John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Ms Naomi Feely, senior police adviser at Age Action Ireland, and Ms Caroline Fahey, senior policy development officer at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to discuss their respective pre-budget submissions. I propose to ask Ms Feely to speak first, followed by Ms Fahey. Members can then address questions to the relevant witnesses or both, as appropriate.

Before commencing, I draw the witnesses' attention 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 it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to 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 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. The opening statements submitted to the committee will be published on the committee's website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Once again, please turn mobile phones off or onto flight mode. I invite Ms Feely to make her opening statement.

Ms Naomi Feely:

Good morning. On behalf of Age Action, I thank the committee for the invitation to speak to it about our recommendations to the Minister for Social Protection. I am the senior policy officer at Age Action and lead the organisation's policy team, which includes responding to a wide variety of policy issues that impact on the lives of older people.

Capturing the lived experience of older people in Ireland to ensure our recommendations will have a positive impact on their lives is of critical importance to this work. Earlier this year, over April and May, our policy team consulted with Age Action Ireland members throughout Ireland in preparation for our submission for budget 2017. This included a series of meetings around the country, along with distributing a survey through our magazine, Ageing Matters, and among our other networks. Through this process, we heard from more than 400 older people and I would like to share with the committee some of the responses we received.

Catherine told us:

I cannot afford either life or home insurance. I have to go to bed early to save on heating and electricity. My husband passed away last year and I still have not paid off his funeral expenses. We did have life insurance but they cut it because we could not keep up the payments.

Thomas described the reality of trying to make ends meet:

The State pension is too low, especially since the extra charges were thrown at us. I find it hard to live on €233 a week and pay the property tax, along with the everyday expenses like oil, phone, food and clothing, and if one is lucky, like me, to own a car, which is ten years old, that too can become a headache with rising costs of insurance and motor tax, along with NCT bills and upkeep of the vehicle. It is certainly hard. That is my opinion.

Deirdre also wrote to usand stated:

My mother cannot afford to heat her home. She lives in one room, heating it with a fire which she does not light until the afternoon. She goes to bed at 9.30 in the winter to save fuel. Even with help to buy fuel she cannot afford to turn on the central heating for fear of a big bill she could not pay.

Between January 2009 and January 2015 the weekly incomes of older people dependent on the State pension and secondary income supports, such as the household benefits package and the fuel allowance, fell by €13.18 per week. Research we are currently carrying out indicates tens of thousands of pensioners had their pensions or what they should be entitled to drastically reduced following changes to the eligibility criteria for new entrants in 2012. According to the latest official poverty statistics from the Central Statistics Office, 10.3% of people aged 65 years and over were "at risk" of poverty in 2014. This means that one in ten older people was living on less than 60% of the median income, which is less than €11,000 per annum. In 2014, some 14.3% of those aged over 65 years experienced deprivation or were unable to afford basic items such as replacing worn furniture. According to Social Justice Ireland, this is more than 85,000 older people or approximately the combined population of Bray town and Limerick city. In 2009, the last year in which the State pension was increased prior to 2016, the deprivation rate was much lower at 9.5%.

Budget 2016, which included a €3 increase in the weekly rate of the State pension and restoration of 75% of the Christmas bonus, was the first to try to ease some of the hardship inflicted on older people over a number of successive austerity budgets but it fell far short. Almost half of the income lost between 2009 and 2015 has still not been restored, including the telephone allowance; the number of weeks for which the fuel allowance is paid; and the decrease in the value of the electricity element of the household benefits package.

What needs to happen in budget 2017? Earlier this year, older voters were promised by many of those candidates and parties seeking their support a minimum of a €25 increase in the State pension over the next five years. Budget 2017 is the first opportunity to make clear to almost 600,000 people over the age of 65 that the commitments made to them will be honoured. The State pension is a critical, and often the only, source of income for older people. According to the OECD, up to three quarters of a household's disposable income for those aged over 65 is made up of public transfers. The national pensions framework, published in 2010, commits to "sustain the value of the State pension at 35% of average weekly earnings" to prevent poverty among older people. Preliminary CSO figures for the first quarter of 2016 indicate that average weekly earnings are €707.99, which would indicate a State pension of €247.80, substantially higher than the current top rate of the contributory pension.

We recognise that this rate will not be achieved immediately. However, budget 2017 must see a determined effort from the Government towards achieving the target set in the national pensions framework.

We are asking the Minister for Social Protection to increase the weekly rate of the State pension by €5 in budget 2017, at a cost of €130 million, as well as ensuring the final 25% of the Christmas bonus is restored as a double-week payment for Christmas 2016 for all social welfare recipients, which will cost approximately €67 million.

The second issue we feel needs to be addressed is energy poverty. We welcome the publication by the Government earlier this year of a strategy to combat energy poverty which will act as a roadmap to tackle this issue across multiple Departments and Government agencies. The issue of energy poverty is particularly acute for older people for a number of reasons. There is, among other issues, a tendency to spend more time in the home, a greater likelihood of living in older, less-energy efficient homes and a greater risk of cardiovascular and respiratory illness from cold and damp houses. Given these issues, Age Action Ireland particularly welcomes the initiation of the warmth and well-being pilot programme as part of the new strategy. We note that the long-term benefits of the scheme and the collaborative approach that is being undertaken between the Department with responsibility for communications, climate action and environment and health professionals.

While such programmes offer a longer-term solution to this issue, consumer behaviour among older people can also be detrimental to their energy security. Lower rates of access to the Internet mean older people are often unable to avail of discounts only available to customers willing to transact their business online. As a result, older people do not benefit significantly from increased competition in the energy market. For those on low incomes, therefore, supplementary payments such as the fuel allowance are a vital support. In recent budgets, the period for which this payment has been made was reduced from 26 weeks to 20 weeks, but winter did not get any shorter. We are calling for budget 2017 to begin to reverse this cut to the fuel allowance by extending the scheme by four weeks, at a cost of approximately €35 million. Data from the Central Statistics Office also indicate that half of older people have oil-fired central heating. For those dependent on small, fixed incomes, it can be difficult to pay for a fill of oil, particularly those who receive the fuel allowance as a weekly payment. We have urged the Department previously, as have other colleagues, to provide people with the option of receiving this payment in one lump sum.

I am conscious of the remit of the committee. However, I would like to advise it that we have also made submissions to five other Departments, as well as writing to the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. While we have called for an increase in income supports for older people within the context of the work of the committee, this can be negatively impacted by cuts or changes to the eligibility criteria of supports from other Departments. For example, an increase in the State pension might cause a pensioner to lose his or her medical card due to the income threshold. Decisions made by one Department have repercussions elsewhere and it is essential that this is understood and action taken to ensure gains made by older people in one part of the budget do not result in losses elsewhere.

