Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 18 November 2015

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions

Direct Provision: Department of Social Protection

4:00 pm

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with our committee's report on the extension of the remit of the Ombudsman to include the direct provision system and are joined by officials from the Department of Social Protection. I remind all those present to be careful with their mobile phones because they interfere with the sound system and it drives our media outlets mad when they have to edit the material. I am pleased to welcome Ms Jackie Harrington, principal officer; Ms Mary Pracht, assistant principal officer; Mr. Carl O'Rourke, assistant principal officer; and Ms Aideen Mooney, assistant principal officer, all of whom are from the Department of Social Protection. They will address the committee on departmental issues highlighted in this committee's report on the direct provision system. I welcome them here today and thank them for forwarding the presentation which has been circulated to members.

I must draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I now invite Ms Harrington to make her presentation.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

I thank the Chairman. I would like to introduce the team. I am from the social welfare policy unit and I am based in Sligo. I am joined by Ms Mary Pracht, who works with me in the unit, Ms Aideen Mooney, who is in the policy section of the PRSI credits, and by Mr. Carl O'Rourke, who is the operational manager for our homeless persons and new communities unit in Dublin.

I thank the joint committee for this opportunity to appear before it today on the matter of the recommendations of the committee in its report on direct provision and the supports provided by the Department of Social Protection to persons resident in these centres. As regards financial supports provided to asylum seekers, the Department’s role with regard to persons living in direct provision is mainly the provision of financial assistance. Asylum seekers are offered accommodation under the system of direct provision operated by the Reception and Integration Agency of the Department of Justice and Equality. Under this system, persons are provided with accommodation, all food and health services, together with other facilities and services designed to ensure their needs are met while seeking the protection of the State. In addition to the provision of basic necessities, a weekly allowance for personal expenditure, known as direct provision allowance, or DPA, is paid to protection seekers who reside within the system of direct provision.

DPA is administered by designated persons in the Department of Social Protection’s community welfare service on an administrative basis on behalf of the Department of Justice and Equality. Payment of the DPA, therefore, is not provided for within social welfare legislation and is not paid in accordance with the provisions of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. At the end of October 2015, there were more than 4,800 persons in direct provision accommodation with total expenditure of over €3 million by this Department on DPA.

In addition to DPA, the Department makes exceptional needs payments, ENPs, to persons in direct provision to help meet essential costs, which a person could not reasonably be expected to meet from their income. ENPs made to direct provision residents are largely towards clothing costs, transport costs and the purchase of child-related items such as prams and buggies. To date in 2015, more than 13,100 ENPs have been paid to asylum seekers in direct provision at a cost of over €1 million.

Once granted status, persons can apply for the relevant Department of Social Protection weekly payments such as the jobseeker's payment or the one-parent family payment, including child benefit, appropriate to the circumstances of the individual person or family. ENPs are also paid to support the move from direct provision into the community, including assistance towards rent deposits. Applications are determined on a case by case basis, having regard to the individual circumstances presented.

Persons in direct provision also receive payments under the Department's back to school clothing and footwear scheme, which provides once-off assistance towards the cost of returning to school each September. In 2015 to date, approximately €113,000 has been paid in respect of 525 families under this scheme to persons resident in direct provision.

As regards service delivery, I refer to recommendation 8.7 of the committee’s report which refers to the provision of service in direct provision centres. The Department continues to examine the operation of all its services, including the administration of the community welfare service, in the context of the efficient delivery of services nationally to all its customers.

Where the community welfare service has been restructured, alternative arrangements have been put in place to ensure that customers are provided with ongoing access to the supports provided by the Department.

For example, in the event that a customer has difficulty attending a clinic due to illness, a visit to the client's residence may be arranged.

The Department continues to provide a presence in some of the direct provision centres. Where this is not the case, service is generally provided in the local Intreo centres. In these cases, the level of service has generally increased with improved facilities available to both customers and staff of the Department. The Department has received positive feedback from residents attending community welfare services in Intreo centres as it provides an opportunity to engage with the local community and fosters a more inclusive community spirit.

