeholders in this issue, rather than just presenting it as a fait accompli. There are parts, as Deputy Shortall has indicated, where there is clear disagreement. Obviously at some point I shall have to make a decision on what I believe to be in the best interests of the single parent, and particularly the child or children involved. However, in general terms, I would like to have consensus moving forward. As far as I am concerned there is no need just to present this as a fait accompli on a given day, say, the day the Bill is published. I have no concerns in that regard. It is a well-discussed and fundamental issue. It is a question of ensuring it works in the way we would like.
Is it the Minister's preferred option to deal with them all, together, as a package?
I would like to have as good an integrated package as possible. There is no question about that, because there are other areas in terms of child care supports, education and all types of issues that fall into the ambit of presenting lone parents with a package.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 2 is in the name of Deputy Shortall and amendment No. 10 is related. Amendments Nos. 2 and 10 will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on extending the number of hours a week a Carer may be gainfully employed while still retaining entitlement to Carer's Allowance/Benefit.".
This amendment relates to carers. It is about why a person providing care to a dependent is limited to working 15 hours a week. We know, from the recent census, that there is an enormous number of carers, 161,000, in the State, and yet only 21% of those are in receipt of a payment. Vast numbers of people provide critical care and attention to elderly relatives, while trying to hold down a job. They are putting considerable hours into the care of a relative, in the morning, say, by enabling the person to get up and have something to eat - and particularly at night in terms of administering medication, getting the person to bed and so on. Very important work is being done but they can only keep the show on the road by continuing to work. It seems wrong and very unfair to expect people in such circumstances to limit their paid employment to 15 hours a week. To qualify for FIS, for example, a person must be working for 19 or 19.5 hours a week. I wonder why the Minister is limiting the time a carer is allowed to work to 15 hours. It seems like an arbitrary decision and a more realistic criterion would be whether the person providing the care is enabling the person cared for to remain at home and stay out of institutional care. That criterion should be critical, because this is all about enabling to people to remain at home and stay out of nursing homes.
This can be done by allowing, say, two hours of care to a person a day, which enables him or her to hold down a job for 20 or even 30 hours a week. This is very arbitrary and a major factor as regards limiting the percentage of carers entitled to a payment. One of five carers in receipt of a payment is a pretty low proportion that the social welfare system reaches. The purpose of this is to increase the number of hours a carer is allowed to work. Similarly, in amendment No. 10, I ask the Minister to prepare a report on the implications of extending carer's allowance to a person who provides such care under the new criterion which I propose should apply to it. The intent is to ensure elderly and disabled people would be enabled to live as full a life as possible, preferably in their own homes, and to provide them with the level of support required to achieve this, as well as allowing carers to combine caring with ordinary employment.
There is a need for greater flexibility. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider the amendments positively.
I support the amendments tabled by Deputy Shortall. I come from a rural community and I am conscious that many a son or daughter who has remained at home to look after his or her parents on a small farm is at issue with social welfare officers on the number of hours he or she is allowed to work. For example, a son or daughter who milks cows for an hour each morning and evening will clock up 14 hours without doing any other work on the land. If he or she did not have to care for a loved one at home, he or she would be able to work full time in an off-farm job. This is an arbitrary ruling that is causing enormous problems. I have come across some very difficult cases, in which people were refused carer's allowance because the social welfare officer decided that he or she could not do the farm work required within the original allocation of time of ten hours, now increased to 15. This issue needs to be reconsidered, not only from the viewpoint of individuals in paid employment but also the self-employed, be it farming, as a shopkeeper or in some other occupation. I was dealing with the case of a publican, in which both the husband and wife work in the pub. In addition, the wife looks after her aunt, a cripple, who lives with them. It took some time to reach agreement to deal with the case in a reasonable way because the wife had admitted to working in the bar but that had not stopped her from caring full time for her aunt. I support the amendments.
Carer's allowance is a social assistance payment which provides income support for those providing certain older people or people with a disability with full-time care and attention and whose income falls below a certain limit. The nub of the issue is the provision of full-time care and attention. As colleagues know, the means test that applies to carer's allowance has been eased significantly in the past few years, most notably with the introduction of disregards of spouse's earnings. In budget 2008 I made provision to increase the income disregard of means for assessment of carer's allowance to €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple from April. These increases surpass the commitment in Towards 2016 to ensure those on average industrial earnings can continue to qualify for carer's allowance. Complete abolition of the means test would have significant cost implications. In view of the many supports required by carers, particularly in community and respite care, abolition of the means test is not considered the best way to support carers or the best use of resources. As members know, I increased the respite care grant to €1,700 from June this year.
One of the fundamental qualifying conditions for carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite grant is that the person concerned is providing full-time care and attention for a person who needs such care. The number of hours a person may engage in employment, self-employment, training or education outside the home and still be considered to be providing full-time care and attention for the purposes of the scheme was increased from ten to 15 hours in June 2006. It is worth noting that the 15 hour rule represents a relaxation of the full-time care and attention requirement.
The Minister has not addressed the issue. Does he accept the criterion should be whether the carer is enabling the person being cared for to remain at home and out of institutional care? Deputy Crawford and I have commented on the critical hours of caring for an individual in the morning and evening and coming in at lunchtime to give him or her food. The critical point is that the person being cared for is enabled to stay at home. There is, therefore, a need to take a more flexible approach to care.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on ensuring that Carers caring for more than one person receive a full Carer's Allowance/Benefit for each person he or she cares for.".
It is not unusual to find that a carer is caring for two people; for example, a mother may be looking after her disabled child and an elderly relative, or in some cases she may be looking after two elderly relatives who need full-time care and attention. It is difficult enough to look after somebody full-time but in circumstances where a person is looking after two dependent relatives, the significant personal burden created for the carer should be recognised. Again, using the criterion that the individual being cared for has been enabled to remain at home and out of institutional care - the criterion we must apply - a person providing care for two such persons should be paid two carer's allowances. I ask the Minister to support the amendment.
Rates of payment for carer's allowance and carer's benefit have been increased significantly in recent budgets, including budget 2008. Since January the rate of carer's benefit and the maximum rate of carer's allowance for those under 66 years has been €214 per week; the maximum rate of carer's allowance for those aged over 66 years is €232 per week. Those caring for more than one person receive, as the Deputy knows, a higher rate of carer's allowance or carer's benefit. Since January a person aged under 66 years in receipt of maximum rate carer's allowance or carer's benefit and caring for more than one person receives €321 per week, an additional €107 per week. A person aged 66 or over who qualifies for maximum rate carer's allowance and is caring for more than one person receives €348 per week, an additional €116 per week.
The fundament point is that carer's allowance is about providing income support. It is a major leap to the point where we pay people to look after others for whatever reason. I understand the Deputy is trying to place carer's allowance in the context of a payment to look after somebody but that is not its purpose; it is an income support for persons doing this work to keep them out of poverty. The point the Deputy makes is well recognised by giving a carer one and a half times the rate as a further income support. The figures are reasonably generous. In a system where resources were unlimited one might consider going down that road but there is an important line between an approach that could cost the taxpayer unending sums of money and a change in society in terms of what it views as the responsibility at individual and family level as opposed to the State's responsibility.
I am not suggesting a specific payment should be made, as if the person concerned was doing a job. However, a person providing care, certainly to two people, is not in a position to earn an income outside of those caring responsibilities. That is why I am suggesting that we should recognise the fact that a person in those circumstances forgoes the opportunity to earn an income. For that reason the care they provide to two people should be recognised by way of two payments. I wish to press the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the merits of regularly consolidating social welfare legislation.".
During the debate on Second Stage I raised the need to consolidate social welfare legislation on an annual basis, principally for convenience. If this were done on an annual basis the Minister would not need to present several amendments to the Bill every year in order to tidy up previous errors or minor omissions. It should be possible to do this as a rolling programme. I ask the Minister to consider taking this approach, prepare a report on it and let us know its implications.
All Social Welfare and Pensions Acts since 2001 are published on the Department's website and future Acts will, similarly, be published on the website. It would not, however, be appropriate for the Department's website to contain an informal consolidation of the Social Welfare Acts. The Law Reform Commission has published a consultation paper on statute law restatement. My Department participated in the public consultation process leading to the paper and will continue to participate in the statute law restatement programme with a view to enhancing the accessibility of social welfare legislation.
I appreciate the sentiment the Deputy is expressing but it is not easy to do as she recommends.
What is the difficulty in regularly consolidating the legislation?
I brought a consolidation Bill before the House a few years ago. The work, resources and staff involved in constantly consolidating and updating legislation in the way Deputy Shortall suggests would make it impractical and not feasible. That is why the statute law restatement programme produced by the Law Reform Commission, with which my Department worked, is the way to proceed. That is not to say we will not continue to publish all legislation on the Department's website. However, consolidation means having to go back through all sorts of legislation and involves quite an amount of work. Even when a consolidated Bill has been enacted, the enactment of more legislation necessitates further consolidation and adds a huge amount of work. It would really slow down the process. This is a question of human resources. If we were doing the work proposed by Deputy Shortall we would never produce new legislation.
At present, it is left to the whim of the Minister of the day to decide when to consolidate legislation. Is that not the case? It does not happen on any kind of regular basis.
We have got better at it in recent years. In my time in the Dáil, and certainly in the last ten years, great efforts have been made at consolidation and much legislation, going back years, has been improved. When one is dealing with legislation within a particular Department's remit, one reaches a point where consolidation is necessary to make some sense of it, and it is better for everyone to consolidate. The last consolidation was carried out in my Department in 2005, which is quite recent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on restricting the number of rent supplement recipients to 20 per cent in a given location.".