Age Action Ireland has repeatedly called for a cross-departmental approach to addressing an ageing population in order to ensure that the focus on planning for an ageing society does not fall on the expenditure Departments - namely, the Departments of Social Protection and Health - alone. We advocate that it also comes under the consideration of programmes in other Departments, such as those with responsibility for housing, planning, community and local government in terms of resourcing the housing adaptation grant, which enables older people to remain in their homes for longer, and the Department with responsibility for communications, climate action and environment in terms of addressing the issue of digital exclusion and the issue of energy poverty.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will now call on Ms Fahey and then open the floor to members.

Ms Caroline Fahey:

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, SVP, welcomes the opportunity to make a presentation on its pre-budget submission 2017. Through direct and personal contact with those in need, SVP members see how inadequate incomes, both for those in low-paid work and those are reliant on social welfare payments, as well as a lack of access to quality services damage people's prospects and lives. In 2015, each of our eight regional offices across the country received more than 2,300 calls for help every week. Our 11,000 volunteer members visit people in their homes throughout Ireland. They see at first hand how the housing and homelessness crisis, child poverty, educational disadvantage and the constant struggle of trying to make ends meet on a low income affect individuals and families.

In 2014, we spent more than €14 million providing direct assistance to households through visiting people in their homes.

Cash assistance, vouchers and food accounted for more than half of this expenditure, while €8.8 million was spent on helping households with their energy costs and €4.6 million on education costs. Our expenditure direct to households in need has increased by 27% since 2009. This might be expected, given the extent of the cuts that have happened to low-income households.

Working for social justice is a cornerstone of SVP's mission and work, alongside home visitation and empowering people to access education, training and other supports. We are called to challenge the social injustices we see, to engage with Government and policy makers to propose solutions and to advocate for social change. SVP welcomes the fall in unemployment and the return to economic growth in recent years. We believe social and economic progress must go hand in hand, with investment in quality public services and income supports yielding benefits to both the economy and the common good.

Our pre-budget submission for 2017 focuses on four priority areas, namely, income adequacy, which is of most interest to the committee; housing and homelessness, which has become a major issue for us and every organisation working in the area; early years, child care and after school care; and affordable energy and energy poverty, which Ms Feely talked about.

In the area of income adequacy, we are particularly concerned about families with children, given that it is the largest group we assist, particularly one-parent families. One-parent families experience the highest rates of poverty and deprivation. In 2014, more than one in five lone parents were experiencing consistent poverty, living in a household with a low income and going without basics such as adequate food and the right kind of clothing for the weather. Almost 60% experienced material deprivation. That figure is scandalous given that they are households with children. Some 11.2% of children are living in consistent poverty. The Government has made a commitment to lifting 97,000 children out of consistent poverty by 2020, which is a very ambitious target and one we are working towards achieving. We believe tackling poverty among one-parent families is key if this ambitious target is to be met.

The reforms to the one-parent family payment implemented during recent years have resulted in both winners and losers. Unfortunately, it appears that there have been more losers than winners, and for those who have gained, it has been at the expense of other low-income households. Many of those who have lost out because of the reform have been lone parents in employment. I have outlined in my written submission to the committee the main concerns with the reforms that lone parents have highlighted to us. For time reasons I will not go through them now, but I am happy to take any questions that arise. One parent affected by the reforms told us:

My income decreased drastically by about €80 per week. That is what I pay for child care for the week, and unless I quit my job, I cannot save on child care. I try to save on food because it seems to be the only expense I have any control over, so they have literally taken food from my daughter's mouth. I am full of rage simply because this is being sold as a measure to support lone parents into work and education.

I will outline our policy priorities for the Minister for Social Protection in the budget 2017. We ask the Government to allow lone parents in employment whose children are aged between seven and 14 to receive both the jobseeker's transition, JST, payment and family income supplement, FIS, if they meet the qualifying criteria. We are asking for this because for lone parents with younger children, the one-parent family payment, OFP, and FIS are paid together and lone parents in that situation would also receive fuel allowance. However, when the youngest child in the household turns seven, there is a significant loss of income as working lone parents must choose between getting FIS or the jobseeker's transition payment. Child care costs do not change much between when a child is six and seven. They are very significant, and that is why we are requesting this change.

We are also asking that the jobseeker's transition payment and the Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, maintenance grant be payable to lone parents who are undertaking a course of education for the duration of the course regardless of the age of their youngest child. This is currently payable to lone parents of children aged under 14, which is a great support for lone parents considering taking up education or training. However, lone parents whose youngest child is aged over 14 must transfer to the back to education allowance, BTEA, in order to maintain their incomes, and people in receipt of this cannot claim the maintenance grant, which is worth over €100 per week to someone living far away from college.

Lone parents in receipt of rent supplement must decide whether to remain in receipt of the OFP or JST and receive the maintenance grant but lose their rent supplement or transfer to the BTEA and keep their rent supplement. The complications of the system are evident from this, as are the barriers to lone parents living in rent supplement accommodation taking up education and training.

We recommend that lone parents in this situation should be allowed to retain their one-parent family payment or jobseeker's transitional payment and their rent supplement and also receive the maintenance grant for the duration of their education and training course. We advise that any increases in child benefit payment should be targeted towards children aged 12 years and older in recognition of the high costs faced by families with older children. The decision to remove child benefit from 18 year olds in full-time education has placed a heavy burden on families, particularly those on low incomes. We request that the current rates relating to the fuel allowance and the household benefits package be protected and that the personal micro-credit initiative be supported and adequately funded. In that regard, we welcome the decision to roll out that pilot scheme across all credit unions in Ireland as a much more affordable alternative to money lenders.

Our policy priorities for the Minister for Social Protection should be read in the context of our entire pre-budget submission, which emphasises investment in public services and supports over reducing taxes. It also seeks a balance between investing in public services and income supports in order to tackle poverty and improve the lives of the people we assist.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Fahey. The first person indicating is Deputy Willie O'Dea.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Feely and Ms Fahey for attending and for their excellent presentations. It is very difficult to disagree with anything they said. I also thank them for the work they are doing to promote the interests of the elderly and to keep those interests to the forefront. I thank the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for the wonderful work is doing on the ground, which I see at first hand in my constituency on a weekly basis.

I have a number of brief points to raise. The case has been made that while the monetary amount of other benefits has been reduced, pensions have not been reduced. The point the witnesses make very well is that pensions have effectively been reduced by a withdrawal of benefits such as free telephone rental, etc. The witnesses pointed to the ambition that the pension should be 35% of average earnings at a minimum, which would be €248 per week. The top rate at the moment for contributory old age pension is €233.

