Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Jan 2018

Vol. 963 No. 6

Other Questions

Community Employment Schemes Review

Charlie McConalogue

Question:

6. Deputy Charlie McConalogue asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans for the Tús scheme and the community employment schemes in view of the fact that many community groups are finding it difficult to recruit persons (details supplied); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1878/18]

James Lawless

Question:

8. Deputy James Lawless asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if her attention has been drawn to the various conflicts emerging between operators of community employment schemes and those agencies (details supplied) tasked with reskilling; her plans to reform the schemes and address current restrictions preventing fuller participation in community employment schemes for many persons; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1992/18]

This is to ask the Minister her plans for the Tús and the community employment schemes in view of the fact that many community groups are finding it increasingly difficult to recruit persons, particularly in light of some of the employment agencies which work on behalf of the State having to prioritise applicants if they are called for those first even in cases where a Tús scheme or a community employment scheme might be more beneficial and more suitable to an applicant.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 8 together. Maybe the other Deputy would like to-----

No. The Deputy does not have the opportunity.

Sorry, I beg the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's pardon.

Just one Member poses the question. The other Deputy will have an opportunity to ask questions.

What is the timing for this?

Deputy Lawless will have an opportunity. There is double time and the Deputy will have an opportunity the same as Deputy McConalogue.

My Department provides a range of activation supports and programmes catering for long-term unemployed jobseekers and those most distant from the labour market. These supports include the JobPath service and programmes such as community employment, CE, and Tús.

Schemes such as CE and Tús provide part-time temporary work in local communities, as a stepping-stone back to employment. However, it is important to note that these placements are not full-time sustainable jobs. Instead, they are designed to break the cycle of unemployment and maintain work readiness thereby improving a person's opportunities of returning to the labour market or getting a job for the first time.

JobPath aims to place jobseekers into full-time sustainable employment by providing intensive individual support to help them to overcome barriers to employment. People who have completed their year-long engagement with JobPath may apply, if eligible, to participate in a work programme such as CE or Tús.

The Deputies will appreciate that the welcome reduction in the unemployment rate is a factor in recruitment to all programmes. Long-term unemployment is expected to fall further this year in line with the continuing forecasted fall in overall unemployment. Given the significant drop in the live register, it does not necessarily follow that difficulties filling vacancies would not have arisen if any of our schemes did not exist.

In the context of the economic recovery, my Department undertook a review of all the work programmes in 2016. While the primary focus was on CE, the review also looked at other employment programmes, such as Tús. Arising from the review, the Government agreed to implement changes to the qualifying conditions for CE in order to broaden access to a wider range of people. These new rules were implemented in July 2017. They included the qualifying age being reduced to 21 years. In addition, while, in general, all placements will now be for one year only, if a CE participant is undertaking training to achieve a major award, the participant's time can be extended by up to two years to allow him or her to complete the training which will enhance his or her overall employment prospects. This allows for three years continuous participation on the CE schemes. Those over the age of 55 years can also remain on CE for three years. In addition, the reference year for CE participation was moved from 2000 to 2007 which ensures that more people can re-qualify for the programme. Overall, these changes improve the way the schemes operate and will allow more people who are long-term unemployed to access them. I will continue to keep this whole area under review so that these schemes provide real and valuable support to both individuals and communities.

I acknowledge the work that those on CE schemes and their host organisations do in communities. We all know the real value of the services they provide and are appreciative of it.

The Government is mindful of the large number of work programme places involved in service delivery and other valuable services around the country. In this regard, if any scheme is experiencing particular recruitment difficulties, it should contact its local Intreo centre for assistance.

I thank the Minister for her response. In outlining the role of the CE and Tús schemes, the Minister indicates that the Government does not see them as sustainable pathways for people on their own and that her primary focus in relation to their objective is entirely towards placing people back in employment. While that is a key objective, we also have to recognise the tremendous role which these schemes, and those who work on them, carry out in communities, whether it be in community associations, Tidy Towns groups, crèches, soccer clubs or GAA clubs. In many ways, those who contribute to their community through a participation in a CE or Tús scheme help make communities tick and help make sustainable communities. It is important we recognise that.

It is also important we recognise that it is appropriate that some, particularly those who are reaching the end of their working life but who are also reaching the limit in terms of their participation in Tús or CE schemes, be allowed to continue to contribute to the community and that the guillotine simply does not come down and leave them in a situation where they are blocked from further participation in a scheme and contributing to their community and also not in a position to get employment. We need to review the position in that regard.