This amendment relates to rent supplement. Will the Minister consider and prepare a report on restricting the number of rent supplement recipients to 20% in a given location? Members will be aware of difficulties sometimes created through the payment of rent supplement on a wide scale in particular housing schemes. This is happening increasingly in certain apartment complexes. We all accept the need for social mix in housing estates, apartment complexes and neighbourhoods generally. However, a large number of rent supplement recipients living in a particular development can change the nature of the development, with a high number of dependent tenants living there. Recognised poverty traps are associated with the payment of rent supplement to people who come to depend on it and have no incentive to take up a job. The intensification of the number of dependent people in a particular area is not desirable.
The issue arose with regard to the regeneration of Ballymun. For that reason a request was made by all the Deputies from the constituency to limit the payment of rent supplement and to ban it in the Ballymun area. The purpose of the regeneration of Ballymun was to achieve a greater social mix. In such an area where there is already a high number of local authority tenants, one tries to encourage full rent payers and employed people to come into the area and create that mix. In a regeneration area where effort is being made to change the image of the area and where there are a large number of private apartments, a sizeable influx of people on rent supplement does not help the profile of the area. This principle has been recognised and the legislation was changed to enable local authorities to refuse the payment of rent supplement in regeneration areas. That was a good move.
However, issues will arise in certain areas which are not, necessarily, regeneration areas. For that reason, I suggest that there be a limit of 20% rent supplement recipients in any single development or neighbourhood. I ask members to consider this proposal. In the Dublin area, for example, we already apply a quota system to former local authority houses bought back by local authorities. A local authority cannot buy back more than 20% of houses on any road or in any neighbourhood. This is done to achieve a good social mix and avoid a concentration of dependent people in a particular area.
The same principle should apply to the payment of rent supplement. I suggest that 20% would be a fair quota. I ask the Minister to consider giving that instruction to all community welfare officers.
Rent supplement is administered on my behalf by the community welfare service division of the Health Service Executive as part of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, as the Deputy knows. The purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term income support to eligible people living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source. Currently more than 60,000 people receive rent supplement and over one half of these are in payment for more than one year. Expenditure in 2007 was €392 million and an additional €27 million has been transferred to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government under the rental accommodation scheme.
In general there is no limit or restriction on the proportion or number of people that may receive rent supplement in an area. However, section 25 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 1997 provides, as the Deputy said, that a payment of rent supplement can be refused in respect of accommodation in an area which is notified to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as being an area of regeneration. This provision is aimed at supporting the aim of Government investment in regeneration of attaining a good social mix of private, social and affordable and voluntary housing, and the measures provided for in section 25 are not a blanket refusal of rent supplement in areas of regeneration. Specific provision is made to ensure people already residing in such areas and in receipt of rent supplement may continue to receive payment. People already residing in such areas in rental accommodation who may have recourse to rent supplement in the future would not have their entitlement restricted.
The programme for Government includes commitments to reduce long-term reliance on rent supplement. This will be done mainly by keeping the standard means test for rent supplement under review to provide enhanced financial incentives for people taking up employment and providing for long-term housing solutions under the rental accommodation scheme. I intend to keep the rent supplement scheme under review and my Department is working closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to ensure the rental accommodation scheme meets its objective of catering for those on long-term rent supplementation, while enabling rent supplement to return to its original role as a short-term income support.
I understand the point the Deputy is making and am personally familiar with the problem. An area in my vicinity has turned entirely into a rent supplement area and it has made me distraught. It has done enormous damage to the area because the area has the wrong mix in that regard. It is wrong for everybody concerned because it breeds problems that would otherwise not exist. It is not, however, easy to define different parts of Dublin, Cork or Waterford for that purpose. We would need to think the matter through and work out if it was possible to do what the Deputy suggests. Circumstances can be difficult enough for recipients of social welfare benefits, including rent supplement, and I would not want to add to the burden of accessing reasonable supports from the State.
At the moment I am not in a position to do what the Deputy suggests. I cannot come back to the issue in this Bill but I might think about it over the year and consider what can be done. I agree with the Deputy but I am not sure what the consequences would be of issuing a diktat or legislating on the matter. I do not know how effectively such a proposal could be implemented in any given area but I subscribe to the Deputy's principle, as I did in the time I spent dealing with housing in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I saw on a daily basis that much better communities develop where there is a better social mix.
I am not asking the Minister to issue a diktat but to prepare a report. He has already accepted that there is an issue and he said he would like to restrict the proportion of homes for rental supplement in an area. We all accept there is an issue and that an excess of rent supplement accommodation is not desirable, especially in an area which is trying to get off the ground with new developments. We encourage people to take a leap of faith in purchasing a place in which to live. If there is a concern the place will be overrun by people on rent supplement, purchasers will not go near the development. In such cases, investors buy up 30 or 40 apartments in the knowledge they will have no difficulty letting them to tenants on rent supplement. As the Minister said, that entirely changes the character of a development.
The Minister started by saying rent supplement was a short-term measure. That was the original purpose but it is not so any longer. It is a key element of the housing strategy and, as the Minister said, over 50% of recipients have been in the scheme for over 12 months. Unfortunately it is here to stay and is a very significant element of the housing strategy, which costs a vast amount of money. That needs to be managed properly and we all know of examples, such as the one the Minister cited, where the availability of rent supplement has done enormous damage to an area. That is not in anybody's interests, whether they be existing residents or recipients of the supplement.
I know of developments where 80% or 90% of tenants are on rent supplement and enormous difficulties were caused. There were huge costs for management and security and, in the case I have in mind, if the local authority had not been persuaded to step in and sort it out it there would have been an unmitigated disaster. The principle is recognised by local authorities by virtue of the number of properties they buy back. It is much more sustainable if local authority or social housing properties are pepper-potted around an area rather than concentrated in one development. There is a strong case for limiting the number to 20%. I am not asking the Minister to agree to do that now but, given that we know there is a problem, he should ask his officials to present a report on the issue at some during the year, with a view to possibly introducing a limit next year or some time in the near future.
I do not want to get into a process of preparing a formal report as there may well be plenty of scope for action under existing provisions. In the meantime, if the Deputy agrees, I can talk to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to see if we can extend the designations under the scheme as it exists. I give the Deputy a commitment to look at her suggestion, without saying I will commission a full report on the issue. I sympathise with her point but I am concerned about the practicalities arising from the fact that rent supplement is for a particular amount. Not all developments may be attainable within that amount and one cannot force people into certain areas, where the rents may be much higher than others, for many reasons. I am not sure we can set a limit of 20% in that context.
I will examine how we can address the matter under existing legislation and I will talk to my colleague in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. I would like to make progress in this area as it is the right thing to do. We can come back to the matter and I have no doubt the Deputy will table parliamentary questions on the subject. I ask her to give me the space to see if anything can be done.
There are a number of difficulties with rent supplement, one of which Deputy Shortall outlined. The social and affordable housing scheme has, where councils have operated it properly, been a positive experience so perhaps this proposal could be taken forward on a similar basis. Part of the difficulty lies with rental properties in general, which I know are outside the Minister's remit. Many tenants renting a property do not have an interest in maintaining it because it is not theirs.
There is insufficient inspection of the quality of properties which qualify for rent supplement, though I realise this issue probably comes under the remit of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The quality of property on offer to recipients of rent supplement who come to me for help in finding council housing is quite poor. When the person gets local authority housing, the property subject to rent supplement goes to somebody else and remains in as bad a condition as it was previously. This needs to be addressed and I ask the Minister to look at the issue.
There is another difficulty with regard to the supplement. If the rent is €1 over the amount of the supplement, the person cannot get the supplement. This is causing difficulties and some people are topping up the supplement themselves for landlords. They are not supposed to do this, but often they do not have a choice. This also needs to be examined when the Minister looks at rent supplement.
We all have areas in our constituencies that have been affected by an over-concentration of rent supplement and I understand Deputy Shortall's comment with regard to what this will mean for the future. However, how can we explain to people with family ties to an area that they cannot stay in that area? From my experience, many of the people on rent supplement in the docklands area have family ties in that area. Dealing with this is one of the practical difficulties in this regard. We all have areas in our constituencies that have suffered over time. The situation is changing now, particularly in Dublin. However, areas have suffered because of the price of property and because rents remain high.
I welcome what the Minister said. I understand that under existing legislation there is no provision for a quota system.
It provides for redesignation, but we can add to the designations.
Yes, to designations where rent supplement can be refused. However, the principle of a quota is important and has been applied by Dublin City Council for many years in respect of buy-back housing and it works well. I do not suggest an entire area should have a 20% quota, but that each development should. That could certainly be done with apartment developments.
I intend to look at that issue.
I welcome what the Minister has said and am happy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3. -The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on ensuring that 20 per cent of rent supplement is withheld from direct payments to non-resident landlords.".
This amendment also involves rent supplement. We have an unusual situation where, if a landlord is non-resident, the tenant is required to deduct 20% and pay the tax for the landlord. This is an extraordinary burden to place on tenants and is really none of their business. This raises the wider issue of how rent supplement is paid. Originally rent supplement was to be paid to the landlord. If that is the case, safeguards can be put in place to ensure that public moneys being paid to private individuals are captured for tax purposes. That does not happen currently. Despite what the Minister said in this regard last week, there is an onus on all Departments and Ministers to ensure that public moneys are only paid to people who are tax compliant and who meet their tax obligations.
Current legislation provides for this. If rent supplement is being paid to a landlord, the landlord's details and PPS number must be sent to Revenue. People have got around this by requesting that rent supplement be paid to the tenant rather than the landlord and the result is that approximately 75% of rent supplement payments are paid to tenants. This should not happen. It becomes impossible to keep track of the moneys involved for tax purposes. The sum involved is almost €400 million per year, substantial public money which should be properly accounted for. The bulk of this money is not properly accounted for currently.
