John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 1 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Principal Act is amended in section 198 by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3D)—

"(3E) The landlord in receipt of a payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable of a tenant shall, as soon as practicable, submit to the Health Service Executive the registration details of the tenancy where registration is required by section 134 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004.".

I have tabled a number of amendments which deal with the issue of rent supplement. We discussed rent supplement in some detail on Committee Stage. It is an area in need of urgent reform. The Committee of Public Accounts is pursuing the matter separately in respect of the tax implications of how the supplement is paid at the moment. I have listed a number of aspects of rent supplement that need urgent attention. I ask the Minister to give consideration to addressing those anomalies at this point rather than putting them off further. It is a very expensive scheme, costing approximately €420 million a year. If that amount of taxpayers' money is being transferred into the hands of private landlords, there is an onus on the Department of Social and Family Affairs to ensure that when the money is received proper tax is paid on it. The system works from the point of view of the taxpayer and from that of the recipient of the rent supplement.

The amendment proposes that it be a requirement for the payment of rent supplement that a landlord be registered with the PRTB. That is a very basic requirement that should be in place. The PRTB legislation required landlords to be registered. There is a considerable problem in that many landlords appear to be not yet registered even though the PRTB has been in place for a number of years. The amendment proposes to close the loophole so that the Department of Social and Family Affairs in transferring substantial public money to landlords would have as a minimum requirement that landlords be registered with the PRTB.

I am sure the Minister will say that his Department relays that information about landlords and the rent supplements paid to the PRTB. That is much more difficult to see through. My amendment proposes a seamless system requiring a landlord to be registered before the rent supplement is paid. I cannot see any argument against it. They are already required in law to be registered. This is just a double check on that if they expect to receive rent supplement. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Under the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, landlords are legally obliged to register tenancies with the Private Residential Tenancies Board. It is a matter for the PRTB to ensure that landlords comply with the requirements of the Act. Neither my Department nor the Health Service Executive has a role in this matter and it would be an unnecessary duplication of functions for either body to take on a monitoring role regarding the registration of tenancies. The Department supports the requirement that tenancies facilitated by rent supplement should be registered with the PRTB and is working with the PRTB to achieve this. The Department provides the PRTB with rent supplement data for checking against its register of tenancies so that it can check compliance regarding tenancy registration and take follow-up action as required. That is already the law and those with responsibility for its implementation are already in place. We try to assist them in doing that. To have a double responsibility is simply a further duplication. The law is the law and people should adhere to it.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister cannot simply wash his hands of this. He has already said in respect of tax that it is nothing to do with him. If we are to have a properly regulated private rented sector, the Department of Social and Family Affairs should play its part in ensuring that people are registered. Instead of opting out, the Minister should opt in and ensure proper regulation, which could be done very simply by amending the Act as I propose. I do not see any justification for not accepting the amendment.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the points made by Deputy Shortall. There is a real attitude that so long as the Department does its bit it does not matter and it is not its problem. It is still taxpayers' money coming from the same Central Fund. I read the report the Department of Social and Family Affairs officials gave to the Committee of Public Accounts last week. The Secretary General admitted, as the Minister has, that the Department does not follow up with the PRTB. She said later on that the Department is trying to work its way through legal issues to ascertain how it can pull the three areas together. Perhaps the Minister might enlighten the House as to what legal issues his Department is working through in this area so that we can understand where the problems are. At first it seemed clear it was not doing anything. Then there seemed to be some degree of openness to doing something. Just notifying the Private Residential Tenancies Board and doing nothing else shows a very casual attitude to taxpayers' money. I understand and accept what the Minister says about not wanting to penalise the Department's customer who needs the rental property. I do not want to see such persons penalised either but those in receipt of money, either directly from the Department or through the tenants paid by it, should pay tax. An all-sided approach should be taken to this matter, rather than saying "We did our bit and do not really care what happens after that," which seems to be the attitude adopted to date.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps I was misunderstood or did not make my point clearly but the Department already provides the PRTB with all of that information.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes but it does nothing else. It does not check the system.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy want the Department to take over the role of the Private Rental Tenancies Board? We provide the PRTB with the information. There is a legal obligation on those involved to register with the board. Deputy Shortall makes the point that when a client of ours is going to agree that one should be registered, he or she cannot register in advance of taking possession of the property and paying rent. The law does not allow for it to be done in advance but the legal basis which is strong and solid is in place. It would be wrong to make social welfare clients responsible. We pass all information to the PRTB to be followed up by it. As the body legally appointed by the Oireachtas, it deals with the matter. If the Oireachtas is of the view that it is not doing its job, that is another issue. However, we certainly provide all information above and beyond what is required of us to ensure people are compliant. Equally, we work on issues with the Revenue Commissioners to ensure Revenue is fully up to date on the people to whom rent is paid. Primarily, we pay rent allowance to individual social welfare recipients, not landlords.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister trying to pull the three issues together?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are trying to be as helpful as we can in ensuring everybody is compliant. In the amendment Deputy Shortall is effectively suggesting the Department should take responsibility and that somehow the matter should come under its aegis but I do not agree. There is a properly constituted legal entity which has the responsibility and legal weight to deal with the matter and it should get on with dealing with it.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In other arenas there are further stipulations for those in receipt of public moneys. For example, a requirement that a person be tax compliant is standard practice. There is, therefore, no difficulty in principle with requiring landlords to be registered and have proof that they have complied with the law. As the Minister knows, his Department pays rent allowance in arrears. Therefore, after a lease is signed, there is a period of one month in which the landlord can register and produce proof of registration before rent allowance is paid at the end of the month. It could be done if there was a will to do so. However, it is not being done, precisely because there are gaps in the exchange of information between the Department, the PRTB and the Revenue Commissioners. Far from the Department facilitating Revenue in acquiring the information, it has not done so. In addition, there have been serious problems with the computer system. In general, the Department's IT system has not been good.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy suggesting that if a landlord does not register, the Department should withdraw the money from the social welfare recipient?

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, I am.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy suggesting the social welfare recipient should be punished and left homeless because somebody else will not do his or her job? It is an interesting concept that the Labour Party is bringing forward. That is the alternative but it is not fair.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The first amendment which was ruled out of order proposed that the Department change the system by which it pays rent supplement and that it pay it in advance. Under the landlord-tenant legislation, rent is required to be paid in advance. Unusually, however, the Department will not do this — it pays the supplement in arrears. Last week, at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, I brought to the attention of the Secretary General the findings of a recent survey of landlords carried out by Threshold. Landlords were asked why they were loath to become involved in the rent supplement scheme. The primary reason they raised was that one had to wait one month to receive rent in arrears, unlike any other tenants where rent is received in advance. We need to examine this system in the round and find out why tenants find it so difficult to identify landlords who are prepared to accept rent supplement. If the area was better regulated, it would provide a level playing pitch for everybody. There are so many gaps in the information made available between the three State agencies involved, which is why the Committee of Public Accounts will play a role in trying to close them. It will try to bring the agencies together in order that there will be a tighter regime and a more highly regulated system. I hope that will happen in the coming months.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 3 arises from committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 18 are related and may be discussed together.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3—The Principal Act is amended in section 198 by inserting the following subsection after subsection (3D)—

"(3E) (i) The payment of a supplement towards the amount of rent payable by a person in respect of his or her residence shall be paid in its entirety by the Health Service Executive to the landlord.

(ii) The tenant shall pay to the Health Service Executive the portion of the rent for which they are liable.".

The amendment proposes to tackle the issue we discussed earlier, whereby in more than three quarters of rent supplement cases rent supplement is paid directly to the tenant. There are a couple of reasons this is a mistake. We must bear in mind that the new rental accommodation scheme does not operate in such a way. Public representatives who have been involved in such cases will agree that the scheme is popular and successful. In such cases rent is paid directly to the landlord. Apart from other attractive aspects of the scheme, the fact that the rent is paid directly to the landlord frees up tenants.

One of the most important aspects is that, as well having a substantial part of the rent met by rent supplement, another portion is paid by the tenant. We are also seeing a third element, the top-up that increasing numbers of tenants are required to pay. These additional top-ups are completely illegal because the official documentation has the rent at X amount, whereas the landlord is receiving X amount plus €50 per week. This is increasingly become a common phenomenon whereby illegal top-ups are sought. If rent was paid directly to the landlord, as happens under the rental accommodation scheme, it would eliminate that practice of bleeding tenants dry. We know that many tenants in receipt of rent supplement are particularly vulnerable and, thus, open to exploitation. If rent was paid directly to landlords, it would certainly eliminate that practice.

