Vol. 584 No. 3
64 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the supports she has put in place for families in view of the fact that this is the tenth anniversary of the UN international year of the family; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12179/04]
My Department has significant responsibilities in the provision of a range of support programmes for families. These include child benefit, one parent family payments for parents raising children alone, payments for families who are out of work through illness or unemployment, family income supplement and provision for carers. These are core responsibilities of my Department, the primary and overarching objective being to ensure that individuals and families have recourse to income support for themselves and their families in times of need.
The Government-led "families first" approach in recent years involved the development in my Department of a range of new initiatives to address the effects of divorce on families, to prevent marital breakdown where possible and to put in place a range of supports to assist families dealing with crises or major upheaval in their lives.
Last year, I established the Family Support Agency to draw together the main family-related programmes and services developed by the Government since 1997. The functions of the agency include the provision of services such as family mediation, marriage and relationship counselling, family support services and programmes, including parenting, and support for the promotion and development of family and community services. This year I have made some €20.185 million available to the agency to fulfil its functions, €7.16 million of which is for the scheme of grants for voluntary organisations providing marriage and relationship counselling and other family supports.
Last year I embarked on a wide ranging consultative process on strengthening families. I hosted a series of nationwide public consultation forums whose purpose was to provide me with the opportunity to hear the views of families and all those that work with them, including public representatives, about the major changes affecting families and what they see as the priorities for strengthening family well-being. The report of the public consultative forums, Families and Family Life in Ireland: Challenges for the Future, was published in February. It has been made widely available and is already stimulating wide debate in this, the tenth anniversary of the UN international year of the family. It will be fully taken into account in drawing up a clear, comprehensive, integrated strategy for strengthening families. It is my intention to have this strategy ready at the end of this year.
In drawing up the strategy I will also take account of the Irish Presidency conference on families, change and European social policy, which is to be held in May, and the international study by the OECD, entitled Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life, in which Ireland has participated.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
I am conscious of the fact that many families involved in community and voluntary groups will want to celebrate this anniversary year. With this in mind I have made €1 million available through an award scheme to facilitate the celebration of the year. The once-off special awards are available to locally based family and community groups and to larger regional and national groups to mark the year. Funding will be made available through a scheme of small once-off awards to local voluntary groups to assist with projects or events to celebrate the family in their area. More substantial awards will also be available to larger regional or national groups for once-off events or projects focusing on families and family life in today's Ireland. There has been a good response to the scheme so far and I expect to receive more applications before the closing date of 7 May.
Families have been let down by this Government over the last number of years. They are finding it difficult to get by and they are under threat. When will the Minister honour her broken commitment on child benefit? When will she deal with the problem of the three different rates for child dependant allowance? The three rates are €21.60, €19.30 and €16.80 per week and they have been at the same level for the last ten years. The difference between the highest and lowest rates is €250 per year, which is a lot of money for a family on social welfare.
When will the Minister deal with the problem of the adult dependant allowance? A wife receives 70% of her husband's payment, but if a couple are of the same sex each will receive 100% of the payment. Is this not a case of discrimination against the family? When will the Minister correct this anomaly so that a husband and wife will each receive 100% of the payment? At the moment each member of a gay couple receives 100% of the payment. That is wrong. What does the Minister intend to do about the 200,000 medical cards promised to families? Since this Government took office in 1997, 100,000 people have lost their medical cards. Is this doing anything for the family?
The question about medical cards is not relevant to the Minister.
It is a broken promise.
It is not relevant to this Minister.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I take the opportunity to wish you well in your recovery.
It is not for me to advise the House on Standing Orders, but the Leas-Cheann Comhairle is correct in saying that medical cards are not my responsibility. I congratulate Deputy Ring on circumventing the entire question. I was expecting a good discussion on many other issues to do with the family but he chose to stick to the issue of family income support. Within the programme for Government we indicated that we would be addressing the issue of child benefit. Almost €1.7 billion is being provided this year for child benefit. There have been major increases in child benefit over the last number of years. It is my intention that we will reach our target in child benefit prior to the completion of the Government's term.