This issue arose recently in the Committee of Public Accounts when the Revenue Commissioners attended. The committee expects to return to the issue shortly with the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The problem is the practice that has developed whereby the rent supplement is paid to the tenant. It should be paid to the landlord directly. Over recent years, the IT systems of the Department were not adequate to capture the PPS numbers of landlords and relay them to the Revenue Commissioners. In 2006 when information was passed on to the Revenue Commissioners, they were only able to trace fewer than 50% of the cases involved. The current system is far from watertight.
I mentioned last week that the Comptroller and Auditor General was pretty damning of the system currently in place. He said the tax collection system for rental income is haphazard and ineffective. It is not possible to stand over a situation like that with any kind of confidence. The system needs to be changed first in respect of non-resident landlords and the onus must be taken off tenants to ensure the landlord is paying tax. I ask the Minister to move towards a situation where all rent supplement is paid directly to landlords and 20% tax is deducted at source. The tenant should not be burdened with the tax because it is not his or her business.
The Department is working with the Revenue Commissioners to ensure the system is improved as much as possible. All we can do is facilitate the Revenue Commissioners in terms of the information we can provide to them. I do not agree with the amendment as put by the Deputy. Rent supplement is an entitlement of a tenant, not of a landlord. Therefore, our relationship is with our client and not with the landlord. In the majority of cases the supplement is paid to the client, who then pays the landlord. There are some cases where, for convenience, the money is lodged directly into an account. Increasingly, in new large developments an agent handles half or all of the apartments and one would not know who the landlord is. I do not suggest this is right.
The Deputy said we cannot make the tax affairs of landlords the responsibility of a social welfare recipient. That would not be fair nor would it be practicable. We try and provide as much information as we can. There is no strong evidence that there is a major tax fraud problem in this area. There may well be some fraud and I am not saying there is not, but we do not want the Department to be put in the position where money it pays out on behalf of taxpayers supports people who want to involve themselves in fraud. We need to ensure the systems are in place with regard to the information flow between ourselves and the Revenue Commissioners and that the Revenue Commissioners have a good handle on our clients. We must also ensure the Private Residential Tenancies Board does its job in terms of the information and quality of apartments and properties being let. One of the difficulties of the legislation relating to the board is that the board cannot be notified until the client takes up residency. We cannot act in advance. We have to wait until a client is in residence and then notify that to the board.
The fact that some landlords live overseas does not necessarily mean they are not tax compliant. We cannot presume they are not compliant. Each year rent supplement is paid in respect of over 900 tenancies in respect of which the landlord is living outside the State. The total value of such payments, in the order of €4 million, is only approximately 1% of total expenditure on rent supplement. It is, therefore, not a massive sum and we should bear this in mind when discussing the issue. Payment is made directly to approximately 130 of the 900 landlords domiciled outside the State in respect of approximately 150 such tenancies. The value of these payments is approximately €950,000, which represents, at most, 0.25% of all rent supplement payments. We need to understand the context before we react on this issue.
I am not sure the number is particularly relevant. There is a principle involved and it seems there is not a robust system in place to ensure non-resident landlords pay their share of tax.
The Deputy and I agree that it cannot be the responsibility of the social welfare recipient to ensure the tax liability of his or her landlord is met.
In theory, the onus is on the tenant.
I agree; we are trying to work this out.
That needs to be tackled.
It does.
Does the Minister agree with my amendment, given that he is trying to sort out the problem?
I do not.
Does the Minister recognise it is a problem?
As I said, we have been talking to the Revenue Commissioners about the information flow needed in order that we can provide them with the information they require to identify those with a tax liability and to ensure they are tax compliant.
The Deputy quoted a lower percentage than the one I have to hand. My figure suggests there is good tracking in two thirds of cases. We are now focusing on the remaining one third, which I accept may be the most difficult. However, the percentage has increased to approximately 66% from 50%, the figure quoted by the Deputy. The Revenue Commissioners are certainly making progress on foot of the information made available to them.
Specifically, what does the Minister intend to do about non-resident landlords?
In what way? The Deputy wants the client to be paid the money directly.
Why can the Department or community welfare officers not withhold 20%?
Legally, they cannot do so because they are not the Revenue Commissioners or tax inspectors.
No, but banks and credit unions do it in respect of DIRT.
There is no legal basis to do it.
Could the Minister not change the legislation to provide a legal basis?
The fundamental point is that we are paying the tenant. What the Deputy proposes would effectively make the tenant responsible for the tax, which is not feasible. It will just not happen. I cannot imagine social welfare recipients saying they are deducting 20% from the value of the cheque to pay the tax.
It is a new development for community welfare officers to make the payment directly to the tenant.
No, that is the norm and has always been the case.
It has not always been the case from my experience. The system is very much open to fraud, given the way it works. This is a matter that the Committee of Public Accounts will certainly be examining very closely.
That is okay.
It is a can of worms. I am raising the issue of non-resident landlords specifically. The tenant should be removed from the equation.
The proportion of landlords is so small.
It may be, but the Minister should have a system in place for taxing income that we know is being paid from public funds.
The Deputy is presuming tax is not paid on it. I am not suggesting that is the case.
I am not saying there is no tax paid on it but that there is no system in place to ensure it is paid.
There is. Everybody has a responsibility under the law to pay his or her tax.
There is no way of policing the system, as the Revenue Commissioners have stated.
The Deputy could say that about everything. The Revenue Commissioners now have tremendous powers to ensure everybody is tax compliant. I understand the vast majority are.
The money is coming from the State. It is, therefore, crucial that the system is policed. One is obliged to pay one's tax, but clearly we are not putting our tracking mechanism into full force.
We are trying to help our clients. We are trying the help the Department of Social and Family Affairs--
I am not objecting to that at all, as I want to see the supplement paid to those who need it. It is money coming into the Exchequer that facilitates the making of the payment in the first place. The recipient of the supplement must state his or her PPS number. It is, therefore, desirable that the Revenue Commissioners have access to 100% of the information from the Department such that tax liabilities can be tracked.
As it turns out, I was the Minister who introduced the legislation underpinning the Private Residential Tenancies Board. It has all the powers to do what is suggested and that is why it is in place. We have a system in place to deal with the issue and the board should be allowed to get on with its job. If it is not doing so, that is another matter.
There is no cross-over between the Minister's Department and the Private Residential Tenancies Board.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on making it compulsory that the circumstances of every case where a deciding officer, job facilitator, community welfare officer or any other employee of the Department identifies a person who does or would enjoy better financial circumstances on welfare than in work, is reported to the Principal Officer of his or her section, and that a bi-annual report is made to the Minister.".
I recall that at least one of the Minister's predecessors stated they wanted to ensure nobody would be better off on welfare than working. In general terms, this has been the thrust of social welfare policy for many years and we all subscribe to it, but during the Second Stage debate I provided details of two cases brought to my attention in which individuals were most definitely better off on social welfare than they would be if they were working. All public representatives encounter such cases, as do officers of the Department. Does the Minister accept that if a person is better off on welfare than working, there is something wrong with the welfare system that needs to be changed? Does he accept that all such cases should be forwarded to the policy unit of the Department to secure such a change? My amendment suggests a method whereby cases can be tracked and reported to the policy unit with a view to having the legislation amended on an ongoing basis. Will the Minister consider this and produce a report on the issue?
By definition, anybody benefiting from the social welfare system needs support from the State and is unable to be entirely self-sufficient. The reasons an individual or family may have a substantial income from the State can be subjective; it could be difficult for them to earn such an income if they were working. It could well be the case that the State-derived income of families with large numbers of children, or of families in which both parents are not working, could be generous in some instances. However, in general, the social welfare system, as constituted and improved upon annually in various Social Welfare Bills, is aimed at facilitating and encouraging people to take up employment in order that they can escape poverty and improve the quality of their lives. In providing vital income support for the unemployed and other disadvantaged persons there is a constant balance to be maintained in ensuring programmes are developed in ways that are sufficiently responsive to various contingencies, while simultaneously providing opportunities to assist people to become less welfare dependent. We want to ensure social welfare supports are structured to support this objective. That is what the system does. A number of measures have been introduced in recent years to assist in the transition from welfare to work and remove poverty traps from the system. This and other examples are easing the means test through some income disregards. Tapered withdrawal of benefits as earnings increase, the introduction of employment support schemes such as the back-to-work programme and so on are aimed very much at working with the person to ensure work is a much more attractive option than dependence on the social welfare system.
I accept all of that. We all agree that the social welfare system should encourage work and that we should ensure, as far as possible, that the system does not create poverty traps or incentives to remain dependent on the system.
I agree. That is what I outlined. In recent years we have made substantial improvements in that regard. The emphasis now is on supporting people in going back to work. As Minister for Social and Family Affairs, I would like to do even more. If I could, I would skew the emphasis even more towards supporting people in going back into the workforce in order that they would not be caught in a poverty trap and could see the benefit of returning to work.
I accept that progress has been made in recent years. However, we are all aware of cases where that does not apply. I am merely saying that, in order to ensure the system is achieving what we all want it to achieve, there should be some reporting by officers on cases they come across in order that policy and rules can be changed in the interests of adhering to the policy to which we have all signed up.
In a general sense that is what happens. That is how one continually improves and reforms the system every year. I am also aware of the many stakeholders. The representative groups point out anomalies in the system. Dáil Deputies, Senators, people who are well aware of issues in regard to the system constantly make me and my officials in the Department aware of anomalies. That is why we have seen the improvements that have been made in the past few years. There are still issues to be dealt with on which we want to improve. We are working to do this, although I am not sure about the idea of preparing a specific report on the issue. There is a constant flow of information within the system through officials and Deputies raising issues by way of parliamentary question or otherwise that enables us to pick up on these issues which we try to address every time we produce a Social Welfare Bill. It is all about improving the system to ensure it is as efficient as possible.
