Priority Questions
80. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the recommendations of the advisory group report on tax and social welfare chaired by Ita Mangan; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [11426/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn 2013, my Department will spend over €2.8 billion on supports to families and children, of which €1.9 billion will be on child benefit, €220 million on FIS, €694 million on qualified child increases and €49 million on the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. This amounts to a very significant part of the Department of Social Protection budget, around 14% of total.
We need to be sure that this major investment delivers good outcomes. In line with commitments contained in the programme for Government, I established the advisory group on tax and social welfare in 2011. The advisory group brought together people with experience and expertise on the issue of how best the State should support families with children, on social welfare payments and on low pay.
I was pleased to publish the first report of the advisory group examining child and family income supports on 20 February.
This report makes important high level recommendations on how child benefit could be maintained as a universal payment, and I welcome this recommendation.
The group concluded that there is no one perfect method of targeting child and family income supports. There was a strong preference in the group for an approach based on a two-tier child and family income support payment. The group considered that this approach would allow for a rationalisation of the overall child income support system. The two-tier child income support payment would encourage work participation and allow for better flexibility in the targeting of support for different family types.
I must interrupt the Minister there. The rest of the reply will appear in the Official Report.
I just want to add that some members of the group found that taxation of child benefit is an attractive reform option but it was recognised that there are difficulties in this regard. As it is focused only on child benefit, it would not contribute to a better overall design of the family and child income support system.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
According to the group's report, the main legal issue relates to the requirement that cohabiting couples with children would not be treated more favourably than married couples with children. This could arise, for example, if the child benefit income was deemed to be the income of the income-earning spouse but could not be deemed to be the income of the income-earning co-habitee. The group also noted that questions had been raised in relation to ownership of the child benefit payment and therefore who would be assessed for tax purposes.
Given the range of complex issues involved, including fiscal, operational and legal considerations, as well as the implications for reforms in terms of child poverty and employment incentive outcomes, the Government has made no decision at this time on the core recommendations of the report.
I have asked for, and I welcome, as wide a debate as possible on these important issues. In considering the proposals to reform the structure of child and family income support payments, including the balance between income supports and services, such as child care, I expect that Government will also take into account further work by the advisory group on the issue of social protection and taxation supports for working age persons and more general developments in the budgetary and fiscal situation. Last week there was a good debate in the Seanad and the advisory group's report will be considered by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection on 20 March. I look forward to hearing the views of Oireachtas Members and other stakeholders as part of the broader public debate.
Already out of this year's budget, I allocated €14 million in 2013 for a joint initiative between the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to provide over 6,000 additional after school care places.
I thank the Minister for her response. In the course of her response - there is limited time here - the Minister stated how much the Department will spend on child income support, that the report has been published, and that a minority of the advisory group favours taxation and a majority favours a two-tier system. I know all that. I asked the Minister had she herself any views on the recommendations in the report, in other words, whether she is for or against it, and whether she is prepared to recommend it as the way forward albeit with some modifications.
The Minister will recall that she expressed concern here on a number of occasions about an apparent reluctance on our part to look at the question of targeting benefits payable under the social welfare scheme. This report provides for a method of targeting. Does the Minister support that?
I received the report roughly a year ago. On receiving the report, I had the poverty impact of the different recommendations in it examined in some detail. I refer to changes in big systems such as social welfare. With over 600,000 families getting child benefit for nearly 1.2 million children, there was a need to look at what the changes in operations would require and how long would they take, and the advice to me was that it would take at least 18 months.
Fianna Fáil, in the programme for national plan put forward before it left Government, spoke of rebalancing and integrating child income support and having a universal component as well as a supplementary payment. I am sure Deputy O'Dea is familiar with his own party's work in Government on the issue.
The group is doing work on the interaction of tax and social welfare in families with children which includes looking at the family income supplement payment. I understand that report is due some time later this year. Taking the suite of recommendations together, I will look and see how we can better target.
The Deputy will be aware that in this year's budget I got the agreement of Government to start a pilot project for 6,500 after school child care places - the first such development - and to fund from my Department, but working through the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, an area-based approach to child poverty. In fact, we have already begun a significant programme of targeting.
As I have stated previously, I would like to see significantly more targeting. Some 22% of families are jobless households.
Children in those jobless households have a higher risk of being at poverty than anybody else so it is important to have a detailed national discussion on all the different elements of this issue.