On the fuel allowance, the witnesses are proposing to extend it by four weeks at the new rate. The rate was changed last year. The suggestion made with regard to a lump sum is very good. I have come across situations in which some people are not able to enter into an agreement with the supplier to pay over a period. Do the witnesses have any figures on the percentage of people over the age of 66 who are totally reliant on the old age pension and who have no other source of income? I imagine we could work out the number of people over the age of 66 who have income only slightly in excess of the old age pension because one can only get the fuel allowance if one's income does not exceed the pension by €100 per week. If the witnesses can supply those figures, I would appreciate it.

On the presentation by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, we predicted everything Ms Fahey said about lone parents. We predicted it in the debate on the changes. What we have to do now is try to solve the situation and move forward. It should be borne in mind that the group experiencing the highest poverty levels in this society is that comprising lone parents. There is almost a 60% deprivation rate among lone parents, which is outrageous. I have said it thousands of times and I will repeat it again. Ms Fahey mentioned winners and losers. I have not come across too many winners; there are mainly losers. Lone parents, particularly those in employment, have lost out dramatically as a result of these changes. One of the suggestions made is to allow lone parents in employment whose children are aged between seven and 14 to receive both the jobseeker's transitional payment and family income supplement if they meet the qualifying criteria. The qualifying criterion for ordinary jobseeker's payment is that one cannot work more than three days a week. I am not sure if the qualification for the jobseeker's transitional payment is the same. If it is, this would be a problem. There are anomalies in the interactions between various payments. For example, one can get rent subsidy if one receives one type of payment and if one goes for another type of payment, one must forfeit the higher education grant. The whole thing is like something out of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

It seems to me that many of those anomalies have come in as a result of the changes made in reducing the age to seven. How many of those anomalies would be sorted out if, for example, we were to revert to when the age threshold was 14? What would need to be done in addition to that?

The organisations recommended an increase in rent supplement or HAP, housing assistance payment. Both were increased recently. What has been the actual effect of this in practice? Has it had any impact? A measure was introduced to freeze rent for two years. Has that had any effect in practice?

I agree with the organisations that the State should be the main provider of social housing, not the private sector. For the past six years, we have had the experience of using the private sector as the main provider of social housing. This has not, will not and cannot work.

The point was made on child care that only 0.2% of gross domestic product is invested in children before they start primary school. Are there any comparable figures for other OECD or EU countries?

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like Deputy Willie O'Dea, I welcome Ms Fahey and Ms Feely to this morning’s meeting. Since I was elected in February, I have met both organisations. I have to put my cards on the table with regard to most, if not all, of the measures which both organisations have put forward. I agree with them, as does my party. We will be launching our pre-budget submission in the next week or so and most of the measures touched on in these pre-budget submissions today will be addressed by my party, as they have been in previous years.

I commend both organisations on the work they do in picking up the broken pieces the State has left behind. Those pieces are, unfortunately, families, older people and other marginalised people who have been forgotten about. The statistics show clearly they are the ones bearing the brunt. Families, older people, lone parents - 60% of individuals from lone-parent households - are the most susceptible to poverty. I commend the work of both organisations and the volunteers who work on the ground helping out people every day who go above and beyond their duty.

The winter fuel allowance payment period was cut back from 32 weeks to 26 weeks. While there were marginal increases last year to address that aspect, the payment is not staying with the rate of inflation. We know how much fuel costs have increased over the past several years. Up to 28% of households across the State experience fuel poverty. We heard the examples outlined in the submissions and I am sure we could all reiterate many cases of fuel poverty we have encountered. These are real people rationing the amount of fuel they burn. They go to bed when the ration of fuel runs out. They are, for example, travelling on trains and sitting in public buildings to keep warm. We have all come across such cases. In 2008, the assistance the Society of St. Vincent de Paul gave to helping out families with energy costs came to €3.8 million.

That figure jumped to €10 million in 2013. At the same time, cuts to the fuel allowance were introduced by successive Governments. This issue certainly needs to be addressed in the forthcoming budget. I take on board the proposal about a bulk payment. I know some fuel companies allow customers to buy oil by the barrel or bucket at an increased cost. That is something I am only too willing to examine and take on board. The fuel allowance needs to be increased from 26 weeks. We need to start reversing the cuts that have been implemented.

We know the old age pension qualification age was pushed out to 66 and we are aware of the impact this has had. The State transition pension was removed in 2012. I know Age Action Ireland has looked at this. People who have hit retirement age after working all their lives are now forced to apply for jobseeker's allowance. A total of 2,590 men and women aged 65 have signed on for jobseeker's allowance - more than any other category. This sets off alarm bells. These people are locked out of drawing down their State pension for a year - a pension for which they have paid contributions during their working lives - and are forced on claim jobseeker's allowance. A total of 2,590 people fit into that category, which is a serious problem. The abolition of the State transition pension has compounded the difficulties. These older people are less well off by least €45 than someone in receipt of the State pension. This area has been highlighted and needs to be addressed.

PRSI contributions have increased from 260 to 520. Again, this compounds the difficulties for our older population in respect of accessing the State pension and getting the full entitlement. The committee needs to get its teeth into this issue. I know there was a discussion on that matter earlier.

One of the meanest cuts affecting the older population was the removal of the bereavement grant. It was a small payment of €850 to help people bury a loved one. This cut has had an impact across the board. We know there is discretion on the part of community welfare officers to help out in situations like that but it is at their discretion. The removal of the bereavement grant has hit so many people at a time when they are at their most vulnerable. It is forcing them into further debt and, in many cases, into the arms of loan sharks. This matter needs to be considered. Hopefully, the Minister has taken on board the submissions and will seek to reverse the cut.

I have met the Irish League of Credit Unions and I welcome the fact that we have micro-credit loans. I spoke to some people during the week who told me that not all credit unions have signed up providing such loans, which is disappointing. Micro-credit loans are a fantastic source of funds for people who might have poor credit ratings or who might be dealing with certain organisations that charge exorbitant interest rates on loans. More needs to be done to encourage all credit unions to sign up to the scheme to ensure that marginalised and vulnerable people can get cheap and affordable loans from credit unions.