Sorry, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, am I not in next?

That is not the way it operates. The Minister will respond and then Deputy Lawless will have an opportunity to pose his first supplementary.

Sorry, five minutes are dedicated to each question. Is that 60 minutes in total? If so, how is the time allocated? I have yet to speak on my question.

Deputy Lawless will get his minute.

Two one-minute opportunities. That is the norm.

Two one-minute slots?

For clarity, Deputy McConalogue asks-----

Hold on, let us clarify it. Following long-standing tradition, the Deputy who tables the question that happens to be first, Question No. 6, - Deputy Lawless's question is Question No. 8 - is Deputy McConalogue. Only one Member can pose the question. Deputy McConalogue has posed the question. He has questioned the Minister. The Minister will respond. Then Deputy Lawless will have an opportunity to question the Minister and she will respond. However, Deputy Lawless will have two opportunities. Deputy Lawless is not being deprived of anything other than that he cannot pose the question, which is there in writing anyway. Has Deputy Lawless an issue?

It appears, if I added the time, that my question is receiving less time in this arrangement than if the questions were taken separately.

Yes, 30 seconds less.

Do I get a first supplementary?

Deputy Lawless gets two supplementaries. He has lost nothing, except 30 seconds that are on the Order Paper anyway.

To be 100% sure, I did not say the CE schemes and Tús were unsustainable. They are not providing sustainable, long-term jobs and they were never designed to do that. They are employment activation schemes, which is what it says in the documents from when the Deputy's party started CE schemes. Many people are providing services in their communities and I agree with the Deputy that communities could not survive without them. I acknowledge, respect and totally appreciate what they do. They do not see it as employment activation; they genuinely see it as a job and a service and they are incredibly proud to do it. We have broken hearts by the way the system currently operates. If one reads between the lines, I am telling the Deputy I agree with him. If a CE placement gives a person pride in serving his or her community, I do not see the benefit, if he or she does not have a job to go to, of taking the person off that scheme and sending him or her home to be in his or her house for a year before he or she can qualify. We are continually looking at the two schemes and if and when I can make changes to reflect what I think the Deputy feels, I will try to make those changes. The difficulty we have is they were established purely as activation measures to move people into jobs. In some cases, with older people, for example, those jobs just do not exist. I think I agree with the Deputy.

I echo and endorse everything my colleague, Deputy McConalogue, said. I have a very similar position. The Minister's answer touched on this a number of times. Are these schemes intended solely as job activation measures or are they recognised as having a social inclusion element, which is absolutely essential? As Deputy McConalogue alluded to, many of these schemes facilitate individuals who may not be in a position to attract normal, gainful employment and who may not be able to contribute in a commercial environment but who can contribute effectively, productively and usefully to their communities. There are two groups of people affected by the difficulty in sourcing people for community employment schemes, the difficulty getting onto Tús schemes and the impact that JobPath, Turas Nua and Seetec are having on that. We have two groups of people who are losing out. We have the individuals themselves who in many cases are denied the opportunity for dignified and worthwhile activity and an occupation that gives them pride, a reason to get up in the mornings and all the other good things such as contributing to mental health. We also have the host organisations, whether they are GAA clubs, parish councils, tidy towns groups, local history groups or heritage groups, which are invariably working in the community on a not-for-profit basis. They are coming to us and saying they do not have the stream of assistance which was beneficial to both the individual and the host organisation. It conflicts with the two new providers, Turas Nua and Seetec, which maybe have a more commercial focus. There are measures that could be introduced to tackle that and let them work more closely together in a more collaborative fashion. I hope the Minister will look at that.

The Deputy made up his 30 seconds.

We have our ways. Everything the Deputy has said is true. There are hundreds, if not thousands of participants, in CE and Tús schemes who are doing social inclusion activities and our communities desperately rely on them. The problem is my Department was not established, and CE and Tús were not established, to provide social inclusion services. It is an employment activation measure. It is no different from JobPath, which is not commercial; it is an employment activation measure. The sole purpose in statute for the organisations that are hosting CE and Tús schemes is to give employment experience and opportunities to people so they can move on to full-time sustainable jobs. The dilemma we have is that tens of thousands of people who have participated in them will probably never - or will never want to - get a full-time sustainable job. I do not know how to change that because if I change it, it will not be an employment activation scheme and will not fall under the remit of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I acknowledge there are thousands of people on CE schemes who respect and value the social inclusion services they provide but do not achieve employment activation. We need to square that circle by acknowledging, respecting and rewarding what they are doing but not under the guise of employment activation because if we continue to call these schemes employment activation schemes, we have to continue to move people on which is causing upset to the host organisations, the community service organisations and groups and the people who are doing the work.