The other reason this change would make sense is that it would be possible to keep close tabs on who was receiving rent. It would provide a means of ensuring the proper amount in tax would be paid on rent received. Given the vast amount of public money, some €420 million, that goes on rent supplement, taxpayers have a right to expect that adequate levels of tax are being paid by landlords in receipt of the money.

For both of these reasons and because the system under which rent is paid directly to landlords has proved so successful under the rental accommodation scheme, I strongly propose that we switch to that system in respect of rent supplement.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want to raise two issues concerning amendment No. 18. The first is somewhat similar to the issue Deputy Shortall has discussed. There is another aspect to this. I am sure all Members have spoken to tenants who are paying a top-up to their landlord. This is illegal and indicates a difficulty that exists in the system. Tenants in those circumstances have little option because if the rent on the accommodation exceeds the qualifying limit, they will not receive the supplement. Some tenants, therefore, are giving landlords significant sums of money to secure accommodation.

The other problem is that in particular areas, one is almost bound to be over the limit because of the high market rents. This is causing difficulties for tenants who are often not in a position to provide a top-up and so cannot secure the desired property. Surveys conducted by Threshold indicate this as a significant issue, as did other pre-budget submissions. Given a choice between a prospective tenant in receipt of rent supplement and another who can pay up-front, landlords will choose the latter. It may indicate a lack of social consciousness on the part of landlords but it is understandable.

This issue was raised at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. I understand the Department looked into the possibility of paying up-front and that the estimated cost was in the region of €10 million to €12 million. This seems a remarkably high figure given that the length of time in which tenants will be in accommodation will not change. Does this figure represent a once-off sum to effect the changeover or a recurring annual cost?

We raised the issue of the quality of accommodation on Committee Stage. The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, will deal with this issue but that will only be of benefit to those who are eligible under the scheme. I have spoken to dozens of people in receipt of the rent supplement whose basis for seeking a house from the local authority is the poor quality of their current accommodation. When these people secure local authority accommodation, somebody else moves into the inadequate accommodation and subsequently seeks local authority housing. It is a perpetual problem that must be addressed, although the Minister will probably say it is not a matter for his Department. Rent supplement should only be paid in respect of decent accommodation that provides people with adequate living conditions. That should be addressed in the Bill.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Rent supplement is administered on my behalf by the community welfare service division of the Health Service Executive as part of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term income support to eligible persons living in private rented accommodation whose means are insufficient to meet their accommodation costs and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source.

The tenant makes the application for rent supplement and the Department's relationship is with the tenant in all cases. Payment is made to the tenant, is the property of the tenant and is specifically for the benefit of the tenant to assist him or her with accommodation needs. As with other social welfare payments, recipients may nominate an agent to receive payment on their behalf. There are more than 60,000 rent supplements in payment and 13,000 tenants have chosen to have rent supplement paid directly to their landlord. These arrangements are made at the request of the tenant. Payments made directly to a landlord or his or her agent may be a simple matter of convenience for the tenant. In some cases, the tenant may have an addiction or other personal problems that could impinge on their ability to meet their rental payments. Paying directly to the agent, landlord or other third party ensures the rent is paid and removes a certain burden from individual tenants.

The social welfare allowance scheme, including rent supplement, has a clear role in providing support to individuals and families and in alleviating poverty and social exclusion. The scheme is designed to enable immediate and flexible assistance to be provided to those in need. At a policy level, measures are in place to remove the disincentives to taking up employment and to assist in the transition from welfare to work. An example of this is the earnings disregard in certain circumstances for those in receipt of rent supplement. The advantage of the current arrangement for the payment of rent supplement, particularly in the short term, is that it provides recipients with a degree of flexibility in terms of the freedom to move to a different location and allows them time to seek alternative long-term housing solutions provided by their local authority. The tailoring of additional payments such as rent supplement to meet the specific needs of individuals and making those payments directly to the tenant is regarded as an effective way of helping individuals realise their potential and take individual responsibility.

As already stated, the purpose of the rent supplement scheme is to provide short-term income support to eligible persons living in private rented accommodation. In July 2004, the Government responded to the significant number of recipients on long-term rent supplement by introducing new rental assistance arrangements giving local authorities specific responsibility for meeting the longer-term housing needs of the 32,000 people in receipt of rent supplement for 18 months or more. When fully operational, local authorities will meet the housing needs of these individuals through a variety of approaches, including the traditional range of social housing options, the voluntary housing sector and, in particular, the new public private partnership type rental accommodation scheme, RAS.

The local authority has a direct contractual relationship with the landlord in RAS tenancies. As part of that contract, the local authority makes payments directly to the landlord. Long-term recipients of rent supplement are gradually being transferred to RAS. Of the 11,000 tenants transferred from rent supplement by local authorities, 5,964 have transferred to RAS and some 3,000 are now in private sector accommodation leased by local authorities. It is envisaged that a further 5,000 transfers will take place in 2008. The objective is to complete the transfer of rent supplement recipients with long-term housing needs to local authorities by the end of next year. This roll-out of RAS will increase the numbers of landlords who have contracts with the local authorities and who will receive direct payment of rent as a result.

My Department fully supports RAS as a solution to the long-term housing requirements of eligible persons. Provisions in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007 enable those accepted as eligible for RAS to return to full-time employment and retain entitlement to rent supplement subject to the standard qualifying conditions. My Department will work closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in ensuring RAS meets its objective of catering for those on long-term rent supplementation while enabling rent supplement to return to its original role as a short-term income support.

Rent supplement is subject to a limit on the amount of rent that any applicant may incur. Rent limits are set at levels that enable the different eligible household types to secure and retain suitable basic rented accommodation having regard to the different rental market conditions that prevail in various parts of the State. The objective is to ensure rent supplement is not paid in respect of overly expensive accommodation having regard to the size of the household.

In January 2007, a review was completed of the maximum levels of rents a person may incur and still be eligible to receive rent supplement. The purpose of the review was to inform the process of setting new limits applicable from January 2007 until June 2008. This review included consultation with the Health Service Executive, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Central Statistics Office, Private Residential Tenancies Board and voluntary agencies working in this area. This process ensures rent limits reflect realistic market conditions throughout the State. Arising from the review, rent limits were adjusted upwards from January 2007 for several household types in 14 counties. I intend to have rent limits reviewed this year with a view to implementing from 1 July 2008 any revision found to be necessary. A consultative approach will again be used to conduct the review.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister makes a critical error in talking about rent supplement. He has done so on several occasions recently, as has his Secretary General. This is to refer to the rent supplement scheme as a short-term measure. That may have been the objective when it was introduced but it is no longer the case. The figures from the Department indicate that more than 50% of rent supplement recipients are in receipt of it for 18 months or more.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I acknowledged that.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is effectively a long-term benefit. Irrespective of long-term plans, the reality is that the rent supplement scheme is a critical element of current housing strategy, whether we like it or not. The Minister must deal with this reality.

The Minister referred to those in receipt of rent supplement on a long-term basis being transferred to RAS. That is fine in theory, but in practice the reality is that the number of units which are available under the scheme is completely inadequate. Some 1,200 people are on the scheme's waiting list in the Dublin city area. Many people have contacted me to tell me they would love to participate in the scheme, but not enough units are available for them. Those who are waiting have no choice but to remain on rent supplement in the meantime and for the foreseeable future. If the Minister speaks to any of the officials dealing with the rental accommodation scheme at local level, he will learn that the same thing is happening in most of this country's big suburban areas.