I am familiar with the NESC report which we commissioned when in government with recommendations along somewhat similar lines. In talking about examining FIS, the Minister will be aware that FIS is part of the package, which concerns FIS, qualified child increases and child benefit. While I accept what the Minister said about early child care, in regard to the poorer section of the community the provision she has made for that represents approximately 10% of what she has taken back through cuts to child benefit, which proportionately affect the poorest most.
I take the point that this will take 18 months - possibly over two or even three budgets - to implement. If the Government wants to go in this direction, it should be planning now to start the implementation process in the next budget. I note that when the report was initially published the Minister said it would be referred to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection to discuss it following which it may or may not come back to the Dáil. If the Government is to start providing for this in the next budget, surely there needs to be some timetable for it. Where are we in that regard?
We have already had a detailed and thoughtful debate in the Seanad on the report. As the Deputy correctly said, the report will be discussed in some detail when it is presented before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection. It is important that as many Deputies as possible from all parties and none in this House should give the report serious consideration. The Deputy knows that I cannot indicate what budgetary decisions may be made at this time of the year. However, I am anxious to consider the impacts, particularly on those in low-paid work. I will take into consideration that many people in the 35-50 age group are at work with two or three children but have heavily indebted mortgages. We need to be aware, as I am sure the Deputy is, that child benefit is a very important cash payment to such families, some of whom may have no social welfare income because they were previously self-employed. I cannot give an indication of budget decisions now, but I can say that we are giving very careful consideration to all the different impacts of the changes suggested in the report, how they would be implemented and the timeframe to do so effectively.
81. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will list the changes introduced to child benefit payment since March 2011; and if she will demonstrate the way that these changes have reduced child benefit. [11640/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn 2013, the estimated expenditure on child benefit will be approximately €1.9 billion to around 609,000 families in respect of some 1.16 million children. Child benefit is a monthly payment made on a universal basis to families with children in respect of all qualified children up to the age of 16 years. The payment continues to be paid in respect of children up to their 18th birthday who are in full-time education, or who have a physical or other disability.
Budget 2012 maintained the child benefit rate for the first and second child at €140 per month. The monthly rate for the third child was reduced to €148 and for the fourth and each subsequent child to €160. Budget 2012 also provided for the discontinuation of the grant for multiple births but we have continued the premium payments of 1.5 times the standard rate for twins and twice the standard rate for other multiples. Budget 2013 made further reduction in child benefit rates to €130 for the first, second and third child while the rate for the fourth child and subsequent children was set at €140. Budget 2013 also provides for child benefit rates to be standardised at €130 for all children from January 2014.
It should be noted that despite recent reductions in the child benefit rates, the current rate compares favourably with rates in, for example, 2002 when the lowest rate was €117.60 or 2005 when the lowest rate was €141.60.
Notwithstanding these changes, our expenditure and payments on child benefit remain among the highest in Europe. Since becoming Minister for Social Protection, I have strongly defended the universality of child benefit because the State must value every child and support families. Also, the fact that every family, regardless of their employment status, receives child benefit ensures that in the current system there is not a disincentive to work.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
Unfortunately, it has not been possible, given the level of adjustments required, to exempt income support to families from the general budgetary strategy. Although these measures are primarily designed to reduce overall public expenditure with a view to restoring stability to the public finances, some of the savings have been redirected towards services targeted at low-income families. The Children Plus Initiative provides for an increase of €2 million for school meals, €14 million for after-school child care and €2.5 million for an area-based child poverty initiative. The reasons for child poverty are multifaceted. Factors contributing to child poverty include living in lone parent households, labour market inactivity of parents, low parental educational attainment and living in households dependent on income supports. Therefore, a multidimensional approach is required to address this issue, including not only child income supports but child related services.
On reductions in child poverty, the redistributive effect of social transfers, including child and family benefits, can be observed in the at-risk-of-poverty rate for children set out in the Central Statistics Office survey on income and living conditions reports. Although it is not possible to isolate the poverty reduction effect of child benefit only - it is included with all other social transfers - the impact of social transfers in reducing child poverty is quite substantial.
During the period 2004 to 2010, which is the period for which the most recent data on children are available, the poverty reduction effect of social transfers rose continuously from 43% to 62%. The most recent CSO data show that in 2011 social transfers reduced the overall at-risk-of-poverty rate for the total population by 60%. Despite economic difficulties, of which people are aware, we have maintained payment to families at a very high level. An estimated €1.9 billion will be paid to around 609,000 families in respect of some 1.16 million children in 2013.