I will now address the issue of credits for social welfare contributions. In recommendation 8.6 of its report on the direct provision system, the committee sought recognition of time spent in direct provision for individuals who are subsequently granted residence, subsidiary protection or leave to remain in Ireland. The social insurance system in Ireland is based on the contributory principle whereby contributions are paid by workers which will give entitlement as a right to a varying range of benefits and pensions that are payable if and when particular contingencies arise. Therefore, for an individual to qualify for social insurance benefits, they must have paid PRSI contributions. Paid PRSI contributions are based on the payment of PRSI by the worker and if appropriate, their employer, calculated as a percentage of the worker's income. In addition, credited PRSI contributions, which are commonly referred to as "credits", may be awarded to protect social insurance entitlements of employees by covering gaps in insurance where they are not in a position to pay PRSI, for example, during periods of unemployment, illness, etc. To qualify for credits, a worker must have paid at least one PRSI contribution while working and have had an attachment to the workforce in the past two tax years as evidenced by having paid or credited PRSI contributions in that period. If these conditions are met, credits are only awarded in specific circumstances. These circumstances include proven unemployment or certified illnesses, receipt of specific social welfare payments or entitlement to certain statutory leave, such as parental leave. The award of credits is therefore predicated on the attachment of an employee to the workforce and only serves to bridge periods of temporary absence from the workforce. Credits on their own do not give an employee entitlement to social insurance benefits. It is only in combination with paid PRSI contributions that credits assist employees in qualifying for short-term schemes and enhance the level of benefit for long-term schemes. Therefore, the award of credits would not achieve the objective of providing persons who have been granted residence, subsidiary protection or leave to remain in Ireland with entitlement to social insurance benefits.

Where such persons enter the workforce, the payment of their first PRSI contribution as an employee will entitle them to pre-entry credits. The purpose of pre-entry credits is to enable new entrants to the social insurance system to qualify for benefits within a reasonable period after their date of entry once they have sufficient paid PRSI contributions. Pre-entry credits are awarded from the beginning of the relevant contribution year to the date on which they began to work,that is, their date of entry into social insurance as an employed contributor, and for the two previous contribution years before entry into insurable employment. In effect, the award of pre-entry credits to those granted residence, subsidiary protection or leave to remain and who take up employment will provide recognition for social insurance purposes of a period of between two to three years spent in the direct provision system

In respect of ongoing engagement and work in the area of asylum, a lot of work has been undertaken regarding the supports to asylum seekers within the past 12 months and officials in the Department of Social Protection have fully engaged with colleagues in the Department of Justice and Equality who have policy responsibility in this area. In its capacity of providing ongoing income support, the Department participated on the working group that reported to Government on improvements to the protection process, including direct provision and supports to asylum seekers. The Department has recently re-issued guidance to officers in the community welfare service administering DPA and other financial supports to ensure consistency throughout the various centres as recommended by the working group.

Following on from the recommendation of the working group, the Department was also represented on the task force on transitional supports for persons granted status in direct provision, which was chaired by the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Ó Ríordáin. The outcome from this group was the development of a comprehensive multi-agency information programme, including representation from this Department, which will be rolled out to all persons transitioning from direct provision centres and the production of a detailed information booklet.

I note the concerns of the committee regarding the transition of persons from direct provision into the community following receipt of status and the current rent limits under the rent supplement scheme. Provision of accommodation for those exiting direct provision is a matter, in the first instance, for the local authority either through social housing or the housing assistance payment, HAP, if HAP is being operated in that area. If these supports are not available, rent supplement will be considered. A review of the rent limits earlier this year found that the impact of increasing limits at a time of constrained supply will increase costs disproportionately for the Exchequer with little or no new housing available to recipients. Rather than increasing limits, rent supplement policy will continue to allow for flexibility where landlords seek rents in excess of the limits. Under this flexible approach, the circumstances of tenants are considered on a case-by-case basis and rents are being increased above prescribed limits, as appropriate. This approach has assisted over 4,900 households nationwide to secure and retain their rented accommodation.

To conclude, I assure the committee that the Department is committed to the ongoing provision of a high level of service to persons in direct provision and those arriving under the new Irish refugee protection programme as recently announced by Government. I trust the presentation is of assistance to the committee and I am happy to discuss any issues.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Harrington and appreciate her presentation.

Photo of Mary Mitchell O'ConnorMary Mitchell O'Connor (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Harrington for her presentation. We are all worried about people in direct provision, particularly those who have been there for years. If people come out of direct provision, how difficult is it for them to access rent supplement because people have contacted me and this seems to be the greatest difficulty they face? It relates to trying to find somewhere to stay with the amount they receive.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

As I said in my opening statement, we are examining cases on a case-by-case basis. I am advised from statistics provided by the Department of Justice and Equality that once people are granted status, almost 60% have left the centres within three months and approximately 85% have left within about six months. There are a number of reasons for that. People might want to stay in the centres while their children are at school, they are linking to school terms and so on. In respect of rent supplement, our community welfare services engages with individuals and we do provide increased payments. At this point in time, we have provided excess payments in 4,900 cases. We also operate a special protocol with Threshold in the Dublin area and Cork city where supply issues are particularly acute. Under this process, an individual contacts Threshold directly which will provide support, including engagement with the landlord, the PRTB if there is some kind of dispute and the Department if it is felt that an increase is required under the rent supplement scheme. As I said, we have already increased 4,900 payments and under the threshold specifically, that accounts for about 1,500 of the 4,900.