In his lengthy commentary on the rent supplement scheme, the Minister made no reference to the issue of illegal top-ups, with which all Deputies are familiar. It is a silent issue in that it is just beneath the surface, but it is real nonetheless. Tenants in vulnerable circumstances are caught in a bind. They have no choice but to pay the illegal top-ups which are demanded. The Minister knows this is a widespread problem, but he has not responded to my comments on it. What does he intend to do to deal with the issue of tenants being required to pay illegal top-ups? What action will be taken against landlords who illegally impose such charges on tenants, having declared that their rent is a certain amount? What will the Minister do about it? Can I ask the Chair whether time restrictions apply to this debate?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am afraid the Deputy has already used twice the amount of time allotted to her. I ask her to conclude her point.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister could deal with this immediate problem by applying the income limits and disregards which apply to those availing of the rental accommodation scheme to those who are in private rented accommodation. Such an interim measure could solve many problems of this nature. We know the rental accommodation scheme eliminates the poverty trap for people who want to get into work. If the Minister applies the same limits to people on rent supplement who are in private rented accommodation, he will deal with their critical income problems. The Minister said on Committee Stage he would give consideration to this proposal. Has he done so?

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The rent supplement scheme has become an integral part of our housing strategy. Figures made available by the Department of Social and Family Affairs indicate that a substantial number of people participate in the scheme for at least 18 months, which is a significant period. I welcome the Minister's decision to review the limits which apply to the scheme. They need to be reviewed on an ongoing basis as the rental market fluctuates. I await the outcome of the Minister's review in July. We need to deal with the issue of top-up payments. If those who are asked to make such payments do not do so, they will have nowhere to live. If they make payments they cannot afford, they will be pushed further into poverty. That is the difficulty they face, in effect. I understand that such payments are illegal. We need to find a solution that ensures such payments are no longer demanded. As we do not have accurate figures for the scale of this problem, we have to rely on what people are telling us. I am concerned that it is quite widespread. The most vulnerable people in our society are being given very little choice. I ask the Minister to comment specifically on that point. I have spoken previously about the cost of paying in advance, rather than in arrears.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will be a one-off cost.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister might confirm the actual figure. Will it be between €10 million and €12 million, as has been suggested? While it may be a one-off measure, we should not close the door on it. I ask the Minister to keep an open mind in this regard. His Department should prepare a report on it, at least, so we can discuss whether it is a viable option.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The substantial process that is under way recognises that the rent supplement scheme is starting to be used to support people on rent supplement in the long term, which is not what it was originally designed to do. It was designed to assist individuals with a specific need for a short period until they could sort themselves out. When it was observed that the scheme had expanded beyond what was originally intended, the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government started to work with the local authorities on the rental accommodation scheme. As I said in my reply, we hope to complete that process by the end of next year. The local authorities are not capable of doing it overnight. It is intended that when that process has been completed, the rent supplement scheme will revert to its original purpose as a scheme under which short-term individual payments can be made in individual circumstances to support those who need such help. We are now trying to bring the scheme back to what it should be, in line with many of the points made by Deputies Shortall and Enright. I accept that it will take some time, but I do not accept that we are doing nothing. Time will tell whether the process that is under way will be successful. The points made by Deputies Shortall and Enright today and in previous debates will be taken into account in the review of the rent supplement scheme that is under way. Many people who receive payments under the scheme are being asked to make top-up payments and meet all sorts of conditions. Such matters will come to the fore when I see what the position is on foot of the review. I have not ignored the issue. I listened carefully the other day. Colleagues on all sides of the House have approached me on this issue. We will have a look at it.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I ask the Minister to respond to the point I made about the need to treat existing recipients of rent supplement in the same way as those who benefit under the rental accommodation scheme. Will the Minister consider doing that as an interim measure?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I were to do so, I would fundamentally change relationships. All sorts of issues, including means testing, would come to the fore. It would become an entirely different payment. I would not be using resources properly if I were to try to change the entire system for 18 months.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is wishful thinking to believe that many people will no longer be in receipt of rent supplement in 18 months.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will see.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister needs to get real on this issue.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would have to devise an entirely——

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will not happen within 18 months. Those who are stuck in the poverty trap of rent supplement should be treated in the same way as those who receive payments under the rental accommodation scheme. It is obvious that the experience of the rent supplement scheme was drawn on when the rental accommodation scheme was being established. In the case of the rental accommodation scheme, it was decided that rent payments would be made directly to the landlord. I have outlined several good reasons we should switch to such a system in the case of the rent supplement scheme. The Minister should not hide behind the argument that his responsibility is to the client. He is responsible for ensuring we have a viable private rental sector that serves vulnerable people. Such people would benefit from being able to avail of the terms which apply to the rental assistance scheme.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on allowing rent supplement claimants on the waiting list for the Rental Accommodation Scheme switch to the terms of the differential rent of their local authority.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on restricting the number of rent supplement recipients to 20 per cent in a given location.

This amendment was the subject of considerable discussion on Committee Stage. I propose that a quota system be applied to the payment of rent supplement for any single apartment development or housing estate. I suggest that a limit of 20% be operated because experience has taught us that the nature and character of a housing development can change substantially, in a negative way, when an undue proportion of those living in the development are on rent supplement. The social balance within developments can be skewed in such circumstances. In response to the shortage of building land in the Dublin city area, Dublin City Council has recently started to buy back properties in various parts of the city, or acquire them for the first time, to rent them out, rather than building houses from scratch. The council's practice of buying properties and then letting them to people who are on the housing list has operated successfully over recent years. We know that problems can arise when an excessive number of social housing units in a single development are rented out in such a manner. For that reason, a maximum of 20% of houses in any area can be bought under the council's buy-back policy. I suggest we apply the same kind of quota system to rent supplement. I remind the Minister that on Committee Stage he sympathised with what I was trying to achieve and said he had first-hand experience of the difficulties caused. He also indicated he would give consideration to the matter. I hope that in the past week or so he has had an opportunity to do so and will accede to the amendment.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We thrashed out this issue to a large extent on Committee Stage. We have managed to do this in other areas, particularly with social and affordable housing provisions. I know that is simpler because in such an instance we deal with a brand new estate and the location is clear. It would be done on that basis.

It is not only with those in receipt of rent supplement but with people in general who do not have a long-term interest in a particular property where difficulties can arise. This is an issue which merits examination. There is a figure of 20%; it can be somewhere in that region. I have received complaints from some areas about this matter. During the last general election difficulties were more apparent in some areas than in others. I could see it easily at times as I was going around. I am interested to hear the Minister's views.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In general, there is no limit or restriction on the proportion or number who may receive rent supplement in an area. However, section 25 of the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007 provides that payment of rent supplement can be refused in respect of accommodation situated in an area notified to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government as being an area of regeneration. This provision is aimed at supporting Government investment in regeneration and attaining a good social mix between private, social and affordable and voluntary housing. The measures provided for in section 25 are not to be seen as a blanket refusal of rent supplement in areas of regeneration. Specific provision is made to ensure people already residing in such areas and in receipt of rent supplement can continue to receive payment. People already residing in such areas in rental accommodation and who may have recourse to rent supplement in the future would not have their entitlement restricted.

As I stated during the course of the debate on this amendment on Committee Stage, I will speak to my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to see if we can extend the designations under the scheme. The programme for Government includes commitments to reduce long-term reliance on rent supplement. This would be done mainly by keeping the standard means test for rent supplement under review to provide enhanced financial incentives for people taking up employment and providing long-term housing solutions under the rental accommodation scheme, RAS.

I intend to keep the rent supplement scheme under review. My Department is working closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in ensuring the RAS meets its objective of catering for those in receipt of long-term rent supplement, while enabling the rent supplement scheme to return to its original role of providing short-term income support.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is at it again, saying it provides short-term income support. It does not; it is part of a long-term housing strategy.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I stated it would return to its original role of providing short-term income support.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will not hold our breath. I am very disappointed with the Minister's response as he seemed to understand the nature of the problem about which we spoke on Committee Stage.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Unfortunately, it seems the Minister has done nothing to meet us halfway. To say what happens in areas of regeneration is beside the point, as that provision enables local authorities to refuse rent allowance on the grounds of the need to ensure a better social mix in such areas. There is no reference to the principle of a quota system. We are not just speaking about areas of regeneration but also about many areas around the country where we know difficulties are caused by an over-reliance on rent supplement by local authorities or particular community welfare officers. Very often, it is not in the interests of people living in those housing schemes to have a substantial number in receipt of rent supplement. The Minister knows this to be the case because he explained on Committee Stage that there were serious problems and that he had first-hand experience. He has done nothing to deal with this issue and has not given me one reason he cannot go with a quota system, other than what seems to be a determination not to accept any proposal from this side of the House. Unfortunately, he was like this in his previous role.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is unfair.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We on this side of the House in good faith put much work into considering legislation, proposing what we believe are amendments which would improve legislation. It is particularly galling when the Minister admits something is needed or that there is a problem but when it comes to Report Stage, he ignores the problem or the fact an amendment would deal with it. It is very disappointing. He is treating us very badly in that regard. This is a well meaning amendment which could be adopted very easily. Unfortunately, the Minister is refusing to do so.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have stated I understand the problem; I had first hand experience of it and intend to discuss the matter with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. There is no point in me making a unilateral decision in legislation that will have no practical effect.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course, it would have a practical effect.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be a pointless exercise. I want to ensure that if there is a clear way forward, we will do something about the matter. It is not easy.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

"3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on ensuring that 20 per cent of rent supplement is withheld from direct payments to non-resident landlords."