I am not confident there is that constant flow of information. We would not have anomalies if that were the case. It would be helpful if the Minister stated categorically that he did not want anybody to be in a position where they would be better off staying on welfare than working, and that he wanted to know if there were such cases and that he would deal with them. It about stating a clear objective. It would be helpful if that were set down as clear policy, if the Minister made it clear that he was determined to root out poverty traps and wanted to know about them. All I want is for a proactive approach to be taken. People come to our clinics. We do the sums for them and have to tell them to forget about going out to work, to stay in the trap they are in. It is appalling that the system operates in that manner. It is soul destroying for the people in question. If the social welfare system operated properly, it would never be the case that a person was better off on welfare than working. It would be helpful if the Minister stated this as a clear and definite objective. That is what I had in mind. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be prepared to do it.
In fairness, the approach described by the Deputy has underpinned the philosophy of the Department since before I became Minister for Social and Family Affairs. As long as I am in the Department its philosophy will be underpinned by that thought process. It is about facilitating people to work and recognising that the best way to get them out of poverty is to get them into the workforce. There is no question about this. There should be no anomalies in the system that constitute a disincentive to achieve that end, although I accept there may be exceptions. Generally, however, the system has improved enormously in the past few years and will continue to improve.
If the Minister is serious, he could make that statement. He could say he wanted to know about such exceptional cases.
Of course, I would like to know about them but I do not even have to ask because colleagues inform me of anomalies. Often one receives only partial information and when one examines cases, the picture a Deputy has painted is radically different from the truth.
I would be interested in the Minister's views on the two cases I detailed on Second Stage. I will forward them to the Minister.
I thank the Deputy.
Amendment put and declared lost.
As it is almost 4.20 p.m., I propose to suspend the sitting for the Order of Business. Is that agreed?
I thought it had already been agreed.
I am prepared to press on if the committee agrees.
Since it has already been agreed, it is only fair to suspend the sitting.
Will we agree to resume at 5 p.m., or earlier if possible.
We will resume by 4.45 p.m. at the latest.
Sitting suspended at 4.20 p.m. and resumed at 4.55 p.m.
We resume on amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Shortall.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on providing that current welfare and pension recipients who are paid by payment book method shall retain that method of payment until they opt of their own volition for another method.".
This amendment relates to the proposed roll out of the swipe card method of payment for social welfare recipients. There is no general awareness of the Minister's proposals in this area. Where people are aware of the proposed changes whereby the book payment method will cease, there is a good deal of concern as regards being able to cope with the swipe card and doing business that way.
I do not know whether the Chairman wants to deal with my amendment No. 16. Perhaps I can discuss the two together at this point as they are related to the same issue.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 16 are related and will be discussed together, by agreement.
If people want to continue with the book payment, the Minister should allow for that. They should not be forced into a new method of payment against their will. I am also concerned at the level of preparation as regards the introduction of the swipe card, where many rural post offices may not have the facilities to operate it. Will the Minister would outline the plans he has in this regard and say how he intends to deal with the fact that people may no longer be able to get their social welfare payments in the local post office?
We have all received correspondence that raise concerns in this regard, mostly from rural post offices. Two main issues have been raised with me. One is in respect of the fact that recipients, if they are sick or whatever, currently can sign the back of the cheque and get a relative or carer to collect the payment. With the swipe card system, however, the recipient must sign a docket and attend in person to do so.
In addition, the present timescale of three months during which the cheque and the book are valid is to be reduced to 20 days. This means that if a recipient is in hospital for three weeks or is otherwise sick, he or she will lose the payment altogether. I know that the card will facilitate some people, but for older people it will be difficult. Offering people a choice will give those encountering difficulties the option to continue to use the book. However, in the future, as people are growing older, they will grow accustomed to using the card, and matters will then be different.
It is Government policy to facilitate the greater use of electronic payment systems in the economy, in the interests of developing a world class payments environment in Ireland. In this context the national payments implementation programme advisory group, under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, monitors the growth in electronic payments, the reduction in cash transactions and any new payment mechanisms which come on the market. My Department is represented on this group.
Customers opt for a particular payment method having regard to their personal circumstances. At present, some 50% of customers receive their payment electronically, direct to their post office, bank or financial institution. The remaining customers are paid by paper-based instruments such as cheques, postal drafts or personal payment order books. The Department is implementing a three-year strategy to change paper-based payment instruments to electronic payments at post offices and financial institutions. The programme is being implemented on a phased basis to coincide with book renewal, production of schedules and as personalised payable order books expire.
A range of measures is under way to inform customers of the change in payment methods and to allay concerns they may have as regards the use of the social services card to collect payments at post offices. Each customer is being informed by letter of the change in his or her payment arrangement. A letter is sent to each person who is being changed from book to social services card, informing him or her of the change and how to use the card. The social service card is sent to his or her post office. I am confident that the planned range of measures to inform customers about the change to electronic payments will ensure a smooth transition for them.
On Deputy Shortall's amendment No. 16, the replacement of books with swipe cards will have no impact on customers paid at post offices. Customers will simply present their social service cards and sign for their payments in the normal way. The social services card can be used to collect the social welfare payment at the recipient's nominated post office, regardless of whether it is automated. An Post and the Irish Postmasters Union are committed to assisting customers in the use of cards when collecting their payments. For those customers who cannot collect their payments in person, the Department is putting arrangements in place to allow a nominated person to collect the money using the social services cards. Basically, in rural post offices where people would have presented their book, they can simply bring the card and get paid anyway. The problem will be overcome in that manner.
Are there any options as regards the timescale and the fact that the payment must be collected within 20 days? If a person is having, for example, a hip operation, he or she will be out of action for at least that period of time. Is there any provision for such a recipient, enabling him or her to save the payment or have it held over?
I shall look into that. We are also putting arrangements in place for people to collect payments on behalf of customers.
Previously the timescale was three months. It is all very well to send a letter to customers, but some elderly people will not understand what is involved. A change from three months to 20 days is quite significant and I believe this needs to be examined.
I shall examine that issue.
Will the Minister please clarify what he said as regards others claiming on behalf of recipients? How is the risk of fraud avoided in such circumstances?
The same problem currently exists if somebody collects a payment on a recipient's behalf. However, instead of a book he or she will have a card. Such persons will have to be properly nominated by recipients.
Is there a system in place to authorise a person to collect a payment on behalf of a social welfare recipient?
There will be arrangements in place whereby a person can nominate somebody.
How will this happen when there is a change from the book-based system? What will the authorisation be if a pensioner is sick and he or she wants to nominate somebody to collect a payment?
The logistics are being worked out at the moment.
When will they begin to notify people?
The new system is the same as that in place at present. If a social welfare recipient is to authorise someone to collect payment and give that person a book it must be done in advance. The same will apply to the card. Customers will present the social services card in the same way as they would previously have presented the book.
At present a signature is required.
It will be done in advance. The detail is being worked out at present.
When does the Minister plan to roll out this scheme?
It is happening currently, as books are replaced. It will be completed over the next three years. Already, 50% of social welfare recipients are using the swipe card.
A difficulty has been explained to me. A social welfare recipient may nominate another person to collect his or her payment. A recipient who uses a card must sign an authorisation form, thereby giving someone indefinite authorisation into the future. A recipient who uses a book has the option of signing individual pages, giving authorisation to collect one payment only. That flexibility is being removed with the introduction of the swipe card. I see the benefit of the swipe card but pitfalls have been pointed out to me.
Has the Minister held discussions with the Money Advice and Budgeting Service with regard to this measure? Many families postpone collection of children's allowance payments for six months as a method of budgeting for big events. The Minister may say those people could open a savings account but that poses difficulties. The facility of leaving children's allowance payments for six months has been removed and this is having an effect on less well-off families. I see difficulties with the move to this type of payment.
The payment is made electronically. It can be paid into a savings account. It need not be withdrawn.
It is not as simple as that.
I understand the point the Deputy is making. Some people accumulate the cheques and do not cash them.
They cannot be cashed on a Saturday night.
This measure represents a change. I accept that.
The Minister referred to the social insurance card and the swipe card. Are there two separate cards?
It is the social services card, which is a new card.
In some situations that will be used as a swipe card if a post office has the necessary facility. In other situations will the card be handed in at a post office?
A person will go to a post office with the card. A signature will be required. A person collecting payment on behalf of another will need authorisation. The authorised person can be changed at any stage.
If the card is given to an authorised person he or she must be trustworthy. My experience as a solicitor tells me that people regard a signed authorisation as very definite and final. A person who exerts undue influence over an elderly person may refuse to return a card. This measure increases the potential for that to happen. Once the authorisation is signed it remains signed.
Is an authorisation in place at present?
A nomination form can be signed.
Where is it available?
I am told it is available. I do not know where.
What percentage of post offices are enabled to take swipe cards?
All of them will accept the swipe card.
It is my understanding that the card would be used as a swipe card in some cases and in others as an identification card. Does every post office have a machine for swiping cards?
No. I now understand the Deputy's question. I do not have the breakdown of automated and non-automated post offices. I will get that information for the Deputy.
Are there distinct advantages, from the Department's point of view, in the automated system? Does it make a difference whether a person swipes a card or not?
The automated system is much more secure. Some post offices do not have an automated system, and we wish to retain small rural post offices. In such cases the card, with a signature, will be accepted as an identification card.
Will this situation obtain indefinitely?
It will continue until we move fully to an automated system or until people decide not to have their payments made to post offices. It is a matter of individual choice. That is what we want to give people.
My concern is that at some point in the future the Minister will end this system and require everyone to use the card as a swipe card.
We have been through this matter. That is not my intention. I am trying to maintain rural post offices. I do not want to do something which would undermine the ability of the post office to continue in this business, which is a very important part of the rural post office business.
Is the Minister saying people may continue to collect their social welfare payment in all post offices indefinitely?
Yes, if they choose to.