We pay rent deposits and rent in arrears under the exceptional needs payments scheme. To date, we have issued over 2,100 payments for rent deposit to the tune of approximately €1 million so we are assisting people. In the context of the information groups I referred to that came out of the transitional task force, staff actually engaged with residents from eight centres through six information sessions. They were attended by representatives from our Department, the local authorities, the Citizens Information Board, MABS and the HSE. We provided information on the next steps and engaging with our office to seek assistance towards rent deposits. We are out there and are providing support and we want people to come to us about rent supplement.

I also spoke about HAP, which is a new payment administered by the local authority. To date, it has been rolled out in 18 local authorities.

Under the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme, new applicants actually qualify for the payment as opposed to rent supplement. In some areas it is the local authority which provides support for the individual in the private rented sector, while in others, it is the Department of Social Protection.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not ask about the inadequacy of the direct provision payment. I will leave that to somebody else.

Is it automatic that every child in the direct provision system will receive child benefit? I understand the idea of credits and that it is difficult to imagine a scheme under which credited social insurance contributions would be given to those in the direct provision system if they had not worked in the country before. In some cases, however, they might have because not everybody in the direct provision system applied for asylum straightaway. There must be some scheme to recognise the period when the State denied them the ability to work. It is not necessarily a scheme under which they can immediately receive social welfare payments. I imagine more a scheme such as that for women when they were refused back into the Civil Service after they had married. Many years later the Government gave them some recognition for the period in which they were prevented from working. It could be something similar in this case. It would not necessarily give people a benefit immediately but would be more for pensions where a whole-life contribution would be taken into account. In 40 years time a person who had been in the direct provision system for ten years might have a gap in his or her social insurance contributions. It is a scary concept that such a person could be punished again in the future because he or she had no mechanism to plug the hole in contributions which had not been caused by him or her.

I welcome the assistance the Department is providing for people with rental deposits. There are over 400 people in the direct provision system who do not need to be in it who but cannot find a home suitable for themselves because of the cost involved. Most people interviewed by the committee wanted to be close to the direct provision centre because their kids went to school nearby. The kids at the Mosney centre, for example, attended local schools in Julianstown or Drogheda. They hope to locate in these areas, but there is not enough social housing available and they are not in work because they have not been allowed to work and are disconnected from the workplace. The current facility mentioned in the report has to do with landlords in the main who are increasing their rent; therefore, it does not apply to those in the direct provision system. If people cannot access housing in their own right outside direct provision centres and they have to keep taking up a space in a centre which otherwise would either be closed or given to someone else, does the Department of Social Protection pay rent to the Department of Justice and Equality? In other cases older people’s housing units run by different agencies charge tenants a certain amount. The tenants are told then to obtain rent allowance. Is there a similar set-up in these instances?

Much play has been made of the contribution made by the emergency needs payment. It is welcome that it is available. However, it is not as substantial as has been made out. Up to €134,000 has been made available, but with 4,800 people in direct provision accommodation, it means a figure of €280 per person per year. That is not that substantial, given the heartache and hardship endured by those in direct provision accommodation. On top of this, why is it that not all children in the direct provision system receive child benefit?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Habitual residence is a condition which must be satisfied to receive certain social welfare payments, including child benefit. Accordingly, a person resident in a direct provision centre who is seeking asylum but who has not been granted status is not entitled to receive child benefit. Child benefit is only payable where a person has leave to remain and satisfies the habitual residence condition.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the case in the case of children. There are quite a number of people resident and working in the country whose children cannot claim if they are in the European Union. It is a random approach in child benefit provision. For example, a person from Italy could be living in Ireland. He or she can claim child benefit for his or her children if there is a difference in the child benefit payable here and in Italy.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Social welfare legislation provides that to have entitlement to avail of a range of schemes, including child benefit, one must satisfy the habitual residence condition. Asylum seekers and persons seeking protection are excluded in law from satisfying the habitual residence condition until they have actually been given leave to remain and their status of refugee has been determined. Accordingly, a person resident in a direct provision centre who is awaiting a decision on his or her asylum application does not qualify for child benefit. There are 500 people in the direct provision system with status, or approximately 230 family units. These families are in receipt of child benefit because their asylum applications have actually been determined. There are some families who are waiting to move out which are in receipt of child benefit. However, it is not payable to asylum seekers.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I might be under a misconception, but I understand the rules applying to child benefit which is supposedly for the child. It has to do with the child in the main, unless there is an unaccompanied minor or he or she is not the asylum seeker. There are European Court judgments which state the child has different status from the applicant for asylum. In some instances elsewehere in Europe and here in the past, people were granted leave to remain on the basis of a child, not on the basis of their own applications for asylum. It concerns me that a child is penalised because the parent or the State has not managed to have his or her application sorted out.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are probably not going to get agreement on this point, but Ms Harrington will take on board the points made by the Deputy.