This is the final amendment pertaining to rent supplement. It relates to the ludicrous position where a tenant in receipt of rent supplement, in cases where the landlord is non-resident, is legally required to withhold 20% of the rent and pay it to the Revenue Commissioners on behalf of the landlord under the Finance Act. I am sure the Minister will agree that this is ridiculous but that there is a legal requirement on the tenant to do so.

My colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, drew attention to this issue recently and it certainly needs attention. When it was raised recently at the Committee of Public Accounts with representatives from the Revenue Commissioners, their response was that the number of non-resident landlords in receipt of rent supplement was small; therefore, it was not a significant issue. That is a completely inadequate response. If there is a system under which public money is paid to landlords who are non-resident, there should at least be a system in place to ensure tax returns are made on that income. It does not appear to make sense that the obligation to make returns to Revenue is on tenants but that is the way it is. The purpose of the amendment is to bring an end to that practice. We do not know if they are deducting 20% or if there are any checks made. We do not know any of the information but in theory that is the position.

The objective of the amendment is to bring to an end this obligation on tenants, which is nonsensical, and place it on the Department which pays the cheques. In other circumstances there are State agencies withholding 20% DIRT, for example. It does not seem to be too much to expect the Minister's Department to be able to do this. It seems the only reason to refuse to do so is the Department's IT system is not sufficiently sophisticated to enable deductions to be made. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment and put in place a system to deal with the matter.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Each year rent supplement is paid in respect of over 900 tenancies where the landlord is living outside the State. The total value of such payments is of the order of €4 million or approximately 1% of total expenditure on rent supplement. Payment is made directly to some 130 of these landlords domiciled outside of the State in respect of approximately 150 such tenancies. The value of these payments is approximately €950,000, which represents at most 0.25% of all rent supplement payments. There is a general obligation on individuals and bodies making payments in respect of rent to landlords domiciled outside the State to deduct withholding tax from such payments and remit the proceeds to the Revenue Commissioners. Where rent supplement is in payment direct to the tenant, that obligation lies with the tenant but rests with the HSE, on behalf of my Department, in the 150 tenancies where payment is made direct to landlords domiciled outside the State. Withholding tax is not deducted at present by the HSE or the Department.

My Department has given details of the 150 landlords living outside the State to the Revenue Commissioners where rent payments were made direct to them in 2006. This information should facilitate the Revenue Commissioners in pursuing relevant inquiries as to the tax compliance position of the landlords in question. Details for 2007 will be provided to the Revenue Commissioners in due course as part of the Department's annual provision of information to the Revenue Commissioners.

Discussions are continuing with the Revenue Commissioners on the need for my Department to put information technology systems in place to apply withholding tax in such a small number of cases and to consider alternative suitable arrangements for applying this tax.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not good enough to say the figures are small. We are talking about approximately €1 million. As the system tightens up, there is every likelihood that the number of non-resident landlords will increase. It is indefensible for the Minister to say his Department is making transfers of €1 million but that there is no system in place to ensure tax is paid on it or that the system in place puts the onus on the tenant. Even if the numbers are small, there should still be a system in place to withhold tax due. This amendment would provide for that, so there is no reason not to support it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Potentially, it could cost millions in information technology systems to do this. I am not so sure that is the correct use of taxpayers' resources. As I said, we are discussing this matter with Revenue to see if there are alternative methods to do this.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is another tax shelter.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not like using the fact the numbers are very small but there must be proportionality which is quite obvious. Some €950,000, just under €1 million, is less than one quarter of 1% of what we pay out. Changing the entire information technology systems in the Department to accommodate that would be proportional.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 7 and 9 are related and may be discussed together.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on extending the number of hours a week a Carer may be gainfully employed while still retaining entitlement to Carer's Allowance/Benefit.

Both of these amendments relate to carers. We know from the recent census that 161,000 people provide care to elderly people or people with a disability and yet only one in five is in receipt of a carer's payment. Some 67,000 carers spend more than 15 hours per week caring while 50,000 spend more than 29 hours per week caring and yet only 35,000 get a weekly payment. The combination of the means test and the working hours rule is precluding many carers from receiving any kind of payment. It is a catch-22 situation for many people who provide care to a loved one but who must hold down a job to survive.

The point I made on Committee Stage was that rather than have an arbitrary figure of 15 hours per week in terms of the hours worked a much more satisfactory test would be to ask whether the care provided to an elderly or a disabled person enables him or her to stay out of a nursing home or institutional care. Surely that should be the test applied. There are many situations where a person providing an hour's care in the morning and in the evening and at critical times enables a person to stay at home.

One must take into consideration the inadequacy of the home help service in the community and the cutbacks in the number of hours. I accept more funding has been provided and that home helps are on a better rate, which they should be, but very often that means the overall number of hours available is reduced in many communities. It is sometimes very hard for people providing care to keep the show on the road and to enable the person being cared for to remain in his or her home with the proper care, in some kind of comfort and stay out of a nursing and to be able to pay the bills.

I would like to see some flexibility. The rules, as they apply at present, are too severe. The fact that only 21% of carers are in receipt of a payment would testify to that fact. That is the reason I tabled these two amendments.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue here is recognising what carers give up to care for somebody, usually a family member, and the potential cost to the State if these people were not willing to give up often gainful employment to do a job which could cost the State far more. There is room for flexibility and we should be a bit more imaginative in terms of the practicalities. If a carer's workplace is close to the home of the person being cared for, an employer might be willing to give him or her permission to leave in an emergency so as to ensure the needs of the care recipient are met. We should examine such issues in order to give people a real chance.

We should not forget the loneliness and isolation for carers, particularly if they are caring for somebody who is quite ill and who may not be able to communicate. Working, therefore, could be very important to them, both mentally and socially. The 15 hour rule is quite restrictive and is less than what is allowed under some other social welfare schemes. In those circumstances, this should be examined.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The carer's allowance is a social assistance payment which provides income support to people who provide certain older people or people with a disability with full-time care and attention and whose incomes fall below a certain limit. The carer's allowance means test has been eased significantly in the past few years, most notably with the introduction of disregards of spouses' earnings. In budget 2008, I made provision to increase the income disregard in the carer's allowance means test to €332.50 for a single person and €665 per week for a couple from April 2008.

One of the fundamental qualifying conditions for carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite care grant is that the person is providing full-time care and attention to a person who needs such care. The number of hours a person may engage in employment, self-employment, training or education outside the home and still be considered to be providing full-time care and attention for the purpose of the schemes was increased from ten to 15 hours per week in June 2006. It is worth noting that the 15 hour rule represents a relaxation of the full-time care and attention requirement. A further increase in the number of hours a person can work and still qualify for payment would dilute the full-time care and attention requirement.

In 2005, the carer's allowance scheme was extended to accommodate care sharing situations and under these arrangements, it is possible for a week on, week off care sharing arrangement to be facilitated. This means that where two carers provide care to the same person on alternative weeks, the carer's allowance and the annual respite care grant can be split between them.

In addition, budget 2007 provided for fundamental reform of payments to carers whereby people in receipt of a social welfare payment other than carer's allowance or benefit who are providing full-time care and attention can retain their main payment and receive another payment depending on their means, the maximum of which is equivalent to a half rate carer's allowance.