That is fine. There has been some confusion about this. People feel that unless a post office is automated--
I spoke to the Irish Postmasters Union about this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 is out of order.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Amendment No. 10 has already been discussed.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of extending qualification for carer's allowance to any person who provides care to such an extent that the care recipient would require nursing home care or significant professional assistance if they were not receiving assistance from the person.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of facilitating carers who take up Carer's Allowance move from a position where they were neither paying or receiving credits to one where they receive credits from the date they are awarded the Carer's Allowance so that they improve their pension qualification upon retirement and the implications of having this provision back-dated.".
This amendment relates to people who move to receiving carer's allowance, not having been signing on for credits or receiving credits. In view of the need to ensure that everyone has some form of pension provision, the amendment proposes that such a person would receive credits. Such people take on a carer's roles when they could go out to work. If they are in receipt of carer's allowance it is only fair that they also receive credits to facilitate their pension entitlement.
Pay related social insurance credit contributions are an integral part of the social insurance system. The primary purpose of PRSI credits is to secure social welfare benefits and pensions of insured workers by covering gaps in insurance where workers are not in a position to pay PRSI, such as during periods of unemployment, illness or caring. In order to qualify for social insurance credits a person must have previously worked and paid PRSI at the ordinary or modified rate of contribution, must have paid or credited contributions in the last two contribution years and must show evidence of underlying entitlement to the contingency giving rise to the credited contribution, for example, illness, unemployment or maternity.
Under the current statutory provisions governing the award of credited contributions, recipients of the carer's allowance may be awarded credits if they switched to that payment from another credit bearing payment, for example, job seeker's allowance. There is also provision for the award of credits to claimants of carer's allowance who have left insurable employment to engage in caring duties. The award of credits is subject to certain conditions. For example, when a person has no paid or credited contributions for a period of two years he or she cannot be awarded further credits until 26 contributions are paid. In recognition of the carer's role, this rule will be waived for claimants of carer's allowance who were eligible for home-maker's disregards immediately prior to claiming the carer's allowance. Recipients of carer's allowance who are not entitled to credits may be eligible for home-maker's disregards which preserve the carer's entitlement for contributory pension purposes. The home-maker's scheme provides that contribution years spent working in the home while caring on a full-time basis for a child up to 12 years of age or an incapacitated person will be disregarded in calculating a person's yearly average number of contributions for State pension contributory purposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the implications of excluding Carer's Allowance from the means test for Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance.".
In this amendment, the Minister is being asked to consider the possibility of excluding the carer's allowance from the means test for determining whether one is entitled to a back to school clothing and footwear allowance. It is miserable that the allowance is included in the means test. As the Minister stated earlier, it is not a payment but an income support. Such a support payment should not be taken into consideration in a means test which is already strict.
The back to school clothing and footwear allowance scheme provides a one off payment to eligible families to assist with the extra costs when their children start school each autumn. The scheme operates from the beginning of June to the end of September each year and is administered by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive on behalf of my Department. The allowance is not intended to meet the full cost of school clothing and footwear but to provide assistance towards these costs. The person may qualify for payment of an allowance if he or she is in receipt of social welfare or health service executive payment, participating in an approved employment scheme or attending a recognised education and training course and has household income below standard levels. The Department of Education and Science operates a separate scheme of book grants for primary and secondary schools. In line with other secondary benefits, a means test is applied to ensure that limited resources are directed to those of greatest needs. The reality is that we try to maximise the payment to those who really need it most. Obviously it is not possible to have a really open ended scheme. It is quite an expensive scheme. It targets those in greatest need and is an important assistance to those trying to get children back to school. It is working.
This goes against the spirit of the carer's allowance, an income support mechanism whereby the carer provides support for a person to remain at home and stay out of institutional care. It is in everybody's interests and in the interest of society that a disabled or elderly person is enabled to remain in his or her home.
It is swingeing to use income support from the carer's allowance to disqualify a family from receipt of a once off payment for clothing and footwear. We should not penalise people on low income who have taken on responsibility for caring for an elderly relative. That is most unfair. Will the Minister reconsider it?
The cost of the scheme is €43 million, which is substantial. I am not trying to be mean, but using the available resources to maximise the benefit to those most in need. The back to school clothing and footwear allowance rates were increased in budget 2007 to €180 for children aged between 2 and 11 years and to €285 for young people aged from 12 to 22 years, increases of €60 and €95 respectively on 2006 rates. In budget 2008, it was increased again by €20 to bring the payment for those aged from two years to 11 years to €200, and to €305 for those between 12 to 22 years old. The increases are 67% and 61% in the past two years.
Deputy Charlie O'Connor took the Chair.
That increase is of no use to a family precluded from getting it because the mother is in receipt of the carer's allowance.
I would like to be all things to everybody, but I do not have the resources for that. There may always be some exceptional circumstances but I am trying to target the resources at those who need them most.
It is a further discouragement to caring for a person at home.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on any arrangements whereby claimants under the Social Welfare Acts are not provided with payments for the first 3 days of any claim and the continued justification for any such practice.".
Payment for the first three days of a social welfare claim is withheld. It is hard to know the justification for this. If somebody is out sick for a short time, he or she will not receive a payment, but by the second and third week it is quite clear what the situation is. If somebody paid social insurance for years, I do not see why he or she is not paid from the first day he or she is out of work.
Will the Minister please prepare a report on this?
Waiting days have been a feature of the illness benefit and job seekers payment scheme since their inception and are a feature of similar social security systems in many countries. The application of a three day waiting period avoids the disproportionate high administrative costs involving processing large numbers of claims of a very short duration. The waiting day rule is not applied in every case. Where a person is subject to intermittent spells of interruption of employment it would clearly be unreasonable to impose the three waiting days for each benefit claim. In the case of illness benefit and job seekers benefits, spells of interruption of employment are aggregated so that the waiting period is confined to three days of the aggregate period, subject to the rules of linking. Linking rules provide that any two periods of unemployment not separated by more than 26 weeks are treated as one claim and payment may be made from the first day of the latter claim. The linking period of job seekers allowance is 52 weeks instead of 26 weeks and linking rules apply in a variety of ways across schemes for example where a person claims illness benefit immediately following an unemployment benefit claim. A person who has no other income is not left without support during waiting days. A person who has no other income may claim supplementary welfare allowance in respect of the days in question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall make an annual report to both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on data security within the Department of Social and Family Affairs, including information on the number of breaches, complaints upheld by the Data Protection Commissioner, internal and external investigations underway, internal and external investigations concluded, civil proceedings underway, civil proceedings concluded, the cost to the State of civil proceedings etc.".
This amendment relates to data security and we had some discussion on breaches of data security in the Department. At the time, we were told the number of breaches that had come to the Minister's attention were small, but when questioned the Minister admitted there had not been a look back to see if there were previous breaches. It is very hard to put a figure on the number of occasions of such breaches. This is a growing area of concern. We have seen difficulties in ensuring the protection of data across the water. I suggest the Minister prepare an annual report telling us about the extent of the problem in the Department so that confidence can be maintained in the system. Sensitive data are held on everybody in the country and it should go out as a clear warning to staff that the Minister is being proactive in ensuring that security standards are maintained and that there is a reporting mechanism to allow him to report on it on an annual basis. For both those reasons I urge the Minister to support this amendment.
Given the scale of the operations of the Department, the number of cases of unauthorised disclosure of personal data is relatively small. No civil proceedings have been initiated against the Department in respect of information or security breaches. The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner carried out an audit of the Department's procedures for processing personal data in late January and a report on the outcome is awaited. The report may answer some of the questions the Deputy poses.
I will withdraw my amendment and pursue the issue in parliamentary questions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need for foster parents to be considered a qualified parent and for fostered children to be considered a qualified child for the purposes of qualifying for the one parent family payment.".
A case brought to my attention recently concerned a couple who had fostered a number of children. The wife died and her husband continued to look after the two foster children. He then applied for a one parent family payment and was refused. Apparently, a lone foster parent does not qualify for the one parent family payment. That seems unfair and arbitrary. The interesting point is that if he had a birth child of his own, he would qualify, but because the two children are foster children he does not. I cannot understand what the justification for that is. It is an anomaly that must be corrected as soon as possible.
The Department of Health and Children, through the HSE, administers the foster care scheme which includes the payment of foster care allowance in respect of each child fostered. The foster care allowance amounts to €319 per week for each child under 12 years and €346 per week for each child aged 12 years or older. Where a person takes on responsibility for a child who is not his or her own and is not entitled to a foster care allowance, he or she may be entitled to a guardian's payment from my Department. In essence, the State provisions in respect of persons caring for children are as follows: one-parent family payment - a social assistance scheme for those parents bringing up a child without the support of a partner; and guardian's payment, contributory or non-contributory - a payment made to a guardian for the benefit of the child who has been orphaned or abandoned where the surviving parent or parents has or have failed to provide for the child. The foster care allowance is an allowance paid by the HSE to the foster parents of those children in need of care and protection and who cannot remain in their own home. Effectively, there is a foster care payment administered by the HSE and a lone parent allowance, but one does not receive both payments. They are separate structures. A single parent does not receive a foster care payment.
If the man in question had a birth child, he would receive lone parent allowance.
He would not receive the foster care allowance.
He would be entitled to receive the other social welfare payment.
The point is that if it was his own child, he would not receive a foster care payment. One receives one or the other, but not both.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on paying rent supplement in advance rather than arrears.".
I have tabled two further amendments on rent supplement. I have received representations from persons working in this area who have experience of dealing with clients in receipt of rent supplement. In amendment No. 18 I am seeking to have the supplement paid in advance, that is, on the date rent is due under the tenancy agreement. That means rent supplement would be paid in advance rather than in arrears. Threshold recently surveyed landlords on their unwillingness to take on persons in receipt of rent supplement. The number one issue identified as being a turn-off was the payment of rent in arrears, because a tenant pays at the start of the rental period. Given that it is difficult enough to get landlords to participate in the scheme and that tenants have great difficulty in sourcing accommodation that qualifies for rent supplement, this administrative change could make a significant difference. I therefore ask the Minister to consider it.