We have had ongoing discussions about child dependant allowance. It is not my intention to address the issue of CDA until the issue of child benefit has been fully dealt with. The issue of same-sex couples is well outside the realm of this parliamentary question. However, it is a topical issue and will be addressed in a later question. On the basis of the Deputy's comments I am setting up an expert group to deal with this issue. We will also be analysing and taking into consideration the outcome of the consultation process of the Law Reform Commission. To deal with this discrimination I will be changing the legislation through the Social Welfare Bill.
I do not agree with the views of the Deputy that we are not supporting families. We are supporting families in a cogent way through family income supports and providing additional supports which are vital for family life through the Family Support Agency. As I said in my reply, it is my intention to advance further the issue of family supports. We must also take into consideration the diversity of family life. I feel, as I am sure every Member does, that it is important to have a child-centred approach.
Is it not true that the recent "savage 16" cutbacks were anti-family? The provision of rent supplement has an effect on families. If a marriage breaks up a wife may find herself in need of rent supplement in the middle of the night so she can have somewhere to stay. This is a problem.
The most important issue I have heard about, however, is the money, advice and budgeting service. This service was implemented in conjunction with the health boards. If a family got into difficulty, community welfare officers would sit down with them to work out a deal with the banks and the health boards could provide assistance. They can no longer do that because the Minister has taken away their powers to provide financial support. Is that not anti-family? Will she reverse that measure, which was one of the 16 cutbacks?
I will not reverse any other changes to my budget. The Deputy made two incorrect statements. If a woman finds herself in a difficult position and must leave the marital home, the CWO, under section 30, can institute his powers to facilitate her. It is incorrect to say that will not happen and it must be clarified. Scaremongering will get the Deputy nowhere.
The Minister said that about the widows two months ago but she reversed that cutback.
With regard to the MABS issue, I met the service's representatives. They are the only people who provide such a service. I indicated to them this system will not continue. However, it is my intention to support the expansion of MABS, which I have done this year. It is a money advice and budgeting service and operates in an advisory role. It has worked well and, in particular circumstances, support will be provided in consultation with MABS under the exceptional needs payment to provide for needy families. Many of those involved in MABS would prefer if it was up the people themselves to address the issues that arise, and would prefer to provide people with the necessary skills so that they can deal with their problems.
65 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if, following her decision to reverse the cut of the half rate payment of disability, unemployment and other related benefits for persons in receipt of the widows and widowers pension or one parent family payments, she has plans to review the other cutbacks announced by her in November 2003, particularly in view of the serious problems being created for many recipients; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12182/04]
The Estimates for the Department of Social and Family Affairs announced last November included a number of provisions to better target resources within the social welfare code. My Department keeps all its schemes under review so that the total social welfare budget is applied to best effect in tackling disadvantage and to continue the Government's policy of significant improvement in basic payments to social welfare recipients, as with other improvements to the social welfare code. I have continued to keep the implementation of all of the Estimates measures under review.
In that context, I reviewed the measure relating to entitlement to certain half rate payments and, given that my review suggested there may be potential hardship in a number of cases, I decided to fully retrospectively restore entitlement to the affected persons.
I have no plan to alter the other measures announced. A number of those measures were undertaken to again focus social welfare schemes on their original objectives or target groups. Many of the measures affecting entitlement to social insurance benefits strengthen the link between the level of contributions and the entitlements accrued. These changes are unlikely to cause serious personal hardship. However, in the unlikely event that such problems arise, alternatives such as supplementary welfare allowance payments or unemployment assistance are available in cases of hardship.
The measures announced in November produced significant savings which, in turn, freed up resources towards a substantial budget 2004 package of €630 million. This enabled the provision of increases well ahead of inflation for all social welfare recipients of weekly payments as well as significant general improvements in social welfare provisions generally.
The record of the Government parties in regard to investment in social welfare is second to none. When they took up office in 1997, the spend on social welfare was €5.7 billion. This year, the Estimates provide for total spending of more than €11.2 billion, a doubling of social welfare expenditure over this period. This is all the more remarkable when the reduction of 86,000 in the number in receipt of unemployment payments over that period is taken into account, which, in the years prior to 1997, accounted for a significant portion of overall expenditure.
The increases provided in budget 2004, in conjunction with the increases provided since 1998, demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to safeguard and enhance the living standards of the most vulnerable in our society.