The statistics show clearly that lone parents are, by far, the most susceptible to poverty. The fact is that 97,000 children are in a constant state of poverty. It was interesting when the Minister attended our previous meeting and I asked him what specific measures the Government had to tackle poverty, in particular child poverty. He started to give me a lecture on the definition of poverty instead of giving a specific answer on the measures the Government was going to put in place. I have put down parliamentary questions to the Minister asking what specific measures the Government will introduce to deal with poverty and again I have been given lectures on the improving economy. Unless a specific measure is introduced, we will be looking, unfortunately, at all of these issues again. I am asking about the whole issue of lone parents, the changes to the one-family payment and the impact on lone parents once a child hits seven years of age. We know all of the stories and the case examples that have been given. It is an issue that requires serious intervention and one which the committee will have to get its teeth into. My party will be bringing forward specific measures in its pre-budget submission. Hopefully, some of them will be taken on board by the Government.

Another timely issue on which I want to focus is the cost of sending children back to school. We have seen the figures from the different surveys that have been carried out. It can cost up to €900 to send a child back to primary school. For secondary school, it can cost up to €1,500. Cuts have been made to the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. In 2011, it was cut from €200 to €150, which has had an impact. If one looks again at the breakdown of expenditure set out by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, one can see that the demand for assistance from organisations like that spikes when cuts have been made by Government. Expenditure on households and needs from St. Vincent de Paul has increased by 27% since 2009. We do not have a specific breakdown to hand, but perhaps we can get one for education to see how much is being spent to help families send their children back to school. We see that where cuts have been implemented, the demands on organisations like St. Vincent de Paul spikes. I echo the call to increase the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. I am again critical of the Minister because when I asked him specific questions in the Dáil, he provided false arguments on the Six Counties, which is not comparing like with like, instead of answering. Education is free in the Six Counties which it is not down here given the cost of school uniforms, books, iPads and other associated IT.

Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Fahey and Ms Feely for presenting to the committee. I have three short points and will hopefully make up some time. The witnesses touched on the back-to-education and lone parents topic, which is one of the most important things. Lone parents en masseare single, lone women and not enough is being done to ensure that they get the right education to allow them to pursue careers and make something of themselves. Lack of education is one of the main reasons people remain in poverty. Supports for women with young children to get through education constitute one of the main ways to break the poverty cycle. I commend the witnesses on that and will definitely provide what support I can to keep it on the radar.

On the supplementary welfare officer role, both the witnesses' organisations have stepped in on numerous occasions to provide once-off payments. Do both organisations have a chart setting out on what, exactly, they give people money to spend? Is it buggies, rent or electricity bills, for example?

Do the organisations have some sort of pie-chart whereby I could find out on what exactly people are spending the money they give them, whether it be buggies, rent or electricity bills? I am interested to know how far they are stepping in and what exactly their money is being spent on when the State should be fulfilling that role, rather than both those great organisations.

The third topic, which the Chairperson, Deputy Curran, has mentioned before, concerns the group discount of fuel and other utilities. I would like to hear the witnesses' take on it. It is something that really needs to be explored.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be brief. I thank the witnesses for coming in. I know that Age Action and Social Justice Ireland have done tremendous work over the past seven years, highlighting inequality and campaigning vigorously for budgets that were tested and checked for equality. Unfortunately, however, that has not happened. I take on board everything the witnesses have said. We know what we will get back from the Minister concerning a number of these issues. Yesterday morning, I heard an RTE interview with the Minister for Social Protection where he, quite rightly, said that Fianna Fáil cut the lone parent's allowance by €16. However, he then denied that the last Government played any role in cutting that allowance. They may not have cut anything, but they determined the conditionality of the payment. The interviewer did not know enough about the lone parent's payment to be able to challenge that. In effect, we clearly know that in July 2015 a lone parent on €9.15 per hour with a 20-hour contract was earning around €4.53. In 2017, that will be down to €80.32 for a working parent. That is the reality for lone parents on a 35-hour week. I wanted to raise that important point at today's meeting. We cannot let someone go on air and say that there have been no cuts to the lone parent's allowance over the last five years, or since the child turned seven.

While it is quite clear that we will not get all of them, what areas really need to be pushed which, in the witnesses' view, would have a significant impact on older people?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I join with others in welcoming Ms Fahey and Ms Feely. Their organisations have done important work. I particularly welcome the fact that both of them have not simply engaged with our committee but have also looked to the wider question of what we value in society and how we shape our priorities.

There are specific areas on which I would like to hear more discussion. In Age Action's presentation, Ms Feely spoke about seeking an increase in the old age pension. I presume she is also seeking that increase in the reduced rate pension. I would like Ms Feely to comment specifically on that. As we know, only 16% of those in receipt of the full contributory pension are women. Ireland has a 37% gender pension gap. I know Age Action has examined that matter and so I would like to hear Ms Feely's thoughts on the gender pension gap.

We rightly talked about lone parents, but when one changes conditionalities or thresholds, it is a cut or loss in income. It means there is a real lack of an income they previously had. We have seen an invisible cut of that kind, with a change of conditionality in pensions. The change in thresholds for qualifying for reduced rate pensions has effectively meant a major loss of income for many older women. I would like to hear Ms Feely's comments on that. The committee would like to examine the gender pension gap, so the witnesses might like to suggest how we could press forward in that respect.

As regards proposals for home care, the submission contained detailed costings, including just over €78 million to bring us to a point of adequacy for home care hours. I can think of few things that represent such a crucial and strategic investment, more value for money, or that are more deeply necessary than bringing our home care up to an adequate standard.

It of course also delivers savings in the long term by allowing people to live with dignity in their own homes for far longer. In addition to such necessary investment in home care, what are Ms Feely's thoughts on the idea of home care as a statutory entitlement, in line with the existing statutory entitlement for residential care, because I believe it may be necessary to consider this area? I also welcome the joined-up approach highlighted by Age Action Ireland. In that regard, Ms Feely mentioned Departments and I note Age Action Ireland is talking to other Departments as well as to this joint committee. What does Ms Feely believe to be the current status of the national positive ageing strategy? That was a strategy to which more than 1,000 older people gave of their time and energy. I believe it was one of the most comprehensive consultations we ever have had and it has extended over two Governments. It is a good strategy but its implementation is not evident. Does Ms Feely believe re-engaging with the positive ageing strategy potentially could be a way to get some of that joined-up momentum she highlighted? Others have spoken on fuel and as was mentioned, the Chairman also has interesting proposals in that regard. I welcome that both the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Age Action Ireland have detailed and quite innovative and creative proposals on how to engage both with the payment thresholds and more innovative approaches to ensuring value and security for older people with regard to fuel.