He makes an important distinction.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

It is acknowledged that supply is the key issue at the moment in terms of rent supplement. The recent daft.iereport shows that availability is at its lowest level since 2006. It is acknowledged that rent supplement in and of itself will not resolve the issue of supply but the Department is doing its best to alleviate the immediate issues customers are facing. Further, the increased payments we are providing - the 4,900 - apply to both existing and new applicants. We are providing increased payments which are over the limit to new applicants. This covers people, for example, who leave the direct provision system.

Landlords refusing to take people as tenants was also mentioned. We hope the housing package announced last week by the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, in particular the increase in mortgage interest relief for landlords who commit to accommodate customers in receipt of State support under rent supplement and HAP for a period of up to three years, will go some way towards addressing that issue. The housing assistance payment limits have also been increased as part of the announcement last week by the Minister to facilitate discretion along the lines of that of the community welfare service in local authorities.

The Deputy asked if the Department of Justice and Equality pays an equivalent of rent to the Department of Social Protection-----

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Or vice versa.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

The answer is, "No." There is no payment of rent as such. However, once an individual gets status and remains in one of these centres, we will pay the individual his or her weekly social welfare payment, be it jobseeker's payment, basic supplementary welfare allowance or another payment. Social welfare legislation allows us to carry out an assessment of the non-cash benefits provided to people while in a direct provision centre. We take those into account as part of the means assessment in determining the weekly social welfare payment.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Department of Social Protection pass on the money to the Department of Justice and Equality?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

No, we do not. Not that I am aware of anyway, but I do not think that to be the case.

I am aware that there has been a lot of media interest and commentary on exceptional needs payments over recent days. Exceptional needs payments are a demand-led scheme. The provision this year is approximately €27.9 million. Of that sum, we have paid more than €1 million to persons in direct provision. This year, to date, we have paid in the region of €80,000 in exceptional needs payments of which more than €13,000 has been to persons in direct provision. This represents approximately 16% to 18% of the total. Payments to persons in direct provision are primarily made in respect of clothing and travel costs. Travel costs constitute the greatest proportion. Of the payments made so far to date, 57% of them are in respect of travel costs. An asylum seeker may have to attend in Dublin for legal, medical or other appointments. Some 35% of the payments relates to clothing. Those are the main payments we make under the exceptional needs payments.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had another question about credits.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

I propose to hand over to Ms Mooney who will deal with the issue of credits.

Ms Aideen Mooney:

When people are granted leave to remain here and take up work, they are given credits for a period of two to three years up to when they started to work. They will have two to three prior years credit put against their record once they start working. Those credits will count towards qualifying for long-term pensions such as the State pension. They are being accommodated by way of pre-entry credits for two to three years.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will now call Senator Ó Clochartaigh.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. Some things based on our recommendations in the report should be clarified and put on the record. My understanding from the presentation is that the Department is purely the administrator of the weekly allowance and that any increase in the weekly allowance is an issue for the Reception and Integration Agency and the Department of Justice and Equality. Therefore, the increases mooted by the working group would have to be granted by the Department of Justice and Equality in the first place before they could be administered by the Department of Social Protection. Is that correct?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

It is correct. The policy is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Equality. The Department of Social Protection was represented on the working group and made a number of recommendations which included the proposed increase to the direct provision allowance. The Government agreed during the summer that, in the first instance, those recommendations would be subject to detailed discussion by the Cabinet committee on social policy. My understanding is that it will be considered by Government in due course through the Cabinet committee.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Harrington for clarifying the position. The habitual residence prerequisite for child benefit seems quite unfair. Most citizens would balk at the condition and say all of the children of the country should be treated equally. I appreciate the stance and the position on it but is the interdepartmental group making any recommendations on changing it. Is it being discussed at the interdepartmental group given it was a recommendation from this Oireachtas committee? I think it was included in the working group report as well.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

As far as I can recall, I do not think it is in the working group recommendations but it may be. I do not recall it being there. The high level interdepartmental group consists of representatives from our Department, the HSE and the Department of Justice and Equality. As far as I am aware, the habitual residence condition and how it relates to child benefit has not been discussed. Government policy is that the habitual residence condition must be satisfied for a number of schemes, including child benefit. Any change to the policy would require a change in legislation, which would obviously require Government approval.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My understanding is that all of the parties to the interdepartmental group will make recommendations which could lead to changes in legislation. Surely it would be an idea to put it on the table. Could we suggest when the Department goes back to the next meeting that it is something that could be considered? The group may decide not to do it but it would only be fair that it would consider it, if possible.