The Minister reversed the cutback in the widows and widowers pensions. She had no choice because she would have walked into a legal quagmire. She had no right to interfere with them in the first place. It took four months of suffering and great angst for people before she caved in, despite our warnings.
Does the Minister accept there are harmful and negative effects to the cutbacks proposed in the social welfare Estimates, which we pointed out on day one? She is screwing the poor for the sake of €58 million. I refer to the restrictions on rent supplement. If one is not renting for six months, one will not be awarded rent supplement unless the local authority determines through a needs assessment that one is homeless or in need of housing or meets other narrow criteria.
Is it a negative effect if one's spouse works for more than 30 hours per week, no matter how low the wage or uncertain the position or how the high the market rent is in the locality or how many dependants are in the household, rent supplement is denied? Does that contradict the Government's report two years ago, which stated the best way to facilitate the transition from poverty is through work? The Minister is telling people the minute they work more than 30 hours per week, everything is wiped. Does that contradict Government policy? Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing? If one falls foul of local authority procedures and receives two offers of housing, one is also refused rent supplement. As Deputy Ring said, the ability of CWOs to provide help is restricted, as evidenced by the instructions to them under circulars 03/04 and 05/04, which stipulate there must be exceptional circumstances that must be reported to the Department. How can CWOs exercise discretion when they must report every little thing to the Department?
The new rules will help to deny people who need help and are in crisis. The Minister should do the honourable thing. She won back friends by giving the widows what should never have been taken from them in the first place. Social welfare recipients are being denied what is theirs. I appeal again to the Minister to reverse the cutbacks.
The Deputy indicated at his party conference that he would be a vigilant on these issues. He would look well on a white horse as a knight in shining armour. I will not reverse the cutbacks for a number of reasons. All Members will agree that using a short-term measure for a long-term initiative is wrong. It does not support those who need housing. It was on this basis that the previous Government decided that rent supplement would be supported by local authorities. Unfortunately, agreement was not achieved on that. However, thankfully, following a change in philosophy, the Department is working in a more coherent and strategic way on the development of housing policy between CWOs and housing officers and I commend them on that. Deputies who were members of local authorities will be aware they are working more closely with departmental staff to address people's housing needs.
I do not agree the supplementary welfare code needs to be changed. Following consultation, my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and I have produced an action plan, which will be announced shortly, to address the pertinent issue of progressing from a short-term payment, SWA rent supplement, to a long-term solution for people with a housing need. That is the most appropriate way to go forward.
No matter how Members huff and puff, it is not my intention to change the other initiatives undertaken during the Estimates procedure. The Deputy referred to the futility of the Department being informed about rent supplement cases. That is done under my instruction. I will be informed of the implications of all decisions made by the Department and CWOs on my behalf. As a result, I will be able to analyse the impact of policy changes. I will continue to ensure I and the Department are informed of the implications of these measures. I am anxious to ensure that should happen so that I can be answerable for those decisions.
In recent months, the Department has only been requested to get involved in rent supplement cases on a number of occasions. People were dealt with adequately locally.
Is it the case that lone parents and single persons involuntarily living with their own older parents are most obviously targeted by the cuts? Should a person living in an area of high unemployment not be able to move to improve his or her prospects of employment? Where do such people fit in with regard to the six-month restriction? What happens to them if they want to move to an area where there might be a job, and then get rent supplement?
If a lone parent with a child or a number of children is in a situation of overcrowding, an application is made to the county council, which makes an evaluation. If that family is on a housing list, it is then entitled to a rent supplement.
66 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the position regarding the principle of one social welfare payment per person in view of her decision to rescind the previous decision to remove additional payments to widows and single parents. [12181/04]
The social welfare system is primarily a contingency-based system, with entitlement based on defined contingencies such as sickness, unemployment, old age or widowhood. Primary social welfare legislation provides that only one social welfare payment is payable at one time. While it can happen that a person may experience more than one contingency at the same time — such as an unemployed person becoming sick — a general principle usually applies whereby even if a person experiences more than one of the contingencies at any one time, he or she can receive only one of those payments. This principle is common to social welfare systems across the world.
The legislation provides, however, that regulations may be made to enable more than one of the payments to be paid concurrently. There is a limited number of such instances, including the situation where a recipient of a widow's or widower's pension can, at the same time, receive short-term social insurance benefits such as disability benefit or unemployment benefit, at half rate.