Turning to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, I congratulate it on the work it has done while recognising, as Senator Ardagh noted, it should not be obliged to step into the breach in many of the ways it has. However, pulling back to the wider policy focus is important and it is particularly laudable that the society points to the key contradiction regarding the decision that must be made, which is that investment must be chosen over tax cuts. In the context of some recent media discussion on the need for tax cuts for those on higher incomes, members must consider some of the testimonials given today. How could they, in conscience, stand over any cuts to those on the higher third of incomes when people literally are making choices between the basic essentials of life? We absolutely must look to investment over tax cuts and I welcome the society's framing of the issue in that way because this is the decision that must be placed at the centre and the priority that must be made. Ms Fahey focused on and discussed income adequacy and before turning to the issue of lone parents, I note the society's sister organisation, the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, has done interesting work on minimum essential standards of living. It would be useful to hear some of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul's thoughts on how it thinks constructive engagement with those minimum essential standards of living could be useful. This could be in respect of the adequacy of payments but also perhaps with regard to income adequacy in other areas such as employment.

I compliment the Society of St. Vincent de Paul because it has given a strong and consistent focus over the past two to three years to the question of lone parents. It has been highlighted and rings an alarm bell. I must state that if we are to look at equality or gender-proofing of the budgetary process with any seriousness, addressing the issues faced by lone parents and the impact of poor policy decisions must be central. Deputy O'Dea compared the current mess with Alice's Adventures in Wonderlandbut due to my affection for that book, I will use another analogy. It is a patchwork and a maze which people and families are trying to put together on a week by week basis. The real cuts and the real loss in income people have experienced because of the changes in conditionality are pushing people into hardship. Ms Fahey described this in her testimonial and there are clear examples of hard choices between food and heating or between taking a bus to town and going to visit a doctor. People are being asked to take different basic decisions, particularly those who are in receipt of the jobseeker's transitional payment or who have been pushed on to jobseeker's allowance. Such hard choices then are echoed by the hard choices they must make between the patchwork of facilities available to them. For example, I refer to the choice between the back-to-education allowance and the SUSI grant and the question - because of the rent supplement being there - as to whether a person will take a risk on rent supplement to access better supports for him or her when going back into college.

Will that person take that gamble? We are asking people whose deprivation levels are such that they are already making hard choices to go without the essentials of life to make another set of hard choices. These are the people who are seeking to go back into education and to train. We should try to fix these anomalies. We need an overall review of policy on lone parents. We need to consider the substantially failed policy. There are also very concrete cuts to income disregard which is a cash loss for parents. That has been slightly but not fully restored.

I am particularly interested in the proposal on the jobseeker's transitional and the family income supplement because it would address some of the cases we have heard recently. Why do the witnesses think it would be beneficial? I have raised it with the Minister and the Department. There seems to be a block. They regard it almost as a double payment but it is not. We want to keep an indicator within the system in order that somebody who manages to get a job is recognised as facing particular challenges in parenting alone with a child between the ages of seven and 14. The invisibility of those parents' experience and the challenges they face has galled many women and many lone parents. It is a way of ensuring the visibility of this group and the challenges and alarming levels of deprivation it faces. I would like the witnesses to elaborate on that proposal because it is very timely and could be pushed forward in the short term.

Ray Butler (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for coming in. Over many years, problems about the living alone allowance have been brought to me. In one presentation we heard: "Catherine told us, 'I cannot afford either life or home insurance. I have to go to bed early to save on heating and electricity. My husband passed away last year and I still have not paid off his funeral expenses.'"

The living alone allowance is too small. When somebody dies and only one pension is coming into a house, where before there was a couples’ pension of more than €400, the amount is reduced to €33. When the Minister came to the Seanad he said he is considering this and he is going to increase the living alone allowance. I would like to see it go up to a figure of almost €300 but that may be fantasy. It is a huge problem with all the extra charges brought in during the recession that people living alone cannot afford. Heating and food are huge issues.

The bereavement grant and funeral grant have not worked out. There is funding for them but in some cases the death had to be reported to the community welfare office before the funeral director. The community welfare office got its own funeral company to deal with the funeral. People who went ahead and did it themselves got no grant even though they could not afford to pay it. That has to be reviewed. There is money in the Department for this. We should go back and some bereavement grant should be given. The new formula has not worked but has put extra stress on many people. The reduction of the fuel allowance from 32 weeks to 26 put a lot of hardship on people. I would like to see the new rate come in as well as the four weeks the witnesses have proposed. A lump sum payment is a very good idea.

I would like Ms Fahey’s opinion of school donations. They can be from €100 to €200 per school. There is intimidation in schools. I know of one in my area which will not give a locker key unless €100 is paid per child.

In another school in my area, a statement is sent out to those who have not paid the €100 upfront and the parents can pay off the sum over a period. I raised the issue at the Joint Committee of Education and Skills. This practice is totally illegal. The Department of Education and Skills does not encourage it but schools go ahead. I am aware that some schools have sums ranging from €50,000 to €300,000 in a bank account for the running of the school. I know schools can be underfunded at times. I have no problem with the parents associations fund-raising to get money to provide for the children in their school. However, demanding sums of either €100 or €200 per child from parents is extortion and is putting parents under serious financial pressure at a time when they have had to buy school shoes, school books and the uniform. This is a serious issue and I would like groups such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to state that people cannot afford it.

At a previous meeting of the Joint Committee on Education and Skills, I requested that we establish the number of bank accounts that exist in schools and whether the Department of Education and Skills knows how many accounts exist, but it could not give me an answer. I think it is a scandal that we do not know the number of school bank accounts and the amount of money involved. Schools ask parents who can ill-afford more outgoings for a donation of €100 or €200 per child.

A major issue is increases in social protection payments. In the past three to four years I have seen the impact of a small rise in a payment and how it can result in a person losing his or her medical card. I agree that the Department of Social Protection will have to engage in a great deal more consultation when it comes to raising social protection payments or the old age pension.

The economy is growing and an increasing number of people are finding work but I see the rise in personal debt. I am sure the witnesses are regularly getting through their doors people facing these difficulties. People are being bullied and harassed by institutions. They are becoming suicidal again. People need a small loan for a washing machine or to cover the cost of getting the necessities to send children back to school. I agree with the incentive the Minister has provided for credit unions to provide microfinance. Microfinance is a great idea but many credit unions have not signed up to this initiative. I would like to see them sign up.

Personal debt is a significant issue and I ask the witnesses to comment on whether the people they deal with are being harassed by institutions. The Irish Credit Bureau was past its sell-by date during the crash. We need to consider the system the Irish Credit Bureau has because it is past its sell-by date.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me say well done to the representatives of Age Action Ireland and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. It is not easy to come before a joint committee to make a presentation to members.

There is probably a bigger narrative here but it is outside their remit. The social damage done to the country since 2008 because of cutbacks to the most vulnerable has been akin to social vandalism. That ranges from elderly people to single parents to working people. The people who inflicted this social vandalism on people are still in this House. In my eyes they should be present to answer for what they have done.