As I said, the Government is committed to continuing to develop payment for carers and this commitment includes recognition of the fact there is a need for payment to carers to be flexible where possible. I will keep the supports for carers available from the Department under review in order to continue to improve the schemes and ensure commitments in regard to income support are delivered.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will press the amendment because, unfortunately, the Minister did not respond to the issue I raised, that is, the invaluable work carers do——

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——in terms of enabling people to stay out of nursing home care.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister did not address the issue I raised whereby enabling the person to survive at home on his or her own can sometimes mean an hour's care in the morning and in the evening and someone dropping in for a while at lunchtime. The efforts of such carers are worthy of recognition.

The Carers Association will attest to the fact that isolation is an extremely important issue for those who provide care. There are many good reasons, apart entirely from their ability to pay their bills, for people to remain in the workforce. These include maintaining social contact or keeping a farm or family business in operation. Certain individuals are making a significant contribution in the context of providing care for others to enable them to remain at home. That is the critical point. For that reason, there is a need for far greater flexibility in the operation of the scheme.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is making a fundamental point in respect of the existing support scheme. Effectively, she is saying that people should be paid for caring. That is the impact of what she is saying.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not saying that. I made the point on Committee Stage that it is wrong.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We do not have unlimited resources and we are obliged to try to manage what resources we do possess in the best way possible. The Government has come a hell of a long way in recent years in the context of the supports provided for carers. The scheme has become much more flexible, it accommodates many more people and the income disregards relating to it are excellent. I will try to do more, as each budget approaches, to try to enhance the scheme in order to ensure more people benefit from it. There is, however, a fundamental difference between a scheme that is designed to support people on low incomes who are providing care and — this is ultimately what the Deputy wants to see happen — paying people to provide care. The latter would be a major step and would require careful consideration.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister used that argument on Committee Stage and I said it was wrong. As he is aware, that is not where I am going with this.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on removing Carer's Allowance from the list of welfare payments requiring the Habitual Residence Condition to be met.

This amendment relates to the habitual residency condition and its application to carer's allowance. We debated this matter at length on Committee Stage. The aim of the amendment is to remove the habitual residence condition as it relates to carer's allowance. Statistics indicate a low risk of abuse in respect of this payment. Between mid-2004 and mid-2006, only 114 people were refused carer's allowance. Of these, 36 were Irish.

There are other tests relating to the payment, for example, the requirement that a carer must be in a position to provide full-time care and attention, which protect it from abuse. It would be appropriate to require that the person being cared for must be resident here for a certain period. As matters stand, carers who move here from abroad in order to look after a relative are unsure of their income support status. The Minister would not be opening the floodgates if the HRC rule was removed from the carer's allowance.

On Committee Stage, we discussed the phenomenon of Irish people who live abroad, for example, in the US or the UK, who want to return home for a few months or a couple of years in order to care for elderly relatives but who do not want to move here permanently. We should facilitate people who wish to return home to provide care.

By suggesting the habitual residence condition be removed in respect of carer's allowance, I am not stating it should be made available only to Irish people. The allowance should be made available to anybody who makes a claim. However, the Minister could provide a safeguard in respect of it by requiring that a person who requires care should be resident in the State for a particular period. I do not believe anyone in the House would disagree with a system whereby people returning home to care, for example, for an elderly mother, should be denied payment.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This matter was raised on Committee Stage and when representatives from the Department appeared before the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs on a previous occasion. The point has been made that there is a difficulty with regard to people returning home to care for family members because the habitual residence condition affects their entitlement to carer's allowance.

Anecdotal information relating to this matter was provided on Committee Stage. In addition, the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, highlighted a number of serious cases. I will comment on the habitual residence condition in respect of a later amendment. Difficulties arise in the context of the operation of this condition and it presents a harsh reality for particular sections of the population. I do not have a difficulty with the concept of it as an overarching condition. However, its specific application can have serious effects on individual sections of society. In my opinion, the condition requires review.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the final point made by Deputy Shortall, people are not precluded from payment. All applicants, regardless of nationality, are required to be habitually resident in the State to qualify for carer's allowance. The question of what constitutes a person's habitual residence is decided in accordance with European Court of Justice case law, which sets out the criteria to be applied in determining whether a person is habitually resident. Each case received for a determination on the habitual residence condition is dealt with in its own right. Decisions are based on the application of the guidelines to the individual circumstances of each case. Any applicant who disagrees with the decision of a deciding officer has the right of appeal.

Payments have nothing to do with the person who requires care. They are made to the person providing the care. I accept the point the Deputy is making but what she is seeking would require a fundamental shift in the scheme.

I requested information on this matter following the debate on Committee Stage. I was presented with notes relating to 22 cases. I thought I had them in my possession but unfortunately that is not the case. I have requested one of my officials to obtain them. The notes to which I refer make for interesting reading. There is no phenomenon or mystery in this area. From the cases I reviewed, the reasons for refusing payment to people are clear. In nearly all cases, people accept the decisions made. Individuals try to obtain assistance through the system but they understand that if they do not qualify, payment cannot be made. It is easy for someone returning to Ireland following a few years abroad to reassert their connection to the State. There is no issue in that regard.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have personal experience of this matter. However, agencies that work in the area have contacted us and claim that some cases exist. The suggestion I made whereby a stipulation would be put in place in respect of the person being cared for is not new. There are, after all, two existing stipulations regarding the person in respect of whom care is being provided. The first of these relates to his or her disability and the second to his or her place of residence. I do not see the difficulty in extending the provisions.

Removing the habitual residence condition in respect of carer's allowance would not pose a major risk. The figures relating to this matter are quite small. In light of current circumstances, our historical background and the phenomenon of people returning home for short periods to provide care, the Minister should at least put in place a pilot scheme for a three-year period to identify abuses that might occur. There is no evidence of abuse or attempted abuse and the numbers are small. The amendment would deal with those few who seem to be hard done by.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will give Deputies a flavour of these cases without mentioning names. A widow returned from the United Kingdom in 2005, having lived there since 1960, and applied for carer's allowance in October that year in respect of her two sons. She was asked to clarify details of her residency in the United Kingdom but no response was received. Her claim was refused on the grounds that she had failed to furnish such evidence and that was the end of the matter, as the Department never heard from her again. A married man returned from the United Kingdom during July and August 2005 to care for his sister. When he returned again to look after her in September that year, he applied for the allowance. She passed away in October and he returned to the United Kingdom in December. A single girl returned from the USA in November 2005 after five years to look after her mother. She applied for carer's allowance that December. When her application was being considered, she was asked to provide evidence that she had returned to Ireland permanently. She responded by withdrawing her application. That is par for the course.

I have a list of similar cases. There is no major issue. None of the people involved in these cases is coming back for one or two years. If they do, they establish residency by opening bank accounts and making it clear that they are going to live here. The cases I have cited are the types refused. The people in question do not give us information about their residency. It becomes impossible for the system to deal with such persons.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not suggesting all cases should be allowed.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not say the Deputy was.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is easy to cite cases that do not stand up. The agencies working in the area, Crosscare and FLAC, have approached all of us with examples of cases in which Irish people seem to have been hard done by through the operation of the habitual residency condition. The Minister should see how it goes with carer's allowance by removing the condition because the numbers are small. On the basis of the cases presented to us, there is a strong case to be made for removing the condition in respect of that payment.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on any arrangements whereby claimants under the Social Welfare Acts are not provided with payments for the first 3 days of any claim and the continued justification for any such practice.

It is very hard to understand the justification for not paying someone for the first three days of a claim. It is often a sore point with persons in receipt of long-term illness benefits. They have been making payments and doing their best until, through no fault of their own, they are out of work and for some unknown reason are not paid for the first three days of a claim. Nobody is suggesting somebody who is out sick for two or three days should be paid but it seems only fair that if a person is out for two or three weeks, he or she should be able to recoup the payment for those three days in the second or third week. I do not understand the reason for omitting a payment for the first three days if a person is entitled to make a claim. I ask for it to be reinstated.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is like a rule that someone dreamed up when a payment was introduced but no one examined it afterwards to see if there was any real logic behind it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is a great deal of logic behind it.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that if someone is out for a day or two, the situation is different but when a person is out for significant periods or anything over a week or two, it is very unfair that he or she suffers a loss for three days. I will be interested to hear the Minister's logic. He discussed the issue on Committee Stage but I was not convinced by his argument. It is penal to leave the initial three days out of the payment.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Waiting days have been a feature of the illness benefit and jobseeker's payment schemes since their inception and are a feature of similar social security schemes in many countries. The application of a three-day waiting period avoids the disproportionately high administrative costs involved in processing large numbers of claims of short duration. The waiting day rule is not applied in every case. Where a person is subject to intermittent spells of interruption of employment, it would clearly be unreasonable to impose the three-day waiting rule for each benefit claim.