My reason for tabling this question is the Labour Party's promise to the electorate not to reduce child benefit. We all know how the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, views election promises. It appears one can promise whatever one likes in election campaigns. The Government gave a commitment to protect the most vulnerable in society. It is evident from the figures which the Minister has just read into the record that, in terms of cuts in the 2012 and 2013 budgets, it is not living up to its election promises or its programme for Government.
I call on the Minister to give a commitment that child benefit will not be further reduced in the forthcoming budget and to set aside the Mangan report, which has been sat on for the past year and guided the cuts implemented in this year's budget. Does the Minister not understand the increasing distress being caused to families, in particular working class families, across this State owing to the depth of the current crisis? Child poverty is increasing and the cuts in child benefit, rather than being ring-fenced to help children, are part of an overall budgetary cut which is compounding the distress of many families in this State.
On the Deputy's points regarding poverty, during the period from 2004 to 2010, which is the period for which the most recent data on children are available, the poverty reduction affect of social transfers rose continuously from 43% to 62%. As far as I am aware, although we do not yet have the detailed statistics, this has continued. As I said, our direct payments in cash to families with children, notwithstanding the severe economic difficulties in this country of which the Deputy is aware, continue to be among the highest in Europe. This is a considerable tribute to taxpayers in Ireland who have funded and continue to fund a high level of payment to families with children. There is a general recognition in society that families with children should be supported.
On whether it has been possible to avoid all reductions, unfortunately, it has not. When this Government took office, its predecessor had already invited in the IMF which had set in place a stringent structure in terms of how the budget would be dealt with and the conditions on which it would lend us money so that we could pay for social transfers such as child benefit, public servant salaries and health and education. The situation is difficult, although we are now emerging from it. Deputy Ó Snodaigh appears to have the luxury of being able to ignore the difficulties and the necessity to borrow on strict terms from creditors who have required certain cuts. I am surprised the Deputy is not aware of this.
It is not a luxury. Sinn Féin has been positive and progressive in terms of how this aspect of our finances could be addressed. While we have put forward proposals, the Government has chosen to ignore them.
Does the Minister not understand the contradiction in her position? She stated the positive effect of social transfer has increased, but the very fact she is cutting one of these social transfers gives lie to what she states. It will now have a negative impact instead of the positive impact she mentioned. Does she not understand the illogical position she has adopted in this case? Child benefit should be ring-fenced. Child poverty is addressed not only through this mechanism but through other mechanisms also, some of which the Minister has come to of late.
We should recognise it is to Ireland's credit that we pay such high levels of social welfare payments and it is the single greatest factor in reducing the risk of poverty. Unlike some very well-off European Union countries where the average effect of social transfers is to reduce poverty by approximately 40%, in Ireland the actual reduction through social transfers of the risk of poverty is approximately 60% to 62%, simply because of these very high levels of payments.
If the Deputy is suggesting, as he seems to be, that the Government had the luxury of ignoring the financial crisis we inherited and not providing for sustainable reform of the public finances then I must say the position of his party is a little fantastical because we needed to borrow, and unfortunately still need to borrow, significant sums. I do not know any economist who has been able to suggest a way of the State not borrowing these sums and continuing to pay for health, education, social protection, all other necessary public payments it makes and pay the public servants it employs. I am taken aback at the economic analysis the Deputy has set forth. His unstated suggestion is that somehow or another the country would default and that we would have difficulties which other countries have experienced. While it has been very difficult for many people in Ireland, we are managing to bring the country back to a sustainable recovery path which is why recently we have had the first growth in employment in this country since 2008.
82. Deputy Seamus Healy asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will ensure that the number of heating units and the heating period be restored to their levels before she took office in view of the inclement weather and the impact of fuel poverty on the old and the poor and the fact that the top 1% of income recipients have a gross income of €8.742 billion per year and an average income of €404,000 each and an after-tax income of €249,000 each per year and that the saving on debt servicing due to the deal on the promissory note is €1 billion per year; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [11710/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraIn 2013, my Department will spend an estimated €284 million on the household benefits scheme, providing 410,000 customers with a package worth almost €700 per year. We will spend approximately €176 million on electricity payments and almost €19 million on gas payments. In addition, 410,000 customers will receive a fuel allowance of €20 per week for 26 weeks at a cost of €211 million. We spend almost €500 million on weekly fuel payments for six months of the year, which I am sure the Deputy will agree is a significant amount of money.
Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, exceptional needs payments are made to people with a particular need and more than 3,000 customers are currently in receipt of a special heating supplement, paid to assist them with special heating needs, perhaps because of ill health or infirmity.
The provision for exceptional needs payments this year is €47.6 million, with an additional €11.4 million for supplements. All told, therefore, we are spending well over €500 million on heating payments.
The change to the electricity and gas elements of the household benefits package in budget 2013 will bring significant savings while aiming to enable customers to achieve better savings through greater mobility by switching suppliers. The cost of electricity and gas allowances has risen from €110 million in 2005 to an estimated outturn of €201 million in 2012, which is an increase of 83% over seven years. In the current economic climate these increases were unsustainable.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The fuel allowance scheme was envisaged as a way of providing some additional support for those on long-term welfare payments during the winter season. Budget 2012 reduced the duration of the fuel allowance by six weeks from 32 weeks to 26, which is still half of the year and is covering the coldest months from October to April. The household benefits package is paid all year round.
It should be noted that Ireland’s older population has the lowest rate of consistent poverty - 1.9% compared with the whole population rate of 6.9% - and, as a group compared to the rest of the population, are least likely to be at risk of poverty. This points to the adequacy and importance of the State pension and other supports.
There is significant fuel poverty in this country and it particularly affects the elderly, infirm and those with disabilities. Studies have shown that more than half of elderly people have cut back on food to try to keep their homes warm. About 60% of elderly people are worried about whether they can heat their homes properly in the autumn and winter. There are significant cutbacks in the heating supplement paid by community welfare officers, almost to the point of abolition compared to previous years.
A question please, Deputy.
Today, every local authority in the country has been notified of savage cutbacks in the housing for older people grant scheme. That scheme was used to insulate homes, install windows and doors, and generally keep homes warm. Without borrowing another cent we could reverse these savage cuts to the heating and fuel schemes in recent budgets. The Government says it is saving €1 billion per year on the promissory notes deal. Last week, the Minister for Finance told me that the top 1% of income earners in this country earn €8.74 billion, which is an average of €404,000 each or an after-tax figure of €249,000. Yet we have no wealth tax or assets tax. The Minister would be well able to restore the cuts she introduced in the last two budgets on the basis of those two issues.
I appreciate that Deputy Healy is talking to constituents who find the price of electricity and fuel difficult to afford. These prices have risen enormously in recent years internationally, so that is reflected in Irish prices as set by the regulator. Ireland's older population, however, has the lowest rate of consistent poverty, at 1.9% compared to the whole population rate of 6.9%. As a group compared to the rest of the population, the elderly are least likely to be in poverty for reasons I have explained to Deputy Ó Snodaigh. Our rate of social welfare payments to families with children, and also to our older citizens, is significantly in the higher end of the range across Europe. We have been able to maintain that despite the economic difficulties visited on us by the promissory note arrangement that was entered into by the last government, which was very costly for this State. It is greatly to our credit that we have been able to renegotiate this as the Labour Party suggested when we were in opposition.
We are now changing from a units-based to a cash credit arrangement on a monthly basis. Some 40% of electricity customers and 20% of gas customers in Ireland have switched supplier and as a consequence have got the benefit of various discounts. When it comes to customers on social welfare, however, only 16% have switched.
One thing I would like to do is where there are attractive offers that would reduce people's heating bills, they should be enabled to take advantage of such offers if they wish. The old system was not as flexible as the new system will be.
Deputy Healy, briefly.
Elderly people have been targeted with significant and savage cutbacks in recent budgets. These various schemes pertaining to heating units, free fuel, mobility allowance, respite care grant and so on are the little things that made life bearable for elderly people. They are the very things that Margaret Thatcher targeted when she came to power in England and, unfortunately, it now appears as though the Government, the Department of Social Protection and its Minister are following in the footsteps of Thatcher in reducing these little things that make life bearable for elderly people. I ask the Minister to have some compassion. She has the money, as it is available from the promissory notes and from high earners.
Thank you Deputy. I must call the Minister for her final reply.