Does the representative of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul agree with me that homelessness is getting worse? The number of people coming to our office is rising and the problem is getting worse rather than improving. I presume all the Deputies have the same experience. We are seeing the crisis of our time facing the State. Ms Caroline Fahey is seeing that at first hand.

Working people are being driven into work poverty.

The matter is probably out of the remit of the witnesses and is more for legislators. Many of the people in this country who are working, and probably earning the minimum wage, are struggling. They do the best for their kids and for themselves but are punished all the time because of certain legislation introduced by political parties. The narrative is as follows. Since 2008, the social damage done by certain political parties is, to my eyes, criminal. The collateral damage, a term I hate using, was outlined by the delegation. It is unacceptable that people must struggle every day, beg and suffer. This country is very wealthy but it is divided along class and financial lines. Until that scenario is tackled, we will be debating these issues in ten years' time.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy. I thank Ms. Fahey and Ms Feely for their presentations. I will not repeat all the points that were made, but I will refer to one or two general issues.

Ms Feely said that "research we are currently carrying out indicates tens of thousands of pensioners had their pensions drastically reduced following changes to the eligibility criteria for the contributory pension in 2012". Could she please tell me about the research, its scale, when it will be finalised and if she could make a copy of it available to us? It is a very factual and interesting piece. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence but detailed research would prove useful.

Both witnesses mentioned fuel poverty and so forth. In both presentations, reference was made to the fact that people face different challenges when trying to get value for money such in terms of an ability to switch online, e-billing and having enough regular money in one's bank account to pay by direct debit. It seems to me that the people who are most in need get the worst value for money. Increasing a weekly payment or the number of weeks is one method of improvement, but it is not the only one. As I have said before, we need to be more innovative as a State in getting value for money. It is the people who do not have access and, therefore, cannot carry out electronic switching or electronic billing or do not have enough money to pay by direct debt that get the worst value and the State is subsidising this situation. The State should use its buying power to get maximum discount for individuals who have no opportunity of getting a discount. The committee should look at this matter. I am not saying we should replace the increase and period. Instead, we should try to get far better value for the people who, when they are given the money, get less value than someone who has a bank account and, thus, can have a direct debit and carry out electronic switching. It is the people who need help the most that get let less value from the money we are giving them and that is one of the challenges facing us.

I thank both witnesses for their presentations. A number of significant issues have been raised and both witnesses might like to comment. Ms Feely opened proceedings at the beginning of this session so I will allow her to start and Ms Fahey might conclude.

Ms Naomi Feely:

I thank members of the committee for their comprehensive comments and questions. I hope to capture them all but if I do not then I ask members to remind me at the end.

I will first deal with fuel allowances. I note that Deputies O'Dea and Brady and Senator Butler have said it is great idea to pay the fuel allowance in two lump sums. We are glad to hear that the Department also thinks the suggestion is good. We have discussed it at the pre-budget forum and the Minister seems to think it is a good idea. Therefore, we need to implement the idea. We are not sure how much the scheme costs. It seems the payment will remain the same but the way it is delivered will change so one thinks minimal costs would be involved in implementing a system of two lump sums. Obviously we do not know the Department's internal administrative arrangements. I do not want to say the process will be cost neutral because I am sure it will cost a significant amount to set it up. Time and again we have heard people say two lump sum payments is a good idea so let us make it a priority.

In terms of fuel allowance, Deputy O'Dea asked how many people rely solely on the pension.

It is difficult to disaggregate the exact figure because such pensioners could have a small private pension for which they are getting quite a nominal amount. We have a figure of 53,831 for those in receipt of the fuel allowance who are in receipt of the State pension non-contributory. That is from the departmental statistics. Each year the Department publishes its statistics. The latest ones available are those for 2014. One is talking about 53,831 out of a total of 95,000 recipients. Of those on the State pension contributory, 69,000 are in receipt of the fuel allowance out of a total of 346,000. All of those statistics are available in the Department's published statistics.

Ms Fahey probably has a number of points to make on the issue of fuel poverty and energy poverty because the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has been to the forefront on this issue. We have a strategy. The Department of Communications, Climate Action and Environment has published a strategy to address this issue, a critical component of which is a whole-of-government approach. It is not only about tinkering around with the fuel allowance. An innovative pilot programme in the strategy that I mentioned in my opening comments looks at a deep retrofitting of homes. They have piloted this in parts of Dublin - I just cannot think of the postcode areas off the top of my head. Its critical aim is to target those who already have respiratory conditions and they are trying to pitch it as being an investment in the houses of those who spend more time trying to access health services in an effort to make a saving across Departments. That is the approach with which we need to be coming at this. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has a good approach in terms of fuel stamps, about which I am sure Ms Fahey can give more detail.

The other critical issue, in terms of addressing energy poverty, is trying to ensure that people are enabled to go online if they wish to so do and the Department of Communications, Climate Change and Environment supports this through a grant called BenefIT. We have called for a continued increase in that funding and putting it on a multi-annual basis. More than half of those over the age of 65 have never gone online. Younger people would immediately go online to see what are the most cost-effective measures or fill out the switching forms but for older people, there is a greater challenge in this regard. However, the number of those over the age 75 who have gone online is quite negligible, at approximately 3%. There is a significant challenge but we need to be making those switching options more accessible to people.

The second contribution was from Deputy Brady. One of the issues he raised - I probably covered the fuel allowance issues - is the transition pension and this is an important point. One of the issues is we still have not abolished mandatory retirement rates and if one is in the public service or perhaps under other contracts, one must retire upon reaching the age of 65. Last year we welcomed the opportunity to present on this issue at the Department of Justice and Equality. Former Deputy Anne Ferris brought forward a good Bill on this and there was almost cross-party support to abolish mandatory retirement. Obviously, with the dissolution of the Dáil, that has not gone forward and I am not really sure where it is in the system. However, the issue is that there has been considerable support for it. One gets somebody who, maybe at the age of 65, is forced to retire but cannot access the State pension and the person finds him or herself accessing jobseeker's benefit or allowance. While the Department has been quite relaxed in terms of the activation measures around that, such persons find themselves, maybe for the first time in their lives, in a dole office which can be unsettling when they are coming to a point in their life where they want to retire. We have done some work on that and we can certainly provide the committee with our policy position on it. We have a document that we can submit.

The other issue Deputy Brady, and Senator Butler, brought up was the bereavement grant. We have called for its reinstatement at a cost of €20 million. In terms of the community welfare officer, CWO, it is not something about which I would have direct contact with a CWO but there is a variance across the country. I suppose it is dependent on the CWO in one's area.