In the case of illness and jobseeker's benefits spells of interruption of employment are aggregated in order that the waiting period is confined to the first three days of the aggregate period subject to the rules of linking. These rules provide that any two periods of unemployment not separated by more than 26 weeks are treated as one claim and payment may be made from the first day of the latter claim. The linking period for jobseeker's allowance is 52 weeks instead of 26. Linking rules apply in a variety of ways across schemes, for example, where a person claims illness benefit immediately following an unemployment benefit claim. A person who has no other income is not left without support during waiting days; he or she may claim supplementary welfare allowance in respect of the days in question.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not discuss this issue further. We have been through it already.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the ending of counting as means, other welfare payments.

We discussed this amendment on Committee Stage. It is a particularly swingeing measure to count other welfare payments as means. This arises particularly in respect of back to school allowance. It is miserable and I ask the Minister to reconsider it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All social assistance payments are subject to a means test. This is a way of checking whether a person has enough means to support himself or herself and deciding the level of payment, if any, for which a person may qualify. Means are any income belonging to a claimant, or his or her partner. This includes property, except a family home or an asset that can provide a person with an income. There are similarities in the specific tests applied under each category of benefit. Household composition and means test rules, however, including exclusive disregards for each specific scheme, are designed to meet the objectives of each category of benefit and to ensure the maximum amount of support is targeted at those most in need. Different means tests apply to people in different houses with different incomes and must be considered separately. It is not possible to have a one-size-fits-all scheme because the schemes are so focused and specific to each household and each individual within that household.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 arise from Committee Stage proceedings. They are related and will, therefore, be discussed together.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on providing that current welfare and pension recipients who are paid by payment book method shall retain that method of payment until they opt of their own volition for another method.

These amendments concern the Department's changeover from book to swipe or social welfare card payments. None of us would object to this change but social welfare recipients and staff working in post offices have raised several concerns associated with the new way of making payment. The first is what is a person to do who is not in a position to collect his or her payment? At present he or she can sign the back of the book and authorise somebody to collect the payment on his or her behalf. It is not clear what happens with the swipe card. Is it just a matter of handing over the swipe card to somebody? How does one guard against fraud, a family member for instance taking the swipe card to the post office and obtaining a payment on behalf of the person who should be getting it? There is some concern about that and as regards how the new system will operate.

Another impact from the changeover is the question of the validity period for payments. Currently most social welfare dockets are valid for three months, but this is to be reduced to 20 days under the proposed change, I understand. Again, this has implications for the manner in which people manage their money and budget, particularly as regards child benefit. Very often people allow that to build up in anticipation of expensive periods in the course of the year, when children go back to school in September or whatever. Sometimes social welfare payments are allowed to build up so there is sufficient money to pay for central heating oil, coal deliveries and so on. People have their own ways of managing their social welfare income which will be affected by these changes. It is very hard to understand why there should be change, in particular, as regards the validity period in which a payment applies. I would appreciate if the Minister addressed those two issues.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not have difficulty with the principle of a swipe card and moving to a more technologically based payments system. I am concerned, however, as regards the teething problems, particularly in respect of elderly social welfare recipients, who at present can sign cheques authorising nominees to collect payments on their behalf. They exercise control in so far as their signature is on the back of the cheque being presented at the local post office. I am open to correction as regards my interpretation of the Secretary General's comments in this regard, but I understand her to say a social welfare customer may sign a long-term nomination form and also a short-term form for when he or she is sick, in hospital for a few weeks or whatever. I am not clear how that will work as regards the short-term nominee. The potential for abuse exists within the new system because there is no clarity as regards the dates to be on the forms. Will they be pre-printed when someone is signing for a week, month or whatever? It appears to do away with the degree of control the recipient has under the current system, and this needs to be addressed.

I raised the matter of the validity period on Committee Stage, and Deputy Shortall has raised it again. Somebody in hospital for a hip operation could be out of action for a two-month period, by which time his or her payment will be out of date. Not every social welfare recipient will want to sign a nomination form. Some will prefer to let the payments build up so they may collect them from the post office. Perhaps the Minister will also deal with that point.

The matter of budgeting has been raised with us. I know one can argue that if social welfare is so badly needed it is unlikely to be let build up over a number of weeks. There is some validity in this, but at the same time, some people allow it to build up as a means of paying for big occasions such as first communions or fuel deliveries. We have discussed the fuel strategy before and I asked the Minister to consider whether the payment in this regard might be paid in a bigger lump sum than at present. These changes, however, appear to eliminate recipients' opportunities for budgeting, short of opening credit union or post office accounts for themselves. The Minister looks as if he disagrees, but the information I have been getting——

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have good news for the Deputy.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is fair enough. I shall sit down and hear it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have taken the opportunity, in dealing with this, to go to some post offices, unannounced, to talk to customers. In fairness they seemed happy enough, although a few issues, here and there, were raised. One of the points made to me was that sometimes those who pronounce on such matters believe that once people reach 65 they become stupid and are not able to manage these things at all. Incidentally, I am not referring to Deputies Shortall and Enright in this regard, or indeed myself, in the context of debating these matters. These people got quite irate and emphasised they were as good as any 21 year old. Sometimes changes presented problems, they conceded, but they asked me to ensure they were not being patronised all the time.

I expressed the hope that I did not do that. However, they insisted there was a tendency in officialdom to treat older recipients as "fuddy duddy" and not able, but the point was made forcefully to me that this was not the case. They wanted to assure Members of the Oireachtas that they were more than capable of dealing in the modern world.

The Department is implementing a three-way strategy to change paper based payment instruments to electronic payments at post offices and financial institutions. The programme is being implemented on a phased basis to coincide with new book renewal production schedules and as personalised payable order books expire. All new claims opened since September 2007 are paid by electronic means, either at a financial institution or post office and as far as I am aware there have been no complaints from customers. The replacement of books with swipe cards will have no impact on customers paid at post offices. Customers will simply present their social services card and sign for their payment in the normal way. An Post and the Irish Postmasters' Union are committed in assisting customers in the use of cards for collecting their payments.

For those customers who cannot collect their payments in person, the Department is putting arrangements in place to allow nominated persons to collect, using a social services card. For example, a customer who requires temporary aid and facility can nominate a person on the day to collect his or her payment at the post office. Such a person will sign a form at the post office. In terms of arrangements where a customer being paid using a social services card requires an agent for a specified period, the Department can be contacted and a letter authorising such a person will be issued. The agent can use a swipe card to collect the payment on behalf of the customer for a specified period of time. Long-term, the Department is working closely with An Post to ensure a permanent solution is put in place as soon as possible to allow a nominated person to collect a payment on behalf of a customer using a social services card.

Changes to the An Post counter system are underway to facilitate and record collection by an agent using the social services card. Under the long-term arrangements, an electronic information transfer, EIT, containing the name and address of the agent will be sent to the relevant post office. The post office can verify from this information that the person collecting the payment is the authorised agent. It is hoped the long-term agent facility arrangements will be finalised this year.

A range of measures is underway to inform customers of the change in payment methods and allay fears and concerns they may have regarding the use of social services cards to collect their payments at post offices. Each customer is being informed by letter of the change in his or her payment arrangement. A letter is being sent to each person who is being changed from book to social services card, informing him or her of the change and how to use the card. A social services card is sent to his or her post office.

We have just heard this again from both Deputies, but on Committee Stage Deputies Shortall and Enright raised concerns that under the EIT payment method, customers would have to collect their payments within 20 days compared to the three months allowed to cash their PPOs. I am pleased to inform the Deputies that pensioners will have 60 days to collect their EIT payments. Where customers are paid by EIT, they will get the benefit of any increases immediately, of course, on the electronic system. Incidentally, if they are outside the 60 days they can reapply and the money will be paid to them anyway. Therefore there is no loss at all.