In the context of preparation of the spending estimates for 2004, this entitlement to concurrent half-rate payment of a number of benefits was discontinued for new claimants with effect from 19 January 2004. I have since reviewed this measure and have decided to fully retrospectively restore entitlement to the affected persons.
The general principle that a person can receive only one payment at any one time, as provided for in legislation, remains valid. In this regard it should be noted that the current overlapping arrangements were introduced in whole or in part in the early 1950s. At that time there were only ten individual social welfare schemes. As the Deputy is aware, the system has been gradually developed over the intervening 50 years with the result that there are now 38 separate schemes. As a result, the number of possible combinations of concurrent contingencies has increased greatly, and it is realistic to maintain the underlying principle of entitlement to one payment only at any one time.
My overall objective is to ensure that the total social welfare budget is applied to the best effect in tackling disadvantage and continuing the Government policy of significant improvement in basic payments to social welfare recipients, and with other improvements in the social welfare code.
I suspect that when decisions were being made in November 2003 — I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt in this regard — most of the decisions relating to the 16 cuts were made for her. Subsequently, she had to valiantly defend those cuts, and had to bear the opprobrium before overturning one of them.
I was disturbed at the defence used regarding the additional half-rate payments for widows and single parents. The principle was trumpeted that people within the social welfare system are entitled to only one payment. This is a defence the Government uses regularly with regard to payment for carers. As a legislative body we must be clear that as a matter of course and of principle there are people in need of additional and graduated payments, To use the "one payment" principle to justify cuts within a Departmental budget is not defensible, and it should not be used in that way during any future arguments or debates we might have on the issue.
People find themselves in need of social welfare because of varying sets of circumstances, which can only be met by having access to different types of support, sometimes along with additional, extra supports. The answer the Minister gave, saying that the principle exists in certain circumstances but not in others is not good enough. Either the principle exists or it does not. It should not exist. We should proceed only by saying that if we want to introduce reforms into our social welfare system, they will be on the basis that people have varying sets of circumstances that need varying approaches at all times. Unfortunately, one result of the decisions taken last November has been the introduction of a note of uncertainty, suggesting that the Government may be moving to a "one size fits all" approach to social welfare, which does not reflect well on the Minister and her Department. Unfortunately it is the philosophy which defines the Government of which she is a member.
The Deputy is of the view that someone who is sick and unemployed should get two payments. A double payment is an inequity. It is unjustifiable and could not be paid. It is on that basis that we have a rule. There are a number of instances where it is not applied, such as in the case of widows, and of orphan's contributory or non-contributory payments, where one is entitled to claim unemployment benefit and disability benefit if either contingency applies. We could change the position regarding those in receipt of the blind pension, but why should we? People who are blind have enough trouble without them not being entitled to their unemployment or disability benefit. They would be more than delighted if they were working. Disablement pension is not an income support but a maintenance payment to compensate for the loss or partial loss of a faculty. Accordingly, there are very few instances where the rule does not apply and the few changes that were made took place about 50 or 60 years ago. They concern a very small number of people with particular contingencies who must be supported. I do not intend to make changes in that area.
The Deputy probably informs people who encounter a number of contingencies of the best payment to support their needs at a given time. Changes take place with qualified adult allowances, pensions, carers' allowance, unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. There are numerous combinations. Decisions are made on an individual basis in terms of supporting the person who would be better off by taking a particular payment.
There is an issue involving carers. The pensions services office will indicate that the majority of people in the caring profession are over 65 and in receipt of a widow or widower's pension, a contributory or non-contributory pension. That argument has been put forward by the various associations, indicating that they should at least get a half-rate payment. It is one of the issues supported by the committee. It would scupper the concept of one payment, but on the basis of an overall caring strategy that we must consider, these are possibilities which must be inquired into on the basis of funding long-term care and the value of the carer's allowance, and where it fits in with the home caring situation. That will be considered, but in normal circumstances the issuing of a double payment, or two or three payments for particular contingencies that someone might encounter, would be a retrograde step.