With regard to Senator Ardagh's comments on Age Action Ireland, we do not provide individual support to older people in the same way the Society of St. Vincent de Paul does. We do not give people monetary payments, but we have a service called care and repair for older people who would be less likely to be able to change a light bulb or something like that. We provide a free service involving small do-it-yourself jobs such as cutting their grass, putting up Christmas decorations and other jobs that become increasingly difficult while we age. We have figures on that and also on the number of calls to our information line looking for information.

Deputy Collins raised the eligibility criteria for the one-parent family payment. That is linked to Senator Higgins' point on the gender pension gap, which is an issue I had wanted to discuss. It concerns the research we have conducted on which Deputy Curranasked us to respond. In terms of what we have done, in 2012 the eligibility criteria for the pension was changed in that where originally we had four bands, that increased to six bands. Getting the top rate of payment, therefore, becomes increasingly difficult. The first band remained unchanged but the second band was divided into three. With regard to bands 5 and 6, the weekly amount is less.

What is interesting about that and how it relates to the point Senator Higgins made on the gender differences in that we see a disproportionate impact on older people, in the statistical information I mentioned when addressing Deputy O'Dea there are global figures on the number of pensions, but as we drill down into access to pensions, we can see the gender dimensions. For example, there is a fairly even gender break, at 50:50, with regard to overall pensions for people over the age of 65. With regard to the contributory pension, however, two thirds are male and one third is female. When we look at the non-contributory pension, two thirds are female and one third are male. We can see that women are less likely to be recipients of the contributory pension to which one contributes throughout one's life. When we drill down further, however, and examined the changes, and who has been in receipt of the top bands, we see that in the top band of payment where people get €233 per week, 73% are male and 27% are women. If we drill down further we see that in the second one, 78% are male and 22% are women, but immediately we see a reversal. For band 3, which is 30 to 39 annual contributions, we see that 43% are men and 57% are women. Women are predominantly in the lower bands of the pension rate but the major issue we have with the 2012 changes is that they substantially reduced the weekly rate to which they are entitled.

In our research we undertook to contact the Department to get some statistics from it. We also tried to capture the lived experience of women and men who are impacted by this change and we found that the reduction they would face during their lifetime could be up to €20,000. We reckon that approximately 36,000 have been impacted by this change, 38% of whom are men and 62% of whom are women.

We are at the final stage of drafting this report. It has gone to two external reviewers. We were hoping it would be available in the coming weeks. We are happy to provide the committee with a copy of the report. We would also be happy to attend the committee to discuss it with the members.

The other issue that was raised was the living alone allowance. A critical point about that is that it is negatively impacting on women. Women are more likely to live alone. We can see in the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice research that women on a non-contributory pension who are living alone will face a €9 weekly deficit. Those on the contributory pension have a surplus of less than €1. However, to go back to my previous point, that is assuming they are on the top rate of the contributory pension but as we can see, the way things are falling out, women are less likely to be on that. How do we address that issue? I believe we need to take a life course approach to addressing that. It is about addressing the pension issue, but it is also about addressing the issue of care across the life cycle. In terms of those impacted by the 2012 changes, we are talking about people who were born between 1946 and 1950.

They would have got married in the early 1970s and would have been subject to the legal obligation to retire upon marriage, as per the marriage bar, if they were working in the public sector or there would have been cultural expectations that they would stay at home. Therefore, they would have exited the workplace. They may have worked before they got married and when their children grew up they may have returned to work but, invariably, they returned to work prior to 1996 when the credits under the homemaker's scheme were introduced. Those women are not able to take up credits under that scheme as a means to reach the top contributions. This is an issue we have increasingly become aware of through our members and we will publish our research on this in the next month or two.

Senator Higgins raised the issues of home care and the national positive ageing strategy, and I will respond to both of those together. While we have the national positive ageing strategy, we do not have an implementation plan for it. I am aware that the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, held a meeting of older people's organisations, at which Age Action was represented by our chief executive office, CEO, to discuss where we should we go in terms of taking action on it. There is an implementation deficit here, although when I attend other events across the community and voluntary sector I find that it is not unique to the national positive ageing strategy. There is an implementation deficit in terms of policy across Government.

There is a commitment in the national positive ageing strategy to enable people to age in place. That is not something new. It has been enshrined in policy since the late 1960s. We have put forward that people should be enabled to age at home. If we consider the funding of the nursing homes support scheme, which puts access to long-term and residential care on a statutory footing, for every €1 that we pay on home care, we invest €276 in residential care. I have a copy of the research on this area that we published and I would be happy to forward it to the committee. Earlier this year we found that 50% of people who were residing in nursing homes did not need to be there. We need adopt a value for money approach in this respect. Under a programme in the United Kingdom, they invested in giving people low to medium supports within the home and this resulted in savings in hospital bed hours and in the number of times people accessed accident and emergency departments. That is contained in our submission to the Department of Health, which I can forward to the committee.

To return to the pensions issue, we need to consider proofing budgets, whether it be equality proofing or examining matters in a more holistic and consistent way. Decisions are made that seem to have the impact of making departmental savings but we need to examine their impact on specific groups. The 2012 changes in eligibility criteria for pensions have had a disproportionate impact on women. We now have a commitment in the programme for Government to examine the issue of equality and gender proofing, and we need to set up that infrastructure to ensure that when we have these discussions, decisions are made in the round and on the basis of having the least adverse impact on vulnerable groups. I hope I have answered all the questions that were put to me.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Feely for her response. From the committee's point of view, we welcome that Age Action has carried out that research and, when it is concluded, that it would be forwarded to the committee. While Ms Feely was waiting for us to call her in here this morning, we as a committee were setting out our work programme, and pensions and the pensions gap that flows from it is one of the areas we are committed to examining and on which we want to do some in-depth analysis. We cannot divide the two; they are related. In that regard, the research Age Action has done would be very useful and I thank Ms Feely for highlighting that.

It is now Ms Fahey's opportunity to respond.

Ms Caroline Fahey:

I have rearranged by theme the questions that were raised and I hope the answers to the members' questions will be covered in my response. I will start by responding to the questions on the one-parent family payment and the issues that arise in that respect. Senator Ardagh asked what we would prioritise or how we can prevent the changes that have happened with the one-parent family payment from having such a negative impact.

Mothers' educational attainment is certainly a strong predictor of how well families and children do. We suggest that the negative things which have come about as a result of the reform of the one-parent family payment, and have made it more difficult for lone parents to take up education and training, should be tackled at the outset. For example, there is a need to ensure that the maintenance grant is reasonable and to allow people to access it. People who are thinking about taking up education and training opportunities need to be assured that child care assistance will be available to them, that their income will enable them to make ends meet and that their housing entitlements will not be put at risk. Such matters are important.