As she has the money, I ask her to please restore these benefits to elderly people.
I have been determined and have succeeded in protecting the weekly pension payment and for those elderly people I know, that is the most important and significant part of their income. People speak to me as well as to the Deputy and-----
I am sure they do.
-----the second point they make to me is that elderly people value in particular concessions such as the free travel allowance. Again, although the Government must make all its schemes as efficient and as cost-effective as possible, these nonetheless are highly important benefits to which the taxpayers contribute. Moreover, they are happy to see that our elderly people have one of the highest levels of payment in Europe and, therefore, in Ireland, the lowest risk of poverty.
They also face the highest costs in Europe.
Let me say to the Deputy-----
In conclusion.
-----that keeping intact the weekly social welfare payments of the pension and retirement payments was emphasised in all the submissions made to me. Second, in view of the more than €500 million the Government is spending on heating, I want to have a stronger system for insulating and retrofitting homes.
It is being reduced today.
My colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, is working on this at present and fairly ambitious targets are being set.
The grant in south Tipperary is being reduced from €3.1 million to €1 million.
Construction-related work has become cheaper and the key point-----
South Tipperary's grant was reduced today from €3.1 million to €1 million. The scheme has been destroyed.
Please Deputy.
-----is to use the money to retrofit homes to avoid situations where, as the Deputy and I both are aware, in some cases smoke is going up the chimney and is heating the air above the house, not the house itself.
83. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection her views on the future of the one-parent family payment; the progress that has been made on her commitments to reform child care provision before implementing changes to the payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [11428/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe number of one-parent family recipients stood at 87,824 in January 2013. The cost of the one-parent family scheme was €1.06 billion in 2012 and it is estimated to cost approximately the same in 2013. The current reforms to the one-parent family payment aim to prevent long-term dependence on social welfare support and to facilitate financial independence among lone parents, to recognise parental choice with regard to the care of young children but with the expectation that parents will not remain outside of the labour force indefinitely and to include an expectation of participation in education, training and employment. The reformed scheme will bring Ireland's support for lone parents in line with international provisions where there is a general movement away from long-term and passive income support and towards helping people to have life chances and choices in respect of education, training and employment with a view to financial independence for themselves and their children.
I am very conscious that the changes to the one-parent family payment scheme highlight the need for additional supports for lone parents that will be affected by these reforms. In particular, there will be a need for additional after-school child care provision so as to assist former one-parent family payment recipients in making their transition into employment or other activation supports.
The joint child care initiative that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and I announced, as part of budget 2013 and funded by my Department is in recognition of the support these individuals will require. This initiative will provide approximately 6,000 after-school child care places for low-income families and social welfare income support recipients who gain employment and who have children of primary school age. Officials from my Department, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, and the Department of Education and Skills are currently working out the exact parameters of the scheme, which will be launched on a phased basis during 2013, commencing with a pilot in April 2013.
I regret to say that the content of the Minister's reply is meaningless when measured against what is happening on the ground. The Minister is aware that on page 22 of the programme for Government there is a statement "The elimination of poverty will be an objective of this Government." She is also aware that lone parents form one of the most vulnerable of groups at risk of poverty. The most obvious way for a lone parent to climb out of poverty is to get a job. When the Minister came into office, a lone parent going out to work could earn €163 per week without affecting the lone parent's allowance. Last year the Minister reduced that sum to €146.50. This year I understand it has been reduced to €130. Will the Minister explain how reducing the amount a lone parent can earn with no effect on the lone parent's allowance creates an incentive to go out to work? Will she also explain how the changes which penalise lone parents who take up community employment schemes will create an incentive for lone parents to go on a community employment scheme to try to better her or himself?
When compared internationally, our payments to lone parents are extremely generous. The Deputy probably agrees with me that when a parent is alone, it is desirable that, particularly after the child is well settled in school, the parent, especially if he or she is young, should be given every encouragement and support to get back into work or education and, ultimately, employment so that he or she can become financially independent.
The Deputy's references to the current income disregard, the payment a lone parent receives, depends on his or her weekly income. For people with weekly means of less than €110, working and earning up to that amount, the full rate of the one parent family allowance will be paid. Earnings above this limit are assessed at 50% up to a maximum of €425 per week. People whose earnings exceed that sum are no longer entitled to lone parent's allowance. That in effect is a very strong support to give an additional boost to lone parents who go back to work. Many lone parents work on a part-time basis, fewer than 20 hours a week, because of their commitments to family care. This is a very significant support in that regard.