One would think from listening to the Minister that there is some higher power above the Minister, Government and national Parliament forcing these schemes to operate the way they do and tying the Minister's hands. The reality is it is within the power of the Minister, Government and Parliament to influence and mould these schemes and to shape them in a way that is appropriate. I am very proud it was my party that established the CE schemes in the first place because of the tremendous role they have gone on to play and the people within them who contribute on a daily basis to the local communities. We need to acknowledge how it has evolved and what is involved in it now and we need to ensure it can continue to fulfil that purpose. That requires amending it as appropriate. We should keep its job placement and empowerment potential while recognising it has another role to facilitate many people in the community who will not go on to other jobs and who contribute to their communities. Many of those people are forced to leave the scheme and are then not able to contribute or get a job. The Minister can change that and we are saying she should change it and look at it again.

Will the Minister comment on the supervisors who were in full-time jobs managing these schemes over the years? Will the Minister give us an update on the position on the 2008 Labour Court recommendation that required them to be provided with pensions? That is something the Government is yet to follow through on.

I will suggest a number of changes to the Minister which she may be able to make. The first is a realignment. She mentioned the difficulty of job activation versus social inclusion. The Minister, Deputy Ring, took his first question time in seven months yesterday. Perhaps his Department of Rural and Community Development could assist in this. Historically, there was a cross-departmental approach to these schemes. Maybe sometimes things moved from one Department to another. Perhaps we could recategorise at least part of the scheme to help with that. An assessment should be done upfront when somebody is referred to JobPath rather than a person spending 12 months going through a programme which may not be suitable for them. It may be eminently suitable for many individuals but there are some who may not be a good match. That should be identified in the first week or two and they should be sent back to CE or Tús if that is more appropriate. I understand that Turas Nua and Seetec would be happy to facilitate that. If a person is working in his or her local GAA hall as part of the CE scheme and is only required by JobPath to be available for one 30-minute session a week, for example, for interview preparation, there is no need for that person to sit at home for four and a half days of that week when he or she could be back working in the GAA hall. Allowing people to remain on the CE scheme while in JobPath, if it does not hinder their efforts in the JobPath scheme, would be very welcome. The rules on eligibility and continuation, especially for older people, who present greater complexities when re-entering the job market should be considered. The rules around the barrier to re-entry if somebody comes off a JobPath should also be looked at. People should not be prohibited from going straight back to a CE scheme if that option is open to them. They are some immediate changes that could be made and would be welcome. If there is an issue with categorisation I am sure it could be solved. If they need to be called social inclusion schemes, let us call them that. If we need to go to the Department of Rural and Community Development, let us do it.

The JobPath people, Turas Nua and Seetec, do not select their candidates. We pick the candidates and we only pick people who are suitable for JobPath. It is not the case that people sit down in an Intreo office and say they want to do the CE scheme but we say they cannot and that we are sending them to JobPath. We only send people to JobPath who are jobs ready and need help on a one-to-one basis which might aid them getting a full-time, sustainable job. Deputy McConalogue takes the credit for setting up the CE scheme because Fianna Fáil was in power for hundreds and hundreds of years. I give him that credit.

The problem is that when Fianna Fáil established it, it established it as an employment activation measure which is why it sits neatly into the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. What the Department does not do is provide employment; we provide social inclusion measures. The difficulty with trying to do what I wanted to do before Christmas is that we cannot neatly separate all the people on all the schemes. It is not the case that, for example, a host company in Donegal is doing only social inclusion and a host company in Letterkenny is doing entirely work experience and activation and, therefore, we could separate them. That is not the reality. The reality is that on every single scheme, we have people who are doing social inclusion measures and people who are doing employment activation and training measures. How do we have different rules for the same people who are on the same schemes? It is not possible. If we bring it back to the higher power, which is what the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is, it is statutorily responsible for employment activation and the welfare of people who are required to be looked after by the State.

At no point does it state that I am responsible for providing services to communities. Therefore, I cannot separate them out even if it was physically possible for me to do it because it would not be within the remit of my Department. I am trying to reflect the reality that some people who are involved in Tús and CE most likely will never work again in full-time employment because of their age or other difficulties they might have. I am trying to be flexible with the terms-----

The Minister has exceeded the time.