I will highlight the over-bureaucratic approach. In my constituency this week, I met a 68-year-old man with a 78-year-old wife, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease, and who has to be brought to a clinic each day before 9.30 a.m. The free travel pass in Dublin and Cork does not operate before 9.30 a.m., which means that this couple's weekly income is decreased by €10 weekly as a result of having to pay for travel. All the agencies involved say that the rules are the rules. I feel there are people behind the Minister, at least metaphorically, who are prepared to take this argument further and question where the secondary benefit begins, and an additional payment stops. We must have clarity in this area. There must be a graduated approach offering assistance to people in need. Otherwise, we are holding up people unnecessarily, and creating unnecessary poverty traps.
Dublin and Cork feature strongly in the spare capacity times of Bus Éireann and it is on that basis that reduced fares are allowed for my Department, which consequently pays for the free travel. Through the Department of Health and Children and the health boards, we have tried on a number of occasions to impress on the relevant hospitals and clinics that they should not provide a clinic timetable for the elderly outside the capacity times of Bus Átha Cliath and Bus Éireann. However, there is some flexibility on the basis of the health boards or authorities not providing such a facility for that person. This person must travel and, in the case of a particular illness, some flexibilities are available. I ask the Deputy to appeal that case to the principal officer in the free travel section in Sligo on the basis they were not facilitated by the board.
They say 75 is the rule.
I was asked by a number of Members of the House to facilitate this and it has been done on the basis that the health boards were not in a position to provide alternative appointments for people. That should not happen.
67 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if her Department will amend the free schemes rates payable to Eircom to ensure that all telephone rental will be paid; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12180/04]
The cost of the telephone allowance scheme in 2004 is estimated at €92.2 million for some 300,000 customers. This represents a significant increase of nearly €9 million, or 11%, in expenditure on the scheme in 2003.
In order to ensure that the costs to my Department of the telephone allowance scheme are predictable and that the scheme does not become a distorting factor in the liberalised telecommunications market, a significant change to the scheme was made in October 2003. The structure of the allowance was adapted to make it a single integrated credit item on client telephone bills, not attributable to any particular component of the bill. The allowance is worth €49.39 per two monthly bill, including VAT. This change makes it easier for additional service providers to participate in the scheme by applying a standardised allowance amount to bills irrespective of the tariff components.
In conjunction with this change, a special bundle rate, the Eircom social benefits scheme, was negotiated with Eircom. This provided telephone allowance customers with line and equipment rental plus an enhanced call credit of up to €5.35 worth of free calls per two month billing period. The cost of the bundle, €20.41 plus VAT per month, represents a substantial discount on the previous cost of the service.
Separately, the Commission for Telecommunications Regulation, ComReg, approved a price increase application from Eircom of 7.5% in line rental, effective from 4 February this year. A lesser percentage increase is also being applied to telephone instrument rental where applicable. It is my understanding that these increases are being partially offset by reductions in call costs in order to limit the average private customer bill increase to the consumer price index.
Following detailed discussions with my Department, Eircom agreed that the increase in the cost of its social benefits scheme would be limited to the rate of CPI, 1.9%, as part of which Eircom made a change to its bundle package by removing some additional call unit value. To offset this, however, Eircom has offered to give low use customers, including our own customers, up to €10.00 worth of calls free per two-month bill by offering them its separate vulnerable users scheme in addition to the social benefit scheme.
The revised Eircom package results in an increase in telephone costs to the social welfare customer of 94 cent, including VAT, per two monthly bill or less than 12 cent per week. The other revisions to call costs by Eircom, including wider promotion of its low user scheme, should be broadly beneficial to social welfare customers.
I have no plans at present to make any further changes to the telephone allowance scheme. Any future changes to the scheme will be considered in a budgetary context in the light of available resources and other priorities.
The Minister should understand that social welfare recipients' money is being eaten away because Eircom, like the ESB and other State companies, is increasing its prices. The ESB increased its costs three times last year. It is no wonder people on social welfare find it difficult to make ends meet. My question, however, relates to the telephone rental allowance. In the past the Department paid the full rental allowance but many elderly people throughout the country are now confused. I have had telephone calls and letters inquiring if the free schemes are now gone. I realise it is only an extra 92 cent that they have to pay but it is causing confusion because people believed the rental was free.