On rent flexibility, can the local welfare office find in advance of someone taking up a lease that it would allow an increase on the rent supplement given the circumstances? Take for example someone who is moving out of direct provision and finds a suitable house in Galway, where there is an issue with rent limits. The rent for the house identified by the person is above the rent limit. Can he or she go to the Department of Social Protection, explain the rent supplement limit is €750 but the house will cost €950 and have the increase approved in advance of signing a lease? Alternatively, is it that only a person who has a lease and is in a house can ask for the increased payment?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

We are providing flexibility for new applicants to the scheme as well as existing applicants. Our rent limits have been in place for some time. In areas such as Dublin, payments are being made in excess of the limit. Under the rent supplement scheme, a formal or statutory decision is only made regarding entitlement once a person has engaged in the lease and it is determined that a bona fide tenancy is in place. We encourage people to engage with the community welfare service in terms of the flexibility that is there. Our community welfare service, given its local knowledge, is in a position to make a determination on what is reasonable rent. It can also determine what kind of accommodation a person may qualify for in terms of family size and so on. I would suggest in those cases that people make contact with the community welfare service - although a formal or statutory decision will not be made on the rent supplement - to discuss the level of flexibility because flexibility is being shown to new applicants as well as existing ones.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of important aspects of the debate on this matter is that it was kick-started by the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman for Children who said they wanted oversight of the system. I appreciate that the allowance is an issue and that the Department is the administrative body for it. On the issue of emergency needs payments, child benefit, etc., will Ms Harrington outline what appeals mechanisms are available to somebody who is not happy with the decisions that are made? What guidance does the Department give to its welfare officers if, for example, a person appears at the Intreo office, a decision is made, they go through and appeals mechanism and they are not happy with it? What advice do the welfare officers give if the person wants to appeal the decision and wants to know where to go?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

The direct provision allowance is paid at a specific rate to all persons in direct provision. It is not means tested; it is paid once a person is resident. In many ways, the payment of that particular allowance is fairly black and white, as it were. If someone is resident in a direct provision centre, they will get the allowance. We would not generally have queries or issues on the DPA allowance. In the case of ENPs, a person can request a review by another officer within the Department. An officer can review the decision of another officer. Once a person is granted a particular status, for example, if he or she claims jobseeker's allowance, one-parent family allowance or basic supplementary welfare allowance, the payment is appealable to the social welfare appeals office. While persons in direct provision are seeking asylum, the direct provision would not be an issue because there is no means test. If one is resident in direct provision, the Department is advised and it pays the payment. In the case of exceptional needs, another officer would review the case.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If an ordinary citizen is unhappy with the level of an exceptional needs payment, he of she has the review by another competent officer and he or she goes to the social welfare appeals office. If he or she is still not happy, can he or she go to the Ombudsman to make a complaint?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Exceptional needs payments are not appealable to the social welfare appeals office. They are done by review by another officer. Whether an applicant is in direct provision or is living in the community, the same process applies - those appeals are reviewed by another officer. Weekly social welfare payments can be appealed to the social welfare appeals office and the person can also bring a case to the Ombudsman.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what I am trying to ascertain.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

That is in the case of a social welfare payment.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A citizen has a right to go to the Ombudsman at the end of the process, whereas somebody living in direct provision can only go as far as the social welfare appeals office in the context of any dispute over what has been allocated. That is the nub of what the Ombudsman was saying to us. The Ombudsman should be available to everyone in the country, including those in direct provision. I am trying to ascertain the difference between a citizen and somebody in direct provision.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

I am not aware of a case in which an individual in direct provision has gone to the Ombudsman about a query on their exceptional needs payments. I am not aware of that. I have never seen one of those cases. It is very rare that I would see any type of case made to an ombudsman's office on an exceptional needs payment. Given the nature of an exceptional needs payment, which is an essential emergency once-off payment, that kind of lengthy process would not normally arise.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point about child benefit, for example, if a parent in direct provision feels that child benefit should be available to their child, he or she would appeal that to the Department and the Department would say that it is not available under legislation. He or she might appeal it to the social welfare appeals office and the Department would again say that it is not available under legislation. He or she cannot then make a complaint to the Ombudsman whereas an ordinary citizen who may be denied child benefit for a similar reason can appeal it to initially the appeals officer in the Intreo office and the social welfare appeals office. If he or she is still not happy, he or she can go that extra step. I want to clarify if there is a difference between the way we treat people in direct provision and the way we treat citizens.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

In the case of social welfare payments, a person can bring the issue of the payment to the Ombudsman. The only payments that an individual in direct provision gets from the Department of Social Protection are the exceptional needs payments and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance, neither of which are appealable to the social welfare appeals office for anyone in the State. My understanding is that if an individual has a query about those payments, he or she could bring them to the Ombudsman. I am not aware of any. None has ever been brought to my attention, given the once-off nature of those payments. I see no reason why an individual could not query with an ombudsman if they had an issue about an exceptional needs payment.