-----of the CE schemes to allow and respect the contribution these people are making to their communities while still remaining under the remit of my Department-----

We have to observe the time.

-----which I am legally obliged to do.

Pension Provisions

Thomas P. Broughan

Question:

7. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection when persons who have been adversely affected by the contribution band changes for the State pension in budget 2012 are to have their payments reinstated and reimbursed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1848/18]

Peter Burke

Question:

14. Deputy Peter Burke asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the status of the public consultation aimed at resolving the inequities in the averaging system for the State pension (contributory); and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1880/18]

Aindrias Moynihan

Question:

18. Deputy Aindrias Moynihan asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if a report on the pension inequality which resulted from the 2012 changes to pension eligibility has been prepared; if the report will be published; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2024/18]

I know the Minister spoke at length on this issue earlier. This morning a group of civic society bodies, including Age Action, the National Women’s Council of Ireland, the Irish Countrywomen’s Association, Fórsa, SIPTU, Active Retirement Ireland and Pensioners for Equality are all demanding that the Minister take urgent action. Unfortunately, the Minister was not present for Report Stage when I got an opportunity to try to amend the recent Social Welfare Bill so that this would be addressed in 2018. I ask her to expand on what she is now preparing to do on foot of a Cabinet decision.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 14 and 18 together.

The current rate bands applying to the State pension (contributory) were introduced in 2012, replacing the previous rates introduced in 2000.

The rate bands prior to 2000 were less generous, and the improved rate bands introduced in 2000 were a feature of the economic and political environment at that time. The economic crash changed the focus and while other payments were reduced as a result, the core rates of the pension, on which many pensioners were solely dependent, were maintained. Instead, the rates for people who had additional means and lesser PRSI contribution records were reduced.

The 2012 rate bands more closely reflect the social insurance contributions history of a person than those in place between 2000 and 2012. The current rate bands still provide pensions to people which are not proportionate with their level of contribution. For example, a person with only 20 years of contributions over a 50-year working life will still get an 85% pension. It is estimated that, to revert to the previous bands from January 2018, would result in an annual cost of well over €70 million extra in 2018, and this annual cost would increase by an estimated €10 million to €12 million each year thereafter.

It should be noted that, even accounting for inflation, people affected by the 2012 rate-band changes receive a higher rate of payment now in real terms than they would have at the start of 2007.

The national pensions framework proposed that a total contribution approach should replace the yearly average approach to the calculation of the State pension (contributory) from 2020. I hope to start a consultation process regarding this reform shortly. Following the consultation period, a proposal to Government will be submitted seeking approval of the new approach.

This reform will make the rate of contributory pension more closely match contributions made by a person. It will also have significant homemaker's provisions that will assist those pensioners who spent significant periods caring for their children or adults with a caring need.

The main aim of Government policy on pensions is to ensure that pensions are affordable, sustainable and hold their value in the coming years. The planned reforms will result in a more inclusive and fairer pension system for all citizens.

My Department has examined in depth various options that may provide some relief to those who would have a higher contributory pension had the rate bands not been amended in 2012. My officials have done extensive work and I take this opportunity to thank them for that. We have completed a report on this matter, which I intend to bring to Cabinet sub-committee A on Thursday at 2.30 p.m. Following that meeting, and subject to any necessary amendments and further discussions, I will bring the proposal to Cabinet on Tuesday and I will publish the report thereafter.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Again it seems we are producing reports, holding consultations and so on. In reality, as the Minister is aware, up to 40,000 of our senior constituents have lost out very badly in the 2012 changes. The Minister said it was part of the political and economic environment at the time. It was an environment with which I profoundly disagreed and I voted against it. The Minister also had the opportunity to vote against it, but she did not.

Over those years, those mostly senior women workers have lost a significant amount of money because of this. I note the first thing the Minister said about pensions is that they have to be affordable. The reality is that a grave injustice was done to that cohort of women workers. As I said to the then Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, almost a year ago, he let down his own generation and treated them badly. They lost a significant amount of pension to which they were entitled. As Professor Alan Barrett of the ESRI said, the Government changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game for that cohort of mostly senior women workers. A grave injustice has been done. We know the reality and the facts. It is more than a year since Maureen Bassett produced her great report on this injustice for Age Action. We have been talking about it for a year. What does the Minister propose to do?

I call the Minister.

Does she have the support of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, for restoration of the pension?