Reference was made to the risks that people are being asked to take. We have noticed that people on low incomes can be very risk-averse because they do not have the background resources to make up the shortfall if things fall apart or do not work out. This is especially relevant in the case of education. Some people can be reluctant to send their children to third-level education because it is such a huge expense. It can be hard for them to overcome barriers like their lack of familiarity with third-level education and their fear that they will be much worse off if it does not work out. It is a big problem.

We have spoken to the Department about what is preventing the family income supplement and jobseeker's transition payment from being made together. It would not be that expensive to implement such a system, which would make a significant difference to lone parents in employment with children under the age of 14 who require child care. The Department is quite keen to ensure that nobody is getting two social welfare payments at the same time. There are also concerns that people might see large decreases in their incomes when their circumstances change and they are no longer parenting alone. We would always argue that people on low incomes who are parenting alone are special cases because they face numerous challenges. Many people are managing to work while rearing children on their own on low incomes. We are going to keep pushing this one even though certain arguments are being made against it. Some people would argue that a family in work on family income supplement is not technically experiencing poverty. This argument is based on the definitions of poverty, etc. We know that many families in work on low incomes are struggling.

During our discussions with lone parents, it has been suggested to us that the work of parenting itself is not recognised. This situation applies to lone parents only because couple households can often choose to have one parent staying at home. I accept that such households can have financial difficulties. The rules that allow married couples to transfer their tax credits and the standard rate band facilitate one parent in staying at home. If one is parenting alone, however, one is told one has to go out and work. It is a kind of contradiction. Many lone parents feel that the work they are doing in raising children by themselves was not recognised when certain reforms were made.

Two things have repeatedly come up in the Vincentian Partnership for Justice's research work on how much it costs to have a minimum essential standard of living. Housing and child care costs are driving up the high cost of being able to make ends meet. Social welfare payments certainly fall far below what is needed. In many cases, employment income is not enough because of the high costs I have mentioned. A job will not always help one to come out of poverty or to have a decent standard of living. This is a concern for us because employment is being promoted as the solution to child poverty and to poverty generally - as the only game in town. Certainly, there are much lower rates of poverty in households where people are in employment, but there is an awful lot of in-work poverty as well. Many people who are working are struggling because they qualify for nothing and they pay for everything. It is becoming a huge issue for people on low incomes to be able to afford to meet their housing costs. We need to tackle the high cost of housing and the lack of availability of proper social housing. When we speak about social housing, we are talking about housing provided by local authorities and approved housing bodies rather than housing provided through rent supplement and housing assistance payments, etc. We do not believe the latter form of social housing gives people secure tenure.

Tackling the cost of housing and child care would make a huge difference to the families we are assisting. While we welcomed the increase in rent supplement and housing assistance payments, we are finding that the homelessness issue and the problem of people not being able to afford housing is moving further out of Dublin. We have members in Wexford and Waterford who are talking about homeless families being accommodated in one bed and breakfast for five days of the week, being shipped out to another bed and breakfast for the weekend and then being shipped back to the original bed and breakfast for five days again. These difficult situations are not confined to Dublin. The problem is moving out now because people cannot afford Dublin at all.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is stepping into the breach by providing services that might previously have been provided through community welfare officers or through State services generally. When we speak to lone parents who are being assisted by the society, we are told that regardless of how good or how sensitive a charity's volunteers might be, having to go to a charity to ask for help is a very negative experience.

Having to tell a volunteer that there is not enough money for food for the week or to put a uniform on a child is extraordinarily difficult. We are stepping into the breach but it is not good for a person's dignity or self-respect. Even though we do a good job in many cases, it is not a positive thing.

We do not have an exact breakdown of our spend compared to what is spent under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. However, we have noticed that while the Department of Social Protection and the Health Service Executive used to spend €80 million on supplementary welfare, the figure is approximately €30 million per year now. Our spend has gone up in the corresponding time. We help with largely the same problems, including basic things for people, for example, household furniture, things for children and so on. We believe there is a relationship between the decrease in the expenditure of those organisations and the increase in ours.

I will offer a comment on education. I did a piece on "The Pat Kenny Show" yesterday about crested uniforms. In primary school, a crested jumper costs €30 and a crested tracksuit is a further €30. A child might need two jumpers. This means €90 is gone out of the €100 back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance before a pair of runners, shoes or a winter coat has been bought. The back-to-school costs are exorbitant for many parents. There is a real need to engage with parents more to see how the costs could be reduced. We are looking for practical solutions to reduce these costs. Voluntary contributions put extraordinary pressure on families as well. We spend a little under €5 million per year on education. Approximately half of that goes towards third-level education costs, while 20% of the costs go on primary school and 20% on secondary school. The remainder is spent on early education and so on. In primary and secondary schools, voluntary contributions are the principal concern, followed by school books and then school uniforms. These are the costs families are struggling with and they come to us for help with them. We end up spending approximately €5 million per year on them.

The energy end of things has been well covered. We have a pilot oil stamp saving scheme. The lump sum payment for oil does not work for people of working age. The Department can argue that it could pay someone a lump sum but that if that person got a job or was no longer parenting alone, then he or she would no longer be eligible for the fuel allowance. We are looking for other solutions for people of working age. We have the oil savings stamp scheme running on a pilot basis. People can pay their fuel allowance into it and build up a lump sum. We need more innovative creative ways around some of the problems facing people. As well as that, some of our Society of St. Vincent de Paul local conferences work with fuel providers to negotiate a group discount. They can arrange for an oil delivery to four or five families at the one time. This overcomes the problem of having a minimum fill that some households cannot afford.

Reference was made to debt and financial inclusion in the credit unions scheme. It is a pity that not all credit unions are using it. One of the difficulties is that sometimes the credit unions in the most disadvantaged areas are not implementing it. One reason for this is that because so many of their clients would qualify for it, the relevant credit unions reckon they do not have the resources to provide the loans. It is a contradictory thing. The scheme is almost a victim of its own success. There has been extensive positive feedback about it and many people want to take out the loans but they are not always available, and that is a real shame.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank our guests for their comprehensive replies to the significant issues raised. Members of the committee should note that many of the issues raised today relate to our work programme. I thank Ms Feely of Age Action Ireland and Ms Fahey of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for attending, for their presentations and for their informative replies. The research they submit will become part of our future work.

I remind colleagues that on Thursday morning we will visit the Department of Social Protection with officials.