Photo of Trevor Ó ClochartaighTrevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The HAP scheme is in its pilot phase and, obviously, people in direct provision will not be on the local authority housing lists. Will HAP take into consideration the length of time people have been in direct provision? They may have been in direct provision for five, six, seven or eight years when the HAP applications are being made and they have been waiting that long for accommodation.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

One of the key entry points to the housing assistance payment and the rent supplement is having a housing needs assessment carried out by the local authority. I think the Senator is asking me if the local authority will take into account the period the person was in direct provision for the purpose of the housing list.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

I am not in a position to answer that. That would be a matter for the local authority and the Department of Environment, Community and Local Government. I really do not know.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It does not only concern the housing list. In order to get access to the RAS scheme in the past, one had to have been on the housing list or in receipt of rent allowance for a number of months.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Yes.

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The HAP has a lower threshold. One cannot go from direct provision straight onto the RAS or HAP scheme. One can receive rent supplement once the assessment of need has been made. Senator Ó Clochartaigh was asking if there was some recognition of the length of time a person spent in direct provision, not for the purpose of the housing list because that would mean that many people would jump straight ahead but rather for allowing them to access a different form of longer-term housing need scheme such as the HAP scheme.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

There are similarities and differences between the HAP scheme and rent supplement. In an area where HAP is rolled out, it is available to new applicants and rent supplement is no longer available. Residents leaving direct provision, if they are in a HAP area, would apply to the local authority for a housing needs assessment, in the same way they would have for rent supplement. Those customers, subject to satisfying the conditions set down in the relevant legislation, may be eligible for HAP. Someone coming from a direct provision centre may be eligible for HAP or rent supplement. The RAS is different. It is a scheme that people transfer to when they have been in receipt of rent supplement for 18 months or more. New people can move onto HAP directly in areas where HAP has been rolled out.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will allow the Senator to ask a supplementary question later because other Deputies also have questions.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A lot of the bases have been covered. If I understand correctly, it is up to the Government to make decisions on some of the more contentious issues such as the level of the direct provision payment and the right to work. I think I am right to say that Ms Harrington is not in a position to shed much more light on those matters. People who have been there for more than six months - many have been there for ten years - have been robbed of the right and opportunity to work. They should be compensated for that by being credited for those years when they were denied the opportunity to work. That is a policy decision. Did Ms Mooney say that once they start work, a three-year credit is given?

Ms Aideen Mooney:

This applies to any individual who starts work. Once somebody starts to work as an employee and pays his or her first PRSI employment contribution, there is an automatic period in which he or she is back-granted credits, if one likes, for between two and three years. It is for two full tax years and some of the third year, depending on when the person starts during a particular year. As this applies to everybody, those in direct provision are not at a disadvantage vis-à-visother individuals starting to work in the workforce.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Members probably will get another four or five minutes but a vote has been called in the Dáil and I will be obliged to suspend the meeting. As all members present are from the Opposition, that would be four Opposition votes and there is no opportunity to pair. The Deputy should proceed as we will get another question in.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, except such people have been in a situation often for a lot longer or simply have not had that opportunity. However, it is obviously a decision for the Government as to whether it will grant such people credits based on how long they had been in direct provision and denied the right to work.

Is it possible for the witnesses to provide members with the guidelines the Department gives to community welfare officers in respect of flexibility? I would be interested in seeing them because it seems to be a sort of moving goalpost or whatever is the expression as to how such flexibility is or is not granted. There also does not appear to be a great deal of consistency in the discretion that is given and it often appears to vary between individual community welfare officers. One community welfare officer may be much more flexible in applying the flexibility than others who might be highly inflexible and who will simply tell people that X is the rent allowance limit and they cannot breach it. If this is stated to people by a community welfare officer, I advise them to indicate that they wish to make a formal application in any event and to not accept a verbal refusal. I advise people to seek, in writing, the reason the community welfare officer is refusing them because the rents in question are what the rents are for any available properties in the area, of which there are very few. I suggest this in order that there will be a requirement on the community welfare officer to provide, in writing, the reason he or she refused somebody a breach on the allowance cap. If such a written reason is provided and people still cannot get accommodation, I advise them to submit a formal appeal. However, I wish to know what precisely is the instruction or memo that is passed on to community welfare officers in this area that leads to such a wide variety of responses from those officers in granting discretion in these cases. This is not just for asylum seekers but for anybody. Can the witnesses enlighten members?

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When we get the response to that question, we will conclude the meeting. Ms Harrington may proceed.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

We issued an information note to community welfare officers twice during 2014 on this question. We implemented a document - I think it was the national tenancy sustainment framework document - that we issued to community welfare service staff in January 2015. The type of information or advice we gave on that was to be aware of the local properties in the area, to measure the request in the context of similar properties in the area, once it is reasonable, to establish that the person is not under immediate threat of homelessness or loss of tenancy and, again, to have regard to the needs of the family and the household composition. That is a flavour of the document and by its nature, it is difficult to prescribe discretion. However, we have advised officers to be aware of similar properties in the area, of what is the market rent for other areas and to take this into account when making their decision. At this point in time-----

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry but we must go.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If possible, I have a few more questions on this theme when we resume. Are members returning or not?