I call the Minister to respond to the first supplementary question after which there are others.

We are not at cross-purposes. We have had this conversation with a variety of Members of this House on a variety of occasions. I acknowledge that some people were adversely affected because of the averaging system introduced in 2012. I have also acknowledged that we will fix it. The report with my proposals is ready to go to the Cabinet sub-committee tomorrow afternoon. If I get agreement there, it will be brought to the Cabinet for discussion and approval on Tuesday. I can give the Deputy no more details than that. That is what I said before Christmas, that is what I said earlier this morning, and that is what I am saying now again.

The Cabinet sub-committee A is meeting at 2.30 p.m. on Thursday and mine is the first item on the agenda. Following the discussions there, I will bring the report to the Cabinet meeting. I will publish that report on Tuesday and the Deputy will be able to see its contents.

I call Deputy Aindrias Moynihan, who has a question in this group.

The injustice that was introduced with the 2012 changes needs to be addressed as quickly as possible. I recognise that the Minister has prepared a report on it. We need a clear timeline and roadmap for how things will be corrected. Every week people are losing out on income and every week more people are being hit by those cuts. It needs to happen sooner rather than later. I understand that the report will be brought to the Cabinet sub-committee tomorrow. In the event that the committee is not satisfied with it, will she publish it?

When the Minister requested that report, did she focus only on the people who will become eligible in future or did she also focus on the people who have already been hit by these cuts going back to 2012? In requesting that report, did she also ask for homemakers to be taken into consideration? A clear roadmap needs to be set out in the interests of those hit by the 2012 cuts.

I am sorry to have been smiling at the Deputy but it is a case of déjà vu because his colleague asked the same question about an hour ago. I assure the Deputy that there will be a roadmap. If an agreement is reached this week or next week, it will be very clear what we can do and when. I again say that it will involve new money that I do not currently have.

The Deputy asked whom we looked at when doing the report. We looked at everybody who has already been affected. I do not know who might be affected next month or next year until they apply - they probably do not know. Therefore, I can only look at the people currently on the books. I have an estimation of the people who will be affected. Obviously, whatever changes we make will affect the people who have already been affected and affect people who have not been affected yet.

In answer to the Deputy's second question, the homemaker's credit is not part of the anomaly relating to the people who have had a reduced pension because of the averaging system over their lifetime. Therefore, it does not form part of the report whatsoever. The report will be published on Tuesday and the Deputy will be able to see clearly what we have looked at and the options to be put to my Cabinet colleagues on Tuesday.

We will have two further supplementary questions followed by one response.

The Minister had the opportunity to remedy this injustice in budget 2018.

This work could have been done before. I raised it with the then Minister and now Taoiseach and with the previous Taoiseach. I also raised at the Committee on Budgetary Oversight the question of what could be done to remedy this but it did not seem that the Minister for Finance was very forthcoming. As such, I ask again whether the Minister has the support of the Minister for Finance and whether she expects the support of his Department to remedy the injustice done to this cohort of women workers. Is finance available in the 2018 budget to make the changes which should be made and which have worked out overall at a basic €10 million a year? It was done purely and precisely on the grounds of budget cutting which the Government in office from 2011 embarked on, continuing the policies of Fianna Fáil. That has happened over eight or ten years. Will the Minister provide the House with a guarantee that we will see the full restoration of this and an end to this injustice next week?

I cannot overemphasise the need to remedy this injustice as quickly as possible. I thank the Minister for the detail she provided. It is good that the report will be published next week. Will there be an opportunity to debate the report once it is published, either here or at the sub-committee, or will the Minister be in a position to implement changes immediately? She mentioned earlier that after 2020, a total contributions scheme will be in place. In the event that people find that the new system is not as favourable to them as what is now in place, will they have the option to switch from one to the other to ensure they get the maximum pension available?

Flattery will get the Deputy everywhere, which I say tongue in cheek. I cannot tell the House that I have the support of the Minister for Finance because he does not know what I am going to propose and will not until I sit at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow.

The Minister talks to him, does she not?

Did the Deputy say I should talk to him?

I said she does talk to him.

We are very fortunate to have the first draft of this here.

The Minister, without interruption.

I talk to him but I have not put the proposal to anybody. The proper protocol, as I learned through lack of experience before Christmas, is to go to the Cabinet sub-committee and that meeting takes place at 2.30 p.m. tomorrow. Depending on the outcome of the meeting, the proposal will go to Cabinet on Tuesday. We can discuss the report for as long as Deputy Moynihan wishes.