As the Deputy knows, rent supplement is paid in arrears. That is the way the system works. There are exceptional needs payments available to those who must make a payment in advance and to cover deposits if needed. There were more than 7,000 such payments in 2007. The estimated cost to the Exchequer of paying rent supplement in advance is in the region of €33 million, a significant cost. Therefore, I am not inclined to make such a major and substantial change. There are issues that give rise to concern.
Would the Minister consider making the change on a phased basis? As a once-off measure, the cost would be substantial, even though nobody would be given additional moneys, rather the payments would be brought forward. Would the Minister consider introducing the change on a phased basis for new applicants or start the process in particular areas? There are difficulties in getting landlords to agree to accept rent supplement in Dublin city and it would be helpful if the Minister would go some of the way to remove the obstacles encountered.
The point is that there are more than 60,000 tenants receiving rent supplement. There is not that much evidence to suggest payment in arrears is causing major difficulty. I am sure there is the odd case here and there where it would be easier if the supplement was paid in advance, but I would want to be careful about the implications of changing a system that is working well. I have no doubt that if we were to move to make the payment in advance, there would be as many problems as there are with the present system which is working well and with which there is no real difficulty. Where particular circumstances arise, the system has the capacity to facilitate.
It is significant that an organisation such as Threshold identifies this as a problem area. It has surveyed landlords and this has come out as the top disincentive in participating in the scheme. That is significant. Will the Minister at least pay attention to the findings of Threshold and ask for a copy of its survey and submission and then respond?
In some of the pre-budget submissions it was raised as a difficulty that put some tenants at a disadvantage compared with those who could turn up and pay a deposit. A landlord will take the person who can pay the money up-front. The matter was raised at a meeting with landlords as it was presenting a significant difficulty for prospective tenants. It would not cause an additional charge on the Exchequer. It is an administrative issue that merits examination.
I will see what is contained in reports.
Will the Minister respond to the report?
I will have a look and see what is there.
Will the Minister respond to it?
If I can.
I am sure the Minister can respond, even if in the negative.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on requiring landlords to register with the PRTB as a qualification for receiving rent supplement.".
This issue is of concern to agencies working in this area. The amendment would ensure that landlords who are in receipt of rent supplement would be registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. This is a problematic area, for many reasons. The issue is being pursued in another forum from the tax compliance perspective.
The Minister must tighten up the existing systems and ensure that adequate information technology systems are in place to relay information to other Departments and provide it in a timely fashion. The amendment requires that a landlord supply his or her tenancy registration details when he or she is in receipt of rent supplement. This measure would close the circle.
At present, landlords are legally obliged to register their properties. If they are to be paid State money, it is reasonable that checks be put in place to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the PRTB. The amendment would require landlords to have a registration certificate from the PRTB and produce it before rent supplement would be paid. That would not be an undue imposition on landlords. If all Departments and agencies are working together, it is what we need to do.
I am concerned about a practice which is increasingly common. Officially, a rent is agreed with the community welfare officer, the bulk of it is paid by the community welfare section of the Minister's Department and the tenant then makes up the difference. Frequently however, tenants are required to pay a top-up rent because the rents being agreed with community welfare officers are below the market rents for the areas concerned. Tenants who wish to have accommodation in a particular area, which may be where they are living currently or is close to their families, for which the level of rent provided by the Department is not adequate may engage in this top-up system. This practice is common.
In such cases the landlord is being economical with the truth if he or she states the rent is X when it is, in fact, X plus Y. This involves an offence. In any event, the practice needs to be ended. The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, is an attempt to deal with this difficulty. While it is a popular scheme and works very well, major problems are associated with it as sufficient rental units are not available. In the Dublin area alone, 1,200 people are currently on the waiting list for RAS. I ask the Minister to pay attention to this area of concern. I will pursue the matter on Report Stage.
Deputy Shortall has raised a real issue. All Deputies hear from constituents of how they pay landlords an extra €50, €60 or €70 per week on top of the official rent. One is required to give one's PPS number on the private rental tenancy form. Landlords, presumably, return this form to the Revenue Commissioners. Otherwise, a landlord would have to give different figures to the Revenue Commissioners and the PRTB, which clearly constitutes fraud. I cannot say how widespread this practice is but I come across it on a fairly regular basis. There is a problem and it needs to be addressed.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, landlords are legally obliged to register tenancies with the PRTB within one month of the start date of a tenancy. That is a legal requirement. To make it a requirement that landlords must be registered with the PRTB before rent supplement is paid to a tenant would delay, or in some cases entirely prevent, payment of rent supplements to tenants. In many cases where a rent supplement claim is being decided, the tenancy may not have been registered with the PRTB as the establishment of the tenancy will be dependent on rent supplement being awarded. I do not wish to penalise tenants for the failure of individual landlords to meet their own statutory obligations. I am sure we are all agreed that would be wrong.
My Department supports the requirements that tenancies facilitated by rent supplements should be registered with the PRTB and is working with the PRTB to achieve this. To that end, my Department provides the PRTB with details of rent supplement payments to enable it to identify tenancies that are not registered and take any follow-up action necessary. We have refined this system so that a report now goes from my Department to the PRTB every three months. We are trying to deal with some of the issues raised by the Deputies.
The question of top-up rental payments is a difficult one. I do not wish to drive the rental market by increasing rent supplement allowances and there is a real danger of that happening. On behalf of the tax payer, we must strike a balance between giving fair and reasonable assistance to tenants while not making too generous payments to landlords. Deputy Shortall will return to the matter on Report Stage. It is a difficult issue. There is anecdotal evidence of what Deputy Shortall describes.
For that reason and for the tax compliance reason, it makes sense to switch to making the payment to the landlord. It is a very problematic area.
That would be a huge policy shift. As the Deputy knows, the social welfare system is based on a relationship with an individual who has entitlements to assistance. It would be a substantial and fundamental shift in law, procedure and practice to move from payment based on an individual's relationship with the State, through the Department of Social and Family Affairs, to one of supporting landlords directly. That would be a substantial change.
It is what happens under the RAS.
That is true. That is a different scheme operated through local authorities. It is a different relationship. Local authorities have a direct relationship with landlords. My Department's relationship is with individuals.
It is still not acceptable for the Minister to allow the transfer of vast amounts of public money without knowing whether the recipients are registered, as the law requires, or tax compliant. That is not a tolerable situation. I ask the Minister to devote some attention to this issue over the coming months. It is a very problematic area on many fronts.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on allowing rent supplement claimants on the waiting list for the Rental Accommodation Scheme switch to the terms of the differential rent of their local authority.".
This amendment relates to rent supplement and the rental accommodation scheme which has proved so popular. The level of demand for it has been completely underestimated and there is a long waiting list. The main attraction of the RAS is that people can work without losing their rent supplement. It enables them to get out of the poverty trap and move from welfare to work. That is in everybody's interest, particularly that of lone parents. It is very much in line with the proposals to support lone parents sponsored by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
In the absence of an adequate number of properties to meet the huge demand, would it not be worth considering applying the RAS conditions to people in private rented accommodation? They would pay differential rent and the balance would be made up by the State. In that way more welfare recipients would be eligible without the necessity to have RAS accommodation units available, and their rent supplement would not be affected if they go out to work and start to earn an income.
The RAS is a significant step forward in trying to better manage this whole area. It should be borne in mind that the relationship of clients with the Department is fundamentally different from their relationship with the local authority in terms of its responsibilities in the housing market. That differentiation will and should remain in place.
The current eligibility thresholds, income disregards and associated arrangements ensure that people have a financial incentive to take up employment opportunities. It is not necessary to implement a differential rent scheme assessment to ensure that they have a financial incentive to take up work. Those on rent supplement who are accepted as eligible for the rental accommodation scheme must continue to satisfy the qualifying conditions of the rent supplement scheme in common with other rent supplement recipients. However, once such claimants transfer to the RAS they may avail of the differential rent assessment scheme, where appropriate.
I intend to keep the rent supplement scheme under review. My Department will work closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in ensuring that the rental accommodation scheme meets its objective of catering for those on long-term rent supplementation while enabling rent supplement to return to its original role as a short-term income support. That is what we are trying to get back to, as can be seen from the figures.
How will the Department get back to that?
By trying to move more people to the rental accommodation scheme by having more involvement with local authorities which are responsible for housing. My Department is not a housing authority.
The Department currently funds the rent supplement scheme. If there was a will to do it, we could take people out of the poverty trap by extending the terms of the RAS and giving people access to a differential rent in their present accommodation. That would enable more welfare recipients to take the step of going out to work as they would not be penalised in terms of their rent supplement. Does the Minister agree it is worth considering? That is all I am asking him to do, to examine it and come back to us.
I will do so. I do not know what the outcome will be. I want to be careful not to get involved in responsibility for housing, which is clearly a local government responsibility. The thrust of the entirety of payments from my Department is towards supporting people in need of financial support from the State in a range of areas. I do not deny the Deputy's point, but I do not intend to go down the road of having two Departments directly involved in responsibility for provision of housing.
I would argue, equally, that the Minister needs to take a client-centred approach to this. If people are in poverty traps because of the way the welfare system works and because of high rents, there is no point saying--
People in receipt of rent supplement can work a certain number of hours and earn a certain level of income.
They very quickly start to lose money and they are in a situation where it is a toss-up whether or not it is worth their while going out to work.
I would like to move people into a position where they do not need a rent supplement.
The principles underpinning the RAS are very sound and could be extended to far greater numbers of people. The issues must be seen in the round. It is not enough for the Minister to say he is in charge of the welfare payment and that somebody else is responsible for housing.
I accept that in a general sense. I want to and do work closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and will continue to do so. The RAS has proved to be a good and successful scheme. If there is a way I can expand it in co-operation with local authorities I will do so, but I would need the support of local authorities to do that.