It may be a significant and strong support but the point I am trying to make is that it is a weaker support than the one that existed when the Minister took office. She says she wants to encourage lone parents to go out to work. To tell a lone parent that he or she could earn less than hitherto without affecting lone parent's allowance creates a barrier and a disincentive to those who want to go out to work.
Community welfare schemes are a similar case.
On 4 July 2013, the lone parents of Ireland will not be celebrating because on that day a change kicks in whereby a lone parent with a child over 12 years of age will no longer be entitled to lone parent's allowance. That is coming down again in 2014. Did the Minister make a statement that she would not impose any changes to lone parent provision, by way of qualification or income disregard, until Ireland had a Scandinavian-type system of child care? Is that true? If so, where is the Scandinavian system?
To correct what the Deputy said, if someone receives a lone parent payment that commenced before 27 April 2011, on 4 July 2013 the age threshold reduces to 17 years of age. On behalf of Fianna Fáil, Deputy O'Dea seems to want lone parents to stay as a special category. I see parents as parents and we should refer to all parents and children, whether parents are in a formal marriage relationship, cohabiting or parenting alone. Fianna Fáil tends to categorise lone parents rather than, as other countries do, enabling lone parents to get back to education and training when their children have settled in school and, thereafter, into employment.
That is the ultimate logic of where the Minister is going.
The Deputy knows many people who have been in this situation and, as the children grow up, people are extremely anxious to get back to well-remunerated employment and to become financially independent. People often say, probably to Deputy O'Dea but certainly to me, that they want to be able to give up their book. I want to see lone parents becoming independent.
The Minister should encourage them.
The €1 billion we spent helping lone parents, who are doing a great job of raising their children, should help them to get back over a period of time to full financial independence.
84. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection the directives that she has given for the clothing grant that community welfare officers issued under their exceptional needs payment scheme. [11641/13]
Amharc ar fhreagraUnder the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, the Department may make a single exceptional needs payment to help meet essential, once-off and unforeseen expenditure which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of their weekly income. The Government has provided over €47 million for the scheme in 2013. Exceptional needs payment are payable at the discretion of the officers administering the scheme, taking into account the requirements of the legislation and all the relevant circumstances of the case in order to ensure the payments target those most in need of assistance. There is no automatic entitlement to a payment or predetermined amounts under the different categories for exceptional needs payments.
Weekly social welfare payments should cover normal clothing needs. However, in exceptional circumstances support is available for clothing under the exceptional needs schemes. The Department has recently issued recommendations to officers administering the scheme including guidance amounts for payments in respect of child and adult clothing. For 2013, the Department has recommended that only in unforeseen and exceptional circumstances should the payment of an allowance in respect of clothing be made and has recommended a maximum payment of €100 for adult clothing and €50 in respect of child clothing. The January 2013 consumer price index indicates that the overall cost of clothing and footwear has fallen by over 36% in the last number of years.
Persons who consider they have an entitlement to a special needs payment should contact the local social welfare officers administering the scheme.
I have set out a table that shows the total amount spent in the past two years on adult and child clothing, religious ceremonies, prams, buggies and cots. The table may be helpful to the Deputy. It also shows the average payments.
|
Year |
Item |
Number of Payments |
Total Cost €million |
Average Payment |
|
2011 |
Adult/Child Clothing |
49,170 |
€7.60 |
€154 |
|
2012 |
Adult/Child Clothing |
43,417 |
€6.50 |
€150 |
|
2011 |
Religious Ceremonies |
13,971 |
€3.42 |
€245 |
|
2012 |
Religious Ceremonies |
12,464 |
€1.50 |
€120 |
|
2011 |
Pram/Buggy/Cot |
10,942 |
€2.02 |
€185 |
|
2012 |
Pram/Buggy/Cot |
9,413 |
€1.72 |
€183 |
Last year, we had a long discussion on this matter when a question arose about religious ceremonies. However, this is not the reason that I have tabled this question. The directive has taken effect in the past month or two. Some people, especially pensioners, availed of a payment once per year. There is a lie in the statement where it refers to people being reasonably expected to pay for clothing or so on out of their social welfare payments, be that cost €100, €150 or whatever figure the Minister devised. Given the cuts to different elements of supports for pensioners in particular, they have less disposable income than used to be the case. This also applies to those who depend on social welfare.