I do not want to delay it. I do not want to discuss it forever.

The Minister, please.

It will not delay it because, to answer the question for a second time, it involves new money. As such, the money required does not exist in the current 2018 budget. I hope there will be no need for a discussion because I hope the Deputy will be as happy as I might be if it gets accepted on Tuesday. In any event, if he wants to talk about it, that is no problem.

Question No. 8 answered with Question No. 6.

Working Family Payment

Willie O'Dea

Question:

9. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans to improve the operation of family income supplement; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1966/18]

I apologise. The reference in Question No. 9 to "family income supplement" should read "working family payment".

I thought the Deputy was taking the mickey out of me - if the cap fits. The working family payment is a working support which provides an income top-up for low-earning employees with children and offers financial incentives to take up employment. The payment benefits more than 57,000 families with almost 130,000 children through an estimated spend this year of €431 million. It is definitely working and doing exactly what it is aimed to do. As part of the process of developing the working family payment, the Department carried out extensive analysis of the range of supports it provides to assist individuals in their attempts to take up employment and move away from welfare dependency. The analysis showed that the existing in-work supports were actually very effective and were working well to assist individuals to make the transition from unemployment to employment, in particular work supports such as the working family payment and the back-to-work family dividend. As I agreed during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill in 2017 which was enacted in December, I am committed to bringing forward a report reviewing the operation of working family payments to the Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection. That includes the requirement to work for 19 hours per week or 30 hours per fortnight to qualify for the payment. We are working on that report currently and I will bring it to the committee as soon as it is prepared. I expect that to be a matter of weeks or a short number of months.

The redesignation to "working family payment" provided for in the 2017 Act better reflects the nature of the payments. The Department intends to encourage families to determine whether they are eligible for the payment by carrying out a promotion and information campaign early this year. I am sure there are still considerable numbers of people who do not know they can avail of this payment. We will carry out a proper campaign using national and social media. It is also intended to review continually the package of supports offered to working families to continue to ensure that payments meet the objectives of those they serve. Budget 2018 increased the income thresholds by €10 for families with up to three children and that change will take effect from 29 March alongside the other changes we made in the Social Welfare Act. The likely result of this increase is that additional families not currently in receipt of the working family payment will become eligible for the scheme.

I thank the Minister for the response. She answered one of the questions I was going to ask in saying the hours would be part of the consideration.

I take on board valuable contributions.

I thank the Minister. She is most kind. Will she tell the House when, approximately, we will be in a position to see the report in order that the committee can discuss it? She said the budget for family income supplement last year was of the order of €430 million. The working family payment will cover a wider area and, as such, the budget will be considerably larger. Does the Minister agree?

We are working on the report. As it is an in-house report, we are not waiting for external bodies. I would say the maximum period is three months. If I can do it before that, we will talk about it and put it on the schedule for the committee. The Deputy is right. While €431 million is what is budgeted, there is a bit of wriggle room on the basis that it is not what we spent last year. However, this is going to be demand-led. If more is needed, more will be found and that is the end of it. I want to ensure that everyone who should be availing of the scheme does so, not only because of the €10 increase in the threshold but also because some people genuinely do not know about it. They should learn about it, apply for it and get it in order that it can be as effective as it has been for the other families moving from welfare dependency into employment. If we can make those changes around the 19 hours and the 38 hours which are important to Deputy O'Dea to make it more effective and flexible, let us do that. It is taxpayers' money and it is there to help people to move from a culture of dependence on social welfare payments to being wholly independent just by being supported by the State as opposed to being totally supported by the State. Let us do that as soon as we can.

In addition, the Minister will appreciate that work patterns have changed and that there is now more part-time work, etc. It is only fair and proper that the social welfare system should reflect that.

People will think I am falling in love with the Deputy because I am agreeing with everything.

There you are, Willie.

I agree with him that the purpose of the payment is to ensure that we support those who are moving from welfare dependency to employment. What we have done so far works but it may need some tweaking to get a wider net of people into the working family support. As soon as we can have a look at it properly, let us devise the changes that need to made, if any, to ensure we reach the widest range of people to support that we possibly can.

Before we move to Question No. 10, I suggest romantic references be left outside.

I will live with that.

That would be best.

There is no fear of me going down that route.

The irresistible nature of Deputy O'Dea obviously influenced the Minister.