I am confident these arrangements will work and they will be continuously monitored for the benefit of our customers.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the Minister clarify whether the 60 days will now apply to pension payments? What about child benefit?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am talking about pension payments, the EIT payments which, either Deputy Shortall or Deputy Enright suggested the other day were restricted to 20 days. That is not the case — it is 60 days. Even if it falls outside that time limit, a customer may reapply and the money will be paid to him or her anyway.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It just seems difficult to understand why a time limit is being applied to child benefit. More than any other payment, that is one which people save up for particular periods. It seems to be creating a bureaucratic nightmare to limit the payment period in this regard.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure of the position as regards child benefit. Is the Deputy sure of this?

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is what I have been told by postmasters.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I gave information in that regard.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I looked into this when it was raised by the Deputies and I was told it was 60 days. I have not been specific in my answer, apart from saying that it is so for pensions. However, there seems to be a question that it might not be 20 days either for children's allowance, but I shall check that.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Even 60 days is a very short period in respect of child benefit. I, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider the matter. At present one can wait up to six months. That seems reasonable because of the nature of the payment and the way in which recipients save it. The system, as it stands, causes a lot of paperwork for the Department and inconvenience for the customer. I will withdraw my amendment on the grounds that the Minister will consider the matter.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the need for foster parents to be considered a qualified parent and for fostered children to be considered a qualified child for the purposes of qualifying for the one parent family payment.

This amendment arises from a particular case involving a common law couple who had been together for 28 years and fostered two very young children. Tragically, the woman concerned died, leaving her partner to care for the two young children on his own with the assistance of a foster payment for each child. The tragic circumstances were such that he had to resign from his job to provide full-time care for the two children. On Committee Stage, the Minister implied that the man in question had been refused the one-parent family payment because he was in receipt of foster allowance. However, the latter allowance is to meet the needs of the children. This is the official position of the Department. The payment is particularly to meet the additional expenses related to foster children, including making arrangements for them to meet their natural parents and keep in contact with their families.

In the case in question the man was not regarded as a qualified parent because he was not the parent of a qualified child. Under existing legislation, the definition of "parent" does not include a foster parent. There is a need to change the wording as a consequence. I stated previously that if the man had a child of his own, he would be entitled to claim the one-parent family payment. If he were a separated spouse or widow, the requirement to have a child of his own would not be a requirement under the legislation. His case is very unusual but it seems extraordinary that he would be denied the one-parent family payment given his very tragic circumstances.

There is no problem or should be no problem with the principle of my amendment. I ask the Minister to recognise that there is a difficulty with the wording of the legislation, which wording did not encapsulate the circumstances I describe. The officers dealing with the case recognise this problem with the wording and believe there is no question but that a person in such circumstances should be entitled to a one-parent family payment. I ask the Minister to consider the case compassionately.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We discussed this issue on Committee Stage. The Deputy presents the case as if the individuals concerned were disadvantaged. I would not say they are because they receive the foster payment, which can be €319 per week for each child under 12 years and €346 per week for every child over the age of 12. One cannot receive both payments. The case outlined by the Deputy highlights an anomaly in the legislation and I intend to deal with it at the next available opportunity.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that but it will not help people in the circumstances I have described. The Minister has stated one cannot receive two payments. If the man in question had a child of his own, he would receive another payment. Foster allowance is not a payment for the adult providing foster care but a payment to meet the expenses that result from fostering a child. The man to whom I referred must give up his job and, therefore, has no income of his own. It strikes me that he should be entitled to receive the one-parent family payment as a consequence but he is being denied it because of the way the legislation is worded. As I stated, none of the Minister's officers would say he should be denied it. They recognise that a very definite anomaly needs to be dealt with by changing the legislation. Regardless of the Minister's intentions in this regard, it will be a long time before he has an opportunity to change the legislation. I, therefore, urge him to accept my amendment.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I said to the Deputy that I would address the matter and I will do so in the context of the changes I will make in respect of the one-parent family payment. The Deputy's point is fair but I cannot make the change in isolation.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not asking the Minister to make the change in isolation. The circumstances I describe are very rare and could be dealt with through a legislative change.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 6, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:

3.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the prospect of removing the Habitual Residence Condition from the Child Benefit payment.

I will be very brief because we have discussed this issue in some detail. I want to reiterate one point. Having read the Minister's comments thereon, I want to prevent him from being flabbergasted again. Child benefit is paid to every child and does not confer an automatic right to other payments. There is no suggestion, therefore, that the floodgates would be opened. I asked the Minister whether he could forward to me copies of the judgments of the European Court of Justice, on which he was relying. I will be happy to read them and, having done so, will stand corrected, if necessary.

I still maintain that there is a genuine case. I am only approaching the matter from the perspective of determining what is best for the child, as outlined by a vast number of groups dealing with the issue of child poverty. I appreciate the Minister's point that he cannot make a change in respect of one case without it having an impact on all other circumstances associated with the habitual residency condition, but I ask him to reconsider this one. The existing provision causes difficulty for children.

Some families are in asylum centres for seven years, only one year short of a pupil's time in primary school. The average number of children of these families is 2.4. Therefore, it is a question of making a payment to the families concerned of approximately €70 per week. The payment is such that there would not be a deluge on the shores of Ireland. As I stated, child benefit does not confer a right to additional payments. I, therefore, ask the Minister to reconsider his position.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy said she would be brief and I will be equally so. We have had long debates on this issue. I will simply not grant an entitlement to child benefit to those who are not habitually resident in the country. It would be extraordinary to do so and I could not countenance it. As the Deputy rightly stated, I made the point that one could not deal with child benefit in isolation. The habitual residency clause applies. I will forward the Deputy the judgments made in this regard, which she can peruse for her own benefit. I simply could not accept the amendment.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 16 is out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

5.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of eligible persons and proportion thereof availing of the Family Income Supplement.

I will be brief because I know a review is being carried out. When will it be available to us? Its purpose is to establish the reason people have not made claims, despite the Department's work in this area in 2005 and 2006. I ask the Minister to be open to making changes, if necessary, following the review or to have another campaign to ensure that those who are eligible for the family income supplement are able to avail of it.

I reiterate the point I made on Committee Stage about my concern, following the budget, for part-time workers. While the amount they have lost might be small, it is still a net loss rather than a gain following the changes made. I am aware there is a review due and it might be a little early to speak of it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We discussed this at length. As Deputy Enright stated, there is a review and we will wait for the results of it.

There has been a substantial increase, from a static position, in recent times. The FIS is a good payment. It emphasises people working and those are the type of payments I think are important in terms of the poverty trap. I cannot accept the amendment. If the Deputy is agreeable, we will wait and see what the review shows up.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 18 arises out of Committee proceedings.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

5.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on how the Rent Supplement Scheme could be improved to—

(a) make it more responsive to beneficiaries needs,

(b) reflect changing rental markets.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 19 arises out of Committee proceedings.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 6, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:

5.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the number of eligible persons and proportion thereof availing of the Back-to-School Clothing and Footwear Allowance, among low income families.

I made two points. First, the Minister stated in response to me on Committee Stage that he would examine the possibility of making this payment more automatic or would see if it is in any way practical to do that and save the existing application process. The second point relates to the amount given to the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance. The overall cost on a parent whose child is going back to school is quite significant and, indeed, it does not end in September.

The cost of education has risen over the past number of years, especially with so-called voluntary contributions which now arise. I am not necessarily asking the Minister to fund a system that the Department of Education and Science should be funding, but the reality according to recent reports in the media is that there are families who are put in the position where they are unable to make payments, which other children's parents are in a position to make, that are being imposed by the school. Perhaps that is a matter in the context of the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance that the Minister might discuss with his colleague in the Department of Education and Science. Aside from that, there are significant costs such as transport, stationary and lunches. I ask the Minister — it cannot happen in the context of this Bill — in the context of next year to give particular attention to this area.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I stated to Deputy Enright on Committee Stage, there are 180,000 children in over 88,000 households benefiting from this. The scheme involves a not insignificant amount of money. We have provided over €43 million for the scheme in 2008, but particularly in budget 2007 we increased the rates from the base of €180 for children between the ages of two and 11 to €200 and for those between the ages of 12 to 22 to €305. That involved an increase of 67% and 61%, respectively, over the two years. That recognises the benefit of the scheme. It must be balanced in the context of all schemes. The figures are not insignificant in terms of the contribution. It can make a very significant difference to the families involved.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate it makes a difference. It is the scale of the difference it makes in light of the cost of education that is the point. The cost of everything has risen, be it school books or clothing. The entire cost of the return to school has risen. From that perspective, I reiterate that I ask the Minister to look at it.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 20 in the name of Deputy Enright is out of order because it is outside of the scope of the Bill.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 7, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

6.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on supports available to individuals in receipt of Illness Benefit.