Will the Minister indicate whether community welfare officers will not enforce a blanket refusal for people who approach them for clothing grants under the exceptional needs payment scheme, given that fuel prices have increased, the fuel allowance has been cut and there have been cuts to other allowances that cover increasing costs?
I must call on the Minister to reply.
Would such a blanket ban not exclude some people from day-to-day life, given that this is a social inclusion payment and is meant to ensure that people can at least dress comfortably, or hopefully not in a fashion that could be considered rag and bone? They have an ongoing dependence on this payment. I do not have a major problem with a cut, as it is means tested. The community welfare officers should be taking these matters into account instead of cutting.
In fairness, this is Question Time.
As the Deputy correctly stated, community welfare officers have discretion. Since entering the Department of Social Protection, they have been working to share and collate data on how these payments are dealt with across the country. In our discussion last year, I told the Deputy of my surprise that there was an average payment of €300 in respect of holy communions in some areas such as Dublin whereas such payments were not made in other parts of the country. As the Deputy knows, there is no such scheme in the North.
These special payments are given to people in the context of special needs that arise. The suggestion is that such a payment would be in the region of €100 for an adult and €50 for a child. The payment is partly in respect of clothing. As I am sure the Deputy is aware, there has been a significant reduction in recent years in the cost of clothing in shops and stores throughout the country. That reduction has been remarkable in many ways. I have accepted the recommendations made by people involved in the community welfare service.
The Deputy will find that the staff of the Department of Social Protection are always prepared to give their full consideration to specific cases of hardship. In addition to these payments for clothing, we also provide payments to people experiencing difficulties in meeting funeral costs or in kitting out their houses and so on.
It is a not inconsiderable total spend of €47 million, which I expect Deputy Ó Snodaigh will agree is a very significant amount of money. It is interesting that other jurisdictions, including where Sinn Féin is in government itself in the North, do not even have such a scheme, but people pay for it out of their much lesser social welfare payments that apply in the United Kingdom and the North of Ireland.
The effect on the ground of the changes referred to by the Minister is that there is now a blanket refusal by community welfare officers. It is not just the case that they can take the situation into account and that the payment is means-tested. The situation North and South is not comparable by any stretch of the imagination. It is a pity that every time the Minister replies to me she tries to distort the position. We are dealing with questions relating to this State. Can the Minister guarantee that €47 million will be ring-fenced for exceptional needs payments for this year so as to ensure that not just those who seek clothing grants, but those seeking other help will have some recourse to a saving that will help them get out of the hole the Government and the previous Government have put them in, given the effects of all of the other cuts on those people’s lives?
I gave the Deputy the amount that is provided for in the Estimate, which is €47 million. That is a significant amount. In 2011, approximately 49,000 people got assistance with clothing. In 2012, a total of 51,914 people got such assistance. I do not fully understand the reason the Deputy suggests that there is no provision now because there is a provision in the Estimates for €47 million. Perhaps he would give me the details.
It is important that Members such as Deputy Ó Snodaigh would appreciate that we are borrowing money to pay for social protection. We do that because it is important for our citizens. However, it is equally important to be conscious of those who are lending to us, which includes the United Kingdom. That jurisdiction makes the point on such payments that it does not pay it at all and that social welfare payments there are well below the level at which we make social welfare payments. The United Kingdom does not make any provision under this particular heading.
I have not even mentioned the significant amount my Department also spends in exceptional cases of flooding. It is not included in the figure. In those cases we renew clothing, bedding, household goods and other items which have been destroyed by flooding. That is something else with which community welfare service officers deal. Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s suggestion that community welfare officers no longer make any payments is incorrect. The evidence shows that 51,000 payments were made last year-----
I did not say that.
-----for clothing and footwear, and 49,000 payments were made in the previous year.
The Minister should be allowed to conclude.
The Minister should not misrepresent what I said.
I do not understand the basis of Deputy Ó Snodaigh’s argument that payments on the ground have stopped. I am sorry, but that is not true.
Clothing grants have stopped since January.
We must move on to Other Questions. Question No. 85 is in the name-----
On a point of information-----
I am sorry, no. We are moving on to Other Questions.
-----they are the figures for last year.
I am not the only one standing up.
We are on Other Questions now. I am speaking to everyone.