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If that is agreeable to members. As Senator Ó Clochartaigh has also indicated, we will come back. I am really sorry about this but we must suspend for 15 minutes. It always is an embarrassment when one must break up a committee meeting for a Dáil vote.

Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will resume in public session. I invite Deputy Boyd Barrett to continue.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to examine issue of flexibility a little further. Before we suspended for the vote, it was said that the direction given to community welfare officers was to take rents in the area into consideration in terms of deciding what constituted a reasonable rent before breaching the rent allowance cap. Is it possible to see a copy of the memo? Could it be sent to the committee? I am interested in seeing it, not because I doubt Ms Harrington but because there is such a wide diversity in how the advice seems to be interpreted. It would be quite useful for members trying to represent people to have the wording of those guidelines so that we could, as it were, arm people who are going to community welfare officers with precisely what the instructions say in cases where there might be a dispute about the interpretation of discretion or flexibility.

Is the instruction being given to community welfare officers on whether to accept an application dependent on where the person was previously located in an area, in this case where the direction provision centre was? This is a general issue but I seek clarification on it. What I have come across in general is people being told applications are not being accepted because they have no proven link to the area and they are somebody else’s problem. We have had to fight, sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully, to establish a person’s right to apply for rent assistance in a particular area. Given the chronic lack of affordable rental accommodation, that is a crazy situation. I would have thought it applied very much to people coming out of direct provision trying to find what is very difficult, namely, affordable rental accommodation that accepts rent allowance. It seems to me that we must have great flexibility at that level as well. In other words, regardless of where somebody has been in a direct provision centre, if he or she could find accommodation anywhere that would accept him or her, he or she should be able to go to the community welfare officer in the area and ask for rent allowance and for permission to breach the cap because the accommodation in question is all he or she can find. Could Ms Harrington comment on that point also?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

As I said before the break, we have issued guidelines having regard to similar properties in the area, that the rent is reasonable in terms of the family size and the property. By its nature and the changing and dynamic environment in which we find ourselves at the moment, it is difficult to prescribe for discretion other than to offer guidelines. We issued guidance to community welfare staff on two occasions in 2014 and we also implemented a national framework tenancy document in January. I can arrange to send that to the committee for its information.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could Ms Harrington also send the memos?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Yes. I will arrange to send that information to the committee. In relation to rent supplement, my understanding is that generally people in direct provision tend to stay in the locality or area where the direct provision centre was located. Most people do not necessarily want to leave there because they have built up links in the local community and their children are at school there, among other factors. Based on the information I have from the Department of Justice and Equality, people tend to stay in the same area.

Generally speaking, people in direct provision who want to get rent supplement must have a social housing assessment carried out by the local authority. Our policy is generally to have the assessment carried out by the local authority in the area where the person wishes to reside, although there is some flexibility in particular among the Dublin local authority areas. Once that is done, we will administer and pay rent supplement. I am not sure whether that answers the Deputy’s question.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If one takes my area, and I am sure it is true also of other areas, it is virtually impossible for somebody who lives in Dún Laoghaire to find somewhere to rent that takes rent supplement. I accept that most people want to stay in the area in which they are living and where their children go to school. One might get one or two places available and several hundred people in a month chasing those one or two places. In an ideal world, they would find somewhere close by but often they have to go further, for example, to Little Bray or into Bray, which is administratively under the jurisdiction of Wicklow County Council. Boundary issues arise in terms of people being told they are not the problem of the local authority area in which they are seeking accommodation. That is crazy. People might be reluctant to go to Bray but if they can get somewhere and they are happy with that, then there should not be any issue about them being able to get rent allowance in whatever area they can find accommodation. Such flexibility should be available. If a person is willing to move to an area where he or she might have some prospect of getting somewhere close to the rent allowance limit and there is a slightly higher likelihood of rent allowance acceptance, for example, on the edge of the city such as Tallaght, it should be possible to do that. Understandably, many people do not want to go there but others might accept it and then boundary issues arise. Maximum flexibility should be provided given the mess in terms of trying to find rental accommodation that will accept rent allowance. Instructions should be given to community welfare officers to exercise the maximum flexibility and not to say "No" on the basis of administrative demarcation lines. I wonder what the situation is in that regard.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Just to be clear, is the Deputy asking about a situation where someone has had a housing needs assessment carried out in one local authority and gets rent supplement in another local authority?