Poverty Data

John Brady

Question:

10. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her views on the increase in the at risk of poverty rate among lone-parent families as highlighted in the recently published survey on income and living conditions for 2016; her plans to reduce this rate; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2061/18]

The Minister welcomed on a number of occasions the findings in the SILC report for 2016 but she omitted any reference to the 4% increase in children at risk of poverty in lone-parent families. Will the Minister comment on the increase, which is a substantial one at 4%?

Before we take the answer, Deputy O'Dea has raised with me his view that his Question No. 36 should have been grouped with this one but the Department decided otherwise. I will give Deputy O'Dea a supplementary.

Is it the same question?

It is Questions Nos. 10 and 36 but the Minister can handle it.

I will reply to Question No. 10, and to Question No. 36.

The CSO Survey on Income and Living Conditions, SILC, for 2016 shows that for lone parent households, the consistent poverty rate is 24.6%, down from 26.2% in 2015 and the deprivation rate fell from 57.9% in 2015 to 50.1% in 2016. However, the Deputy is right; the at-risk-of-poverty rate increased from 36.2% in 2015 to 40.2% in 2016.

I hope we would all acknowledge that the best way to tackle poverty, particularly among lone parents, is helping them find a job. The recently published Indecon report shares this view. The report found that the changes to the one-parent family payment scheme made over the last number of years increased employment and reduced welfare dependency. It also found that the changes increased the probability of employment and higher employment income for lone parents. The report also concluded that assisting lone parents to enhance skills also needs to be seen as a key objective as low-paid employment, which is something none of us wants any of our people to aspire to, will not on its own ensure a reduction in the risk of poverty. What we want for people who do not have a job is a job, a better job and then a career. We need to ensure that the training and support services, particularly for lone parents who historically would not have been working in any real numbers, provide them with a career path so they can get decent paid employment and not just part-time minimum wage employment.

In 2017, further budget improvements were implemented and I have continued to emphasise improvements for lone parents in particular. I hope my Department's social impact assessments of all budgets for 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 are an indicator of this improvement. These show a cumulative increase of €36.75 in the average weekly household income of employed lone parents and €33.60 for unemployed lone parents. This compares favourably with a weekly increase of €34.45 for the average household.

Budget measures recently announced which will take effect from 29 March 2018, specifically the increases to the income disregard, the primary rate and the increase for qualified child rate, will see a lone parent on the one-parent family payment or jobseeker's transitional payment who is working 15 hours a week on the national minimum wage better off by nearly €1,000 per year.

I welcome the Minister's response. She put out a press statement after the publication of the SILC report and referred to it again this morning but she specifically left out any mention of lone parents because it is an increase and that goes against the narrative that everything is on the up. It certainly is not on the up for lone parents. A 4% increase in the at-risk-of-poverty rate is a huge increase and this is borne out in the Indecon report published last October so there is clearly a problem here that is not being addressed.

I agree that the solution to this is getting people back into the workforce but there are huge barriers, particularly for lone parents. One of the Minister's predecessors, Deputy Burton, who made the changes that directly impacted lone parents, said she would not introduce those changes until we had affordable child care, which is a huge barrier to getting lone parents in particular back into the workforce. This has not been addressed and will not be addressed - certainly by this Government. Outside of that, what specific measures are being taken for children in lone parent families to ensure they are not in that poverty trap?

As I referred to in response to a previous question, there are barriers, not just to lone parents gaining employment. There are barriers to everybody who is unemployed - be they long or short-term unemployed - and the job of my Department, my officials and I is to break down those barriers and assist people. We have a specific plan that has been enacted that the Indecon report shows is working notwithstanding the fact that many of those people who are less welfare-dependent have a lesser income. However, as I said to the Deputy, my role and that of the Department is to get people a job, a better job and a career. This is why we are focusing so much on education, advancement and training for lone parents. The bursaries were introduced by the Department of Education and Skills. There are incentives within my Department to improve the standing and skills of people in that area. That is our job.

Perhaps it is natural and human that when a report comes out, one will concentrate on the positive parts of it but I have never shied away from reflecting on the fact that lone parents are probably one of the most maligned and vulnerable sets of people in this country, which is why they were my main priority in the budget. I do not think we can discount that.

The Minister will have another opportunity to reply.