The Minister answered my queries on this on Committee Stage. The only point I want to make in terms of illness benefit, and the disability payment, is the time taken for appeals, particularly in the case of disability payment. While we get answers to parliamentary questions, Deputy O'Dowd raised with me today the fact that while it takes 22 weeks for an appeal, he cited three separate instances of persons attending his clinic at the weekend who are waiting over a year, including the appeal time period, for the payment. The timescale needs to be addressed for the future.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We strive to facilitate all of our customers in the shortest time possible. There can be specific factors in individual cases that can delay this process. The Department and my officials are keen to ensure that we apply best practice in dealing with our customers.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 7, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:

8.—The Minister for Social and Family Affairs shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the progress to date in replacing the One Parent Family Payment with the new parental allowance for all low income families.

I appreciate the Minister is going to come forward with concrete proposals, but so were his two predecessors. The reason I retabled this amendment is to ensure we see action in this area. There are several issues, cohabitation probably being one of the main ones. Equally important is the ability of people to work. The Minister published discussions or flew a kite — whatever way he would like to put it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would never fly a kite.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

His predecessor flew quite a few. We are on the same issues and the difficulty is we have no proposals.

I support the idea of people being facilitated to get back into the workforce and to get back into education and training. Of course that is important. I was concerned with the mandatory nature of I do not know what because it was discussion rather than a concrete proposal. The practicalities, particularly in some areas from a perspective of child care and transportation, of anything that would be mandatory is not a matter we will be able to tease out today but it is important that concrete proposals are put before us as soon as possible so this matter can be progressed. The cohabitation issue, in particular, is anti-family, is not reflective of the reality of life today and is causing significant difficulties for people. I have an open mind but I want to see definite proposals on which we can move forward.

I will press the amendment because it is important to highlight how crucial it is that we get to grips and deal with this.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Deputy Enright. I ask the Minister to put on the record his commitment for replacing the one-parent family payment with the parental allowance payment, which would be neutral as regards there being one or two parents in the family and neutral also as regards whether they were in or out of employment. Is he committed to doing that, and doing it this year?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As I stated, that is my intention. I am in no doubt about that. I want to bring this matter to a conclusion. I want to set it out before the end of this year and then bring legislative proposals in the next available Bill thereafter.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister proposing to publish a separate Bill this year or to bring it forward in the social welfare Bill following the next budget?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I suspect it will probably be in this Bill's successor next year. I am not sure if it will be the one immediately after the budget. It will be in either one or the other. It depends on how quickly I can do it.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am concerned that another year has gone by. His predecessor, Deputy Brennan, as far back as 2004 had proposals on this matter. It is the pace of progress with which I am most concerned.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it in order for me to discuss amendments Nos. 24 and 25 together?

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are not being taken together.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has no objection.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will stretch a point.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 8, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

9.—The Minister shall, within one month of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the progress of the National Carers Strategy.

On amendment No. 24, I was disappointed the national carers' strategy was not published, as per the original commitment, by the end of 2007. There is little we can do about that now. I want to ensure it proceeds apace and that we have a strategy put before us without undue delay. I want the Minister to confirm to the House that everything is on the table in that regard and that there are no preclusions on any issue that any group wants to bring to the table in discussions in this regard.

On Committee Stage we debated briefly the issue of young carers. The Minister mentioned this issue has been transferred to the Department of Health and Children. He referred me to the Caring Before Their Time document published by Barnardos, which I looked at since we dealt with the matter last week. The point made in that document is that we do not want to look at young carers in isolation because they are caring as part of a family network or situation. In that sense, it is important the national carers' strategy, regardless of whether the Department of Health and Children will take the lead in the area, discusses and deals with the issue of young carers and recognises their role. The Barnardos document points out there is no national policy dedicated to young carers.

There is also a dearth of research in the area of young carers. While the Barnardos document is useful, it points out that there was no reliable research available to it, which is a difficulty. It stresses that a family approach is required and because of that, it would be wrong to exclude the issue of young carers from the national carers' strategy. I have no difficulty with the Department of Health and Children being the lead Department on this. I already mentioned the importance of involving the Department of Education and Science because young carers can miss out on educational opportunities by being in that position. It is very important the strategy includes the young carers issue.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The working group has been established under the chairmanship of the Department of the Taoiseach. All the different agencies and stakeholders are involved in the process and it is intended to publish the strategy later this year. That is important work and was well rehearsed in Towards 2016 and in the social partnership arena.

On amendment No. 25, the issue of dealing with young carers is a matter for the Minister of State with responsibility for children within the Department of Health and Children. It has not been transferred but remains there, which is appropriate. The 2004 report from the children's research centre recommended there be further research in this area. More quality research is required and that is being undertaken by the Department of Health and Children and will look at this important area. We need to fully understand all the facts involved.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will the strategy group set up under the Department of the Taoiseach look at the issue of young carers also?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It will look at the issue of caring generally. I will talk to the Minister of State with responsibility for children with regard to that matter to ensure any necessary inputs are included.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 25:

In page 8, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

9.—The Minister shall, within three months of the commencement of this Act, lay before each House of the Oireachtas, a report on the levels of support available to young carers.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 26 in the name of Deputy Enright is out of order because it is outside the scope of the Bill.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank colleagues for their thorough examination of this Bill and for their support for many aspects of it. I have taken on board a number of the points the Deputies have made, some in the context of ongoing discussions to make substantial changes. Hopefully, we will see those changes. I appreciate the general welcome for the Bill through all Stages and the formidable efforts of colleagues to deal with it. I thank my officials for the significant work they put in on an annual basis into this important Bill which affects the lives of all.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and his officials and the members of the select committee who considered the Bill last week. On the issues that are works in progress, I assure the Minister that Fine Gael will keep an eye on the work and would like to see progress on the issues we raised as soon as possible.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I join the Minister in thanking the officials for all of their work on this Bill and for their courtesy. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not accept even one amendment, despite acknowledging the point of a number of them on Committee Stage. From the point of view of parliamentary business, retaining an interest and working on legislation, it is disappointing when there is a blanket refusal to accept any amendments. Legislation is the worse for it.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have had a good discussion on the matters raised. Between both Deputies Shortall and Enright there was——

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the Minister does not give an inch, there is not much point.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In fairness, I have. There are a number of stakeholders involved in the social and family affairs area. The delivery of policy in the social economy area approaches a budget of some €17 billion. We forget, as a result of the transformation over the past ten or 15 years, that less than 9% of that budget now deals directly with unemployment. The significant policy area that has emerged and the resources that have been put into place to deal with it are formidable and substantial. That does not mean the sort of policies that have evolved over the past few years are perfect or that they cannot be enhanced or improved upon — they can.

Picking up on Deputy Shortall's and Deputy Enright's comments during the course of the debate, one can see the co-relation between many of the policies' impacts on people's ability to move smoothly from being assisted within the social welfare system into either full or part-time employment and that is the real challenge. This is ongoing and we need to effect the same changes with regard to lone parents.

I accept the point made by Deputy Enright. When we use the word "mandatory", it is not that we are threatening people in terms of bringing them into the system. We all agree that people who are dependent on the social welfare system should interact with the system and should not be unknown to it or not understand it themselves. They should be able to deal with and interact with it on a constant basis.

Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We cannot agree with the Minister until we see what he proposes.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The position in Kilkenny and Coolock where the two studies are under way is very interesting. Those lone parents who have come in to meet staff and officials have found it extremely beneficial and have encouraged some of their friends and colleagues that this is a non-threatening approach to dealing with their individual needs. We all understand it is not just about financial payments, but about the child care and serious educational needs of these people. Unfortunately, many lone parents left school at a very young age and did not have the necessary education levels required. We need to assist them with their education and assist them back into the workplace.

What the Deputies have said has been a valuable contribution and we will see the fruits of this in the future.