Perhaps the Minister might think about that between now and Report Stage. On that basis I will withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on removing Carer's Allowance from the list of welfare payments requiring the Habitual Residence Condition to be met.".
This amendment relates to the discussion we had last week on the habitual residence condition. I refer to cases where Irish citizens who have been living abroad, mostly in the UK or the USA, return home for six months, a year or two years to care for an elderly relative, usually a parent. Currently they do not qualify for carer's allowance because to do so they would need to cut all ties with the country in which they have been living and say it is their intention to live here indefinitely. That is not why they are returning. They are returning for a specific reason. In terms of the people for whom they are caring, it is in the State's interest that somebody should care for them at home rather than that they should have to go into a nursing home at a cost of €900 or €1,000 a week. It is in everybody's interests that carers should have access to carer's allowance. They do not automatically have that.
The Minister told us last week that the number of Irish citizens refused a carer's allowance is small. It would not, therefore, be a massive risk for the Department to remove the habitual residence condition in respect of the carer's allowance. If somebody is returning for the purpose of caring for his or her elderly father or mother, it is reasonable that the State should provide some support. It is income support, not a payment, and such a person needs income support if he or she is to come and live here for a short period to care for a relative. I urge the Minister, on humanitarian grounds, to remove the habitual residence condition in respect of the carer's allowance.
It should not be implied that I do not have a humanitarian streak. I do. Irish people returning to Ireland to stay have no difficulty in receiving various allowances where they meet the requirements. The problem is that the Deputy wants me to differentiate between Irish people returning to Ireland and all others. Under EU law I cannot do that. The benefit must be available to everybody.
Can the entitlement not relate to the person being cared for? At the moment there is a requirement that there must be full-time care and attention. The person being cared for is the one who qualifies. Surely the Minister can provide for a family member who comes home to look after that person.
I cannot because of the habitual residency clause, about which we spoke at some length last week. The provision works and was included to achieve a particular end. It is an imaginative policy. I know there is always an exception, but, by and large, the legislation deals with the issues it set out to deal with. I do not intend to change the provision. I emphasise that all Irish people returning to care for an elderly person on some kind of permanent basis can apply for the allowance. They do not have to cut all ties or sell their property abroad. However, they must demonstrate they are back in the country for some time and have bank accounts here. Clearly, anybody coming back for a few years will be here on some kind of permanent basis. What I want to avoid is a situation where people come home and claim the allowance for a couple of months.
The Minister could get around that problem by including a minimum period. There would be no difficulty with this. If an Irish person comes home from abroad after many years to look after their mother or father in the last year or two of his or her life, it is heartless to deny that person the allowance.
I am not doing that.
There is an element of the Minister hiding behind the provision.
There is not.
What effort has he made to enable people in such circumstances to qualify for the allowance? Does he believe they should qualify?
Does the Deputy mean all Irish people returning home?
I mean Irish people returning for a period to look after an elderly relative.
It depends on the circumstances.Some people returning might be extremely wealthy. Therefore, why should they, given that they have no connection to the country, do not pay taxes here and are not part of the system, gain the benefits? We need to stand back and consider the implications before we take that route. It is not necessarily the right approach. There is a generous system in place that is working well. I see no reason to open it up to people who are not paying tax hereor have no connection to the country to entitle them to gain direct benefits from taxpayers. We must all draw a line and pause before doing so.
Carer's allowance is means-tested.
I know that, but there are still issues to be considered in this regard. Under European Court of Justice, rules and the habitual residency condition, I cannot include timeframes. I emphasised in our previous debate that individual cases were examined and different cases were treated differently. We want to achieve consistency through staff training. There are grey areas. If someone has no interest in re-establishing roots in this country, there is a question mark against their receiving taxpayers' resources when they do not pay tax here and have no intention of doing so. That is a hard ask.
I am not suggesting the Minister should open up the system to that extent. I am talking about specific circumstances where a person comes home for the purpose of caring for somebody. This only relates to carer's allowance. On humanitarian grounds, most believe family members who provide such care should be supported by the State.
I do not agree everybody takes that view. They would not take the view that persons who have no connection to this country and who do not pay tax here and have no intention of doing so or forming any connection to the country should be able to come back and be funded by those paying tax here.
I am talking about people who were born and reared in this country and whose parents live here. If that elderly person is ill and dying, the individual returning has a definite connection. Many of the people concerned could be described as having been run out of the country in the past. If they meet the conditions laid down in the means test, they will provide care that will enable their parent to stay out of a nursing home. Most Irish people would say that in those circumstances the person concerned should be entitled to receive some kind of income support. This would be a lot cheaper than placing their parent in a nursing home.
What the Deputy is saying is that someone from France, Germany or any other country could arrive in Ireland with their granny and expect to receive the same payment.
That is not what I am saying.
Under EU law, I cannot differentiate.
The residency requirement can relate to the person being cared for.
No, that is not allowed.
I have not seen any such legal advice in respect of carer's allowance.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 6, before section 3, to insert the following new section:
3.-The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the prospect of removing the Habitual Residence Condition from the Child Benefit payment.".
This amendment deals with the habitual residency condition as it applies to a different payment. We have argued this issue back and forth and the Minister and I have stated our positions on a number of occasions.
On direct provision, the problem is not all the making of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Yesterday I attended a meeting of Oireachtas Members from the constituency of Laois-Offaly with the HSE, midlands region. The head of community care told us that 200 people being dealt with under the direct provision system arrived in County Laois before Christmas. They were in the county before the HSE knew or were notified about it. The poor operation of the direct provision system is having a knock-on effect on other Departments, including the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the Department of Health and Children. The fact that the process is so slow means people are left in limbo for an unacceptable length of time. That is the reason I feel so strongly about the amount of money recipients receive through the allowance and have a difficulty with it. However, I am aware I will not change the Minister's mind on the issue today.
Will the Minister let us have a copy of the judgment of the European Court of Justice on this issue? Amendment No. 21, in the name of Deputy Shortall, also relates to this matter. In what case was the judgment made? I would like to read the judgment, the details of which have not been given to us at any stage. I would like to see the exact conditions to which it relates.
The system is unfair. I take the Minister's point that he cannot discriminate. However, there is an inherent discrimination because it will never involve an Irish child. That cannot happen. Therefore, I do not agree that they are being treated like for like. No EU citizen will end up being treated under the direct provision system, only those from outside the European Union. From that perspective, we are in contravention of the UN convention. I ask the Minister to reconsider the issue.
I appreciate what the Deputy has said. We have discussed the issue at length and I do not intend to change my mind. I am surprised by how strongly the Deputy is arguing the issue. I find it hard to get my head around her reasons for having an open door in this country. That is effectively what she is saying. That would be very bad. We must have a measure of control. It is not about penalising anybody, but about managing who can gain access to the social welfare system. People must gain access to the system on the basis of certain criteria. There are people who are eventually granted asylum and then become entitled to receive the full benefits offered by the State. If we were to grant automatic access to benefits before they met any criteria of connectivity to the State, it would be a bridge too far. The people do not want me, as Minister, or the Government, to do that. If my Opposition colleagues were ever in government, I would be very surprised if they opened up the entire system, without conditions, to people from outside the European Union, by telling them they could come to the country and gain automatic entry to substantial direct benefits. I would be flabbergasted if that were to happen and suspect the cost to the Exchequer would quickly become enormous. By having proper criteria for benefit claimants we are able to manage the system. This is not harsh. We act fairly. We must have reasonable criteria, whereby we manage the social welfare system.
I have not suggested having an open door policy, nor has anybody in Fine Gael. Giving child benefit, amounting to between €35 and €40 per week, would not open the floodgates as it is a relatively small amount of money. It would, however, represent a huge increase for those being dealt with under the direct provision system because it would be a big step up from €9.60. I only tabled an amendment on the habitual residency condition because I am approaching the issue from the point of view of children and their needs and rights. I want to ensure they are not living in poverty and that they are treated, as far as is possible, in the same way as their peers, the other children with whom they attend school. The floodgates would not open because of the role played by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. If people were receiving €9.60 for two or three months, it would be tolerable, because it is possible to cope for a short period. However, in truth, they tend to stay in the direct provision system for a long period, the fault for which, I accept, lies with the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, not the Minister's Department. People have been in the system for up to five years and children have been in the receipt of €9.60 for the majority of their time in primary school, although I accept they also receive food and board. The difficulty lies in the length of time they are asked to live on such a minuscule amount. There is also the need to buy clothes, etc. There have been complaints from teachers and schools in this regard. The Minister says he cannot change the law for one particular group but it only applies to one particular group. Bodies such as the Irish Refugee Council and the free legal advice centres are clearly of the view that children are living in poverty because of this provision.
The Deputy has heard my views. I do not back horses but would bet my mortgage that if Fine Gael were in power tomorrow morning, it would not change this provision. I do not mean that in an overly political way but say it for the obvious reason that it would open the door--
It would not.
Of course it would.
The average family has 2.4 children; therefore, the cost would be €70 per week. Is the Minister saying people would flood the country to receive €70 per week?
It would automatically open the floodgates. We would immediately give people a connection to Ireland and recognise them by giving them children's allowance. The week after their claim was accepted, they would claim this and that allowance and it would be unending - we would have a legal nightmare on our hands. We would be asked how we could give them the payment, on the one hand, while saying, on the other, that we might deport them at some stage. It just would not work. The habitual residency clause is a good one. It is fair. The Irish people are more than generous to people from all parts of the world. We do the best we can with the resources available to us. I am not sticking in the mud as Minister for Social and Family Affairs; this is the right approach.
I do not agree.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Amendment No. 23 not moved.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
5.-The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of eligible persons and proportion thereof availing of the Family Income Supplement.".