The Minister says lone parents were one of her key target groups in the budget. I admit there were small changes. I do not think they went far enough. A €2 increase for a qualified child must be regarded as small. It is trivial. If the Minister looks at the Indecon report and the survey that was carried out, she will see that 11 specific questions were put to lone parent families regarding the affordability of basic items like fuel, a decent coat or decent shoes. Anyone who was surveyed said that they are in a worse position than they were 12 months ago. There are huge challenges here. The Minister can talk and say she is on their side but action speaks louder than words. There are many other actions that should and could be taken. Certainly Sinn Féin put forward many of those in our alternative budget. These figures are for 2016. The Indecon report is probably more up to date. There are huge problems here and the Minister needs to take them on board and make changes.

We will take a supplementary from Deputy O'Dea and then hear from the Minister. We will then proceed to Question No. 11.

We spoke about the SILC report earlier. There have been slight improvements in poverty levels but does it not worry the Minister that in respect of some indicators for lone parents, it is moving in the opposite direction? For example, the risk of poverty for lone parents increased from 36.2% in 2015 to 40.2% in 2016. There have been slight improvements in the other indicators but the fact still remains that one in four lone parents in this country are still living in consistent poverty and more than one in two are experiencing deprivation. When I read the Indecon report, it seemed to suggest that the changes brought about by Deputy Burton in 2012 gave rise to an increased probability of risk of poverty. As Deputy Brady alluded to, what we have been doing since those changes were introduced is bringing in incremental measures here and there to alleviate the consequences of what was done in 2012. Would it not be simpler and more efficient, and I suggest just as cheap, to revert to the 2012 situation? Has the Minister any figures regarding what it would cost to revert to the 2012 situation?

What is interesting is that both Deputies would criticise me for not highlighting a particular negative result in the report and just focusing on the positives of it yet neither of them are willing to acknowledge the very positive contributions of Budget 2018 for lone parents. I think that is a pity and says a lot about the Deputies.

In response to Deputy O'Dea, we are not willing to reverse the changes that were made because they are working. Two separate things were done around 2012. In respect of changes made through us intensifying our activities with lone parents in order to move from them being entirely dependent on a social welfare system to getting a job, and I am moving that policy from just getting a job to getting a better job to getting a career; through the introduction by the Minister of Education and Skills of the bursaries to provide full-time educational supports for lone parents; and through my intensifying the interactions with lone parents to make sure we do not just tick a box because they happen to be working in a local supermarket, coffee shop or school, I want to make sure that when we move these people from social welfare dependency to employment, it is good, sustainable, long-term and well-paid employment. The only way we will do that is to continue our interactions with people to make sure that when they get a job, they get a better job and then get a career. That is the commitment I am giving to lone parents. We will not be reversing any of the changes that were made in 2012. What we will be doing is drawing back on the cuts that were made that affected those people and intensifying our interactions with people who face barriers to getting full-time employment to make sure we break those barriers, be they child care or lack of training.

If we need to take other facilitative measures, we will do so. The job of the Department and its Intreo offices is to make sure that we provide those services to people who need them.

Exceptional Needs Payment Data

Catherine Connolly

Question:

11. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the number of applications for exceptional needs payments received in 2015, 2016 and 2017; the number granted; the number refused; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2048/18]

Basically the question is how many applications for exceptional needs payments were made in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and how many were granted.

Under the supplementary welfare allowance, SWA, scheme, my Department may make a single exceptional needs payment to help meet essential, once off expenditure which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet out of his or her weekly income. The Government provided €36 million for exceptional payments last year.

The exceptional needs payment scheme is demand led and payments are made 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 that the payments target those most in need.

Statistics are maintained on the payments but not on the number of applications or the outcome of those applications. Approximately 100,000 exceptional needs payments have been made over each of the last three years. Details of the exact number of payment are set out the in the table. For reporting purposes, this data also includes the number of urgent needs payments that were made which accounts for a small number of those payments. An urgent needs payment is a once off payment made to persons who may not ordinarily qualify for a supplementary welfare allowance payment but who have an urgent need that they cannot meet themselves. While it is nuanced, it is slightly different in that people who would qualify for an urgent needs payment might not qualify for supplementary welfare payment. Any persons who consider that they have an entitlement to an exceptional or urgent needs payment should be encouraged by all Deputies in this House to contact their local Intreo office where our social welfare community officers will be very happy to facilitate them.

Tabular Statement: Number of Payments under the Exceptional Needs and Urgent Needs Schemes, 2015-2017:

Year

Number of Payments

2015

101,600

2016

100,100

2017

103,500

I thank the Minister for her answer.

Written Answers are published on the Oireachtas website.
Top
Share