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I refer to people who are trying to get rent supplement elsewhere.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Is the Deputy speaking about people who have already got a social housing needs assessment in another local authority area?

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To simplify my question, what will happen, if let us say one is in a direct provision centre in Dún Laoghaire and then one tries to get rent allowance in Bray? Will one be told by the community welfare officer in Bray that because the person is not on the Wicklow list, he or she cannot get rent allowance?

Ms Jackie Harrington:

I will pass the question to Mr. O’Rourke who is operating the system.

Mr. Carl O'Rourke:

I work very closely with colleagues in the Department of Justice and Equality and direct provision is specifically part of my brief. It is not an issue I encounter very often. I agree with the Deputy in advising that there is nothing blocking one applying for rent supplement wherever one shows up. I deal with colleagues in community welfare around the country from Limerick to Donegal and Drogheda in particular of late because it had an increase in availability of property. There were not any substantive issues. Where we run into difficulty sometimes is with local authority housing assessments.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is the point.

Mr. Carl O'Rourke:

Local authorities have difficulties. I do not say it is a complete block.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If one is not on the list, one cannot get rent allowance.

Mr. Carl O'Rourke:

One might have an issue getting a housing needs assessment if one has already been assessed elsewhere. I understand local authorities have rules that block one having access to local authority accommodation if one does not have links or ties to a specific area. However, in terms of rent supplement I do not see any huge bar. There was certainly no policy or directive issued to me down through my years as a welfare officer not to pay rent if somebody goes from one area to another.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sure. I understand that, except that the condition under which one gets the rent allowance is that one is on the list in that administrative area. Is that right?

Mr. Carl O'Rourke:

I have seen that waived on a number of occasions, certainly. Specifically, it is making it more difficult for the cohort coming out of direct provision to source accommodation. In my experience dealing with colleagues and former superintendents, there has been flexibility and a desire not to create an obstacle.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is an issue of joined-up thinking between the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the local authorities and the Department of Social Protection. Going by my experience, which is not specifically with direct provision, I would anticipate that this could become an issue for people who have got their status and are trying to exit direct provision and find rental accommodation, which is very difficult to find.

We should not let these demarcation lines be an obstacle. People have been told when they go to get rent allowance that the community welfare officer would like to give it to them but cannot unless they are on the list in that particular area, while the local authority is resistant. Sometimes we argue with them and can get there but sometimes we get resistance. Given the difficulty of the situation, we need joined-up thinking between the relevant Departments and flexibility across those administrative lines.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am conscious that the witnesses need to leave by a quarter past to catch a train. Is it okay if we wrap up now?

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I have made the point.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

The Deputy is right. Joined-up thinking is required between ourselves and the other organisations. The task force I mentioned earlier is providing information supports to people before they leave direct provision. A pilot was undertaken as part of the work of that task force in which the Department, the housing authority, MABS, the Citizens Information Board, CIB and so on met with groups of people who were transitioning. It also was attended by those who were not transitioning and did not have status, purely for information purposes. As part of that programme, people were advised to engage with the Department of Social Protection once they receive status so that their full social welfare entitlement could be determined. They were also advised to engage with the local authority on their housing needs assessment. They were being asked where they would like to go in terms of locations. It was a pilot programme and based on its success and usefulness, the task force agreed that it will be rolled out on an ongoing basis. It will be facilitated by the CIB, which will bring all the various Government Departments and agencies together.

There is no legal requirement that the housing needs assessment be carried out in the local authority area in which a person resides.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In order to get the rent allowance.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Correct. Saying that, however, the policy generally has been that it is better if that is how it is administered in normal circumstances. I appreciate that we are in very difficult circumstances at the moment in terms of supply. If a person is established in an area, they are better off on the social housing list for that area if they want to continue to stay there. Otherwise the individual could end up missing out as they develop links and so on. That has generally been the policy but there has been increased flexibility.

I would request that committee members bring it to our attention if they know of a case in which a person has been treated incorrectly or unduly harshly by the Department in this regard. I am aware that there is increased flexibility but also that it would be to the benefit of the individual to be on the housing list for the area in which he or she is residing.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just so I am absolutely clear on this, there is no legal requirement.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

It is "a local authority", not the local authority in which someone resides.

Photo of Richard Boyd BarrettRichard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

So as long as they are on a local authority list, they can apply.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

That is the legal requirement but the general policy of the Department has been to be on the list in the area in which they reside. It provides benefit for the individuals in that the local authority is aware of them and their needs. I ask again that the Deputy would bring to us any cases where he feels there is undue hardship or the Department is refusing point blank on that basis. We will review them. As Mr. O'Rourke said, that should not be the case.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Donegal North East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their patience as we had to suspend twice. I hope they make that train and appreciate them coming in.

Ms Jackie Harrington:

Thank you.

The joint committee adjourned at 6.15 p.m. until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 25 November 2015.