We discussed this matter before Christmas and I wish to return to two points. First, following the budget, part-time workers are entitled to claim a reduced one-parent family payment because their earned income is so low. Will those families get the benefit of the payment, given the fact that the family income supplement threshold was lower than the increase in basic social welfare payments, meaning that their payment will be lower? I appreciate it is a small amount, at €2.40, but it is a lot to the people concerned.
Second, the Minister will remember the discussion we had on the advertising of FIS and take-up of the scheme. He said there had been improvements, which I accept. However, whether there needs to be another campaign or promotion to ensure greater awareness, there is still a significant number who are not aware of the scheme, a fact which emerged in the pre-budget submissions we received from various groups dealing with people who should be eligible. I do not wish to detract from the significance of the improvements but there are eligible persons who, because they are not aware of the scheme or for some other reason, do not claim the supplement. There is room for improvement in the way we inform those who are eligible. I do not know if it is the policy in social welfare offices to ensure people are advised of FIS.
As the Deputy acknowledged, there has been a huge increase in the number taking up family income supplement, following the significant increase in publicity in recent years, including a concerted FIS advertising campaign in 2006. To provide a more relevant indication of current uptake, a specific research project is under way to examine factors behind the level of take-up of the scheme. We should have the answers in a report in the middle of this year which should throw light on some of the questions we are all raising. I suggest to the Deputy that we await that report as we will then have a better idea.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
5.-The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of eligible persons and proportion thereof availing of the Back-to-School Clothing and Footwear Allowance, among low income families.".
I would like to see more money being made available for this allowance, as perhaps would the Minister. There should be a mechanism whereby people would not have to apply separately for it. As everything is now computerised, it must be possible to have a programme within the system capable of flagging people who are eligible. The Department has the details of the number of children people have and their ages. It should be done automatically because people are not aware of the allowance or put off by the difficulties experienced in the application process.
I do not know whether the system is capable of doing what the Deputy proposes. Last year the total cost of the payment was just under €40 million and will be just under €44 million this year. Some 180,000 children and 88,000 households benefited from it. Therefore, the scheme is successful in meeting the needs of the children it targets. I do not know whether we can correlate the information already available in the system to make the payment automatic.
I imagine it would be more cost effective than bringing people into an office to fill in the forms and then processing each application.
The numbers are significant.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 26 is out of order.
Amendment No. 26 not moved.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
5.-The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, an information report detailing-
(a) number of persons expected to benefit per annum,
(b) the estimates of amounts that will be transferred out of and to be received by the Social Insurance Fund (SIF) over the next 5 and 10 years,
(c) if the legislation will apply retrospectively, if so how many persons will benefit, what are the expected amounts in terms of benefits that will be paid by the SIF, amounts that will be transferred from SIF; and the amounts the SIF will receive.”.
This amendment is self-explanatory in that my questions are encapsulated by paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). If the provision is overdue since succession, as the Minister suggested on the last occasion, why is it being fixed now? What was the trigger that made him aware that changes had to be made? Is it contemplated that persons who already have a pension will benefit from this provision?
There are only 100 people involved, a very small number. The provision included in the Bill is only facilitative. A person employed by a EU institution is not covered by the protection that normally applies to EU citizens under EU social welfare Regulation 1408/71 which ensures other member states take account of PRSI contributions paid in Ireland. Such a person is instead covered by European Commission staff regulations which allow an official employed in an EU institution to transfer the value of his or her pension rights to the pension scheme of the European Communities institution, PSEC. This section makes provision to enable the transfer of any such contributions from the Irish social insurance fund to the PSEC. Only a small number of people are affected. Equally, a person who leaves the service of an EU institution and enters that of the Government or any other employment shall be entitled to transfer his or her pension from the PSEC to the national system. This section provides that moneys transferred shall be paid into the social insurance fund. The number involved is quite small.
The European Court of Justice has ruled that the transfer of social security contributions comes within the scope of staff regulations. Ireland is, therefore, legally obliged to provide for the transfer of such contributions to the PSEC.
Was this provision triggered by a decision of the European Court of Justice or the Pensions Ombudsman who made this point last week when he appeared before the committee?
It had previously been thought that Article 11 of Annex VIII of the staff regulations applied only to occupational and personal pension rights. However, following successful legal proceedings brought by the Commission against a number of member states, including, most recently, Spain, resulting in a judgment of the European Court of Justice in July 1997, it is now accepted that the provisions of Article 11 apply also to state pensions.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 7, before section 6, to insert the following new section:
6.-The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on supports available to individuals in receipt of Illness Benefit.".
I raised this matter on Second Stage. Will the Minister outline the purpose of the measure in section 6 providing that a person transferring to illness benefit from invalidity pension will receive the full personal rate of illness benefit? How much will the improvements cost per annum on average? How many cases are expected to benefit each year? When did the need for revision arise? I find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which one would transfer to illness benefit from invalidity pension because doing so would make life more difficult for oneself.
Illness benefit is an income support payment for people of working age who are unable to work due to illness and who satisfy certain social insurance conditions. Those in receipt of the personal rate of illness benefit may also be entitled to increases for dependent adults and qualifying children. In addition, they may qualify for a secondary benefit such as the smokeless fuel allowance, assistance under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme and the medical card. My Department has in recent years begun to alter its focus on the passive paying of benefits such that it can also focus on ensuring social welfare recipients of working age are given opportunities and supports to participate in the labour market.
Supporting employment is now regarded as one of the key objectives of all the illness and disability payments provided by the Department. For this reason, there are a number of supports available for those in receipt of illness benefit and other disability-related payments such as disability allowance and invalidity pension to encourage participation in education, training and employment. These include the back-to-work allowance which provides a financial cushion for those returning to work and the back-to-education allowance which provides second-chance educational opportunities for all people of working age, including those with an illness or disability. In addition to these specific schemes, there are various measures within them that also aim to promote access to training and employment.
Is the Minister concerned about fraud in this area? If the earner of a married couple over 60 years was to switch benefits, he or she would lose approximately €80 per week. He or she would also lose entitlement to free travel and have to collect medical certificates every week or month. I do not understand why one would switch.
Illness benefit is a payment for persons who cannot work due to illness. When one satisfies the PRSI contribution conditions, the rate payable is determined on the basis of one's earnings in the relevant tax year. Where the weekly earnings in that year are less than €150, a reduced rate is paid. The current position is that the majority of persons in receipt of invalidity pension would have been in receipt of illness benefit initially.
First.
A person in receipt of invalidity pension may transfer back to illness benefit if she or he becomes eligible to receive a widow's or widower's pension - one cannot receive the two - a lone parent's pension or a one-parent family payment and will be paid a half rate illness benefit in addition to that payment. It is maximising what one is entitled to receive under the system. That is why one would transfer back.
The Minister is not concerned about fraud. What checks are made on recipients of both illness benefit and invalidity pension?
Medical assessors work on the issue all the time. The Department is always trying to monitor payments made through the system to ensure there is no fraud. In fairness to its staff, they are carrying out such checks all the time. Now and again somebody may slip through the net by telling lies but, by and large, the Department has a good handle on the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 7, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
8.-The Minister for Social and Family Affairs shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the progress to date in replacing the One Parent Family Payment with the new parental allowance for all low income families.".
I have discussed both of these amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 7, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
8.-The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the progress made to support and encourage one parent families in entering the workforce.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 8 agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 8, before section 9, to insert the following new section:
9.-The Minister shall, within one month of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the progress of the National Carers Strategy.".
There have been initial consultations on the national carers strategy. The process was to conclude by December 2007 but this did not happen. I want to ensure it will be kept at the top of the agenda. That is why I tabled this amendment. I also want to ensure nothing is ruled out of order in the early discussions with stakeholders. We want a strategy that is as complete as possible and that deals with all the issues that arise.
On amendment No. 32 - I hope it is okay to discuss it now - the Minister shares my concern about young carers. This issue was brought up on Second Stage by Members from many parties. Given the small number of young carers, their voice will never be as strong as it could otherwise be. They are often trying to proceed through the school system in addition to being the sole carer in a family. I am most anxious to ensure they can have as normal a young life as possible considering the burden placed on them through no fault of their own or anybody else. Will the Minister be particularly cognisant of the needs of this group during the formulation of the strategy?
Will the Minister engage in discussions with the Department of Education and Science to determine the effect, if any, of the caring burden on young people, both in respect of their education and further opportunities? The views of the staff of the National Educational Welfare Board and the home-school-community liaison scheme could also be sought. This process may be time consuming but it is important if we are to make progress on the strategy. It is important that young carers' unique difficulties be recognised.
The working group is working on the overall carers strategy and I, like all the Deputies, want to resolve this issue as quickly as possible. The commitment has been made and it is included in Towards 2016. We are working with all the relevant Departments and stakeholders. It is intended to publish the strategy later this year.
The report entitled Caring Before Their Time?: Research and Policy Perspectives on Young Carers, published by Barnardos and the Children's Research Centre in 2004, states that an estimated 3,000 young carers are providing some care and that more than 300 carers between 15 and 17 years of age are providing full-time care. The report also states that further research should be undertaken on the number of young carers, the supports available to them, their needs and the impact of their caring role on their education and general development. It further recommends that policy relating to young carers should be a matter for the Department of Health and Children. That Department is doing the work in this regard.
Will it not be part of the national carers strategy?
My Department will not be excluded and it will liaise with the Department of Health and Children on the report. The Office of the Minister for Children is dealing with the matter and this is what was recommended in the report.
Will young carers be included in the strategy?
We will have a look at the overall strategy.
I do not need to press the amendment because the issue it addresses is subject to ongoing consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
Section 9 agreed to.
Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Amendment No. 33, in the name of Deputy Enright, is out of order.
Amendment No. 33 not moved.
Sections 15 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
I thank the Minister and his colleagues, and members for their co-operation.
I thank the members of the committee and my colleagues.