This is a small cost. The telephone rental was always free but now that Eircom has increased its charges the Department should increase its payment to Eircom. People availing of the free schemes should not have to pay the increase. Otherwise, the Minister will have to stop referring to these schemes as free schemes.
The same happened in regard to the dental scheme. That scheme was in operation until the Minister came into office but now people have to make a payment towards it. This Government attacked the widows and it appears it is now attacking the people on the free schemes because this is the first time since they were introduced that they have to make a part payment towards them. If the Department paid the increase, which is a small amount, it would save confusion on the part of elderly people who have contributed to this State. They availed of these free schemes but will now have to pay a small amount, 92 cent, towards them. That may not be a large sum but it can be to people on social welfare. However, this is more about preventing confusion than anything else. I call on the Minister to honour the rental allowance and be fair to elderly people.
I sincerely hope that NWR and MWR are taking a direct feed from this Chamber because every time I have appeared on their programmes they have complained to me that the telephone allowance and the free schemes are being abolished. That is factually incorrect and it is about time Deputy Ring said that as well and stopped adding to the confusion of the elderly.
They now have to make a payment towards them that they never had to make previously.
It is factually incorrect. What is happening now is that ComReg, which is the regulator, has indicted to my Department that on the basis of the regulations and the opening up of the market, all other telephone companies must have access to my scheme, be it ESAT Digifone and so on. In addition, it provides an opportunity to allow mobile telephone providers, O2, Vodafone and so on — I do not want to be criticised for mentioning these people — provide a service for our customers. On that basis we had to change our entire policy with regard to supporting the telephone scheme and that is the basis on which people are now getting a lump sum.
There has been a significant increase of 7% in telephone charges. We have reduced that for our customers, as customers of Eircom, to 1.7%. We were able to provide a new initiative, one which I hope elderly people in particular will take up because, as the Deputy is aware, in 99% of cases "CR" appears at the bottom of those bills indicating credit.
We have introduced a system. I saw the information provided by Eircom. It was easy to read and very understandable. It has provided a service for those particularly vulnerable users, mainly the elderly. They have been facilitated with an additional scheme, with an additional €10 worth of calls, the majority of which I assume are not even used because they normally make about one telephone call a week. Others make more but generally the telephone is used as a form of security in that they know they can receive a telephone call and that somebody can get in touch with them. It was on that basis that we had to change the system to a one-off payment, and that one-off payment will continue.
Given the competition I have been able, through my Department, to negotiate an excellent deal with Eircom. Any additional increase in rental will also have to be taken into consideration in the context of any changes that take place. It is my view, rightly or wrongly, that it is outside my remit to discuss the issue of ComReg. It has dictated that this is the way it has to go and it is on that basis that I had to facilitate greater competition within the system. The advice from my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, is that this will greatly facilitate access by other operators to the scheme and, moreover, will be more beneficial to people who wished to use the services. We are talking about an increase of 12 cent on the rental but the overall package is better given that, heretofore, they got €2 worth of free calls and they will now get €10 worth of free calls under the vulnerable users heading. I wish to reiterate this scheme is not being abolished and it will continue.
People do not really care about the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, regulations or Europe. They care about the fact that they now have to pay 92 cent that they did not have to pay last year. It is a small amount. It was called the free rental scheme but it is no longer free. Pensioners now have to make a payment. They are not interested in EU regulations or what the Minister or her Department have to do. They had a free scheme but that free scheme has now been taken from them. The Minster should stop calling them free schemes.
The Deputy should stop saying that. It is not being taken away from them.
It is time for the Minister to fight the Department and look after the people she is supposed to represent.
That is incorrect.
The Minister has let them down again.
Order, please.
It is factually incorrect. The Deputy is filibustering again and he is doing no good for the people in Mayo.
No, I am not. They now have to pay 92 cent they did not have to pay a month ago.
We must move on to Question No. 68.
What has gone wrong in the Department?
Order, please.
68 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if, in regard to her announcement on 22 March 2004 of funding of €100,000 for Emigrant Advice and €80,000 for ICTU to allow them to provide comprehensive information and support services for departing emigrants or those returning home, she has plans for further initiatives before the end of 2004; if she has provided funding to similar organisations working with Irish emigrants in the UK or plans to provide such funding; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12183/04]
I understand that the focus of the Deputy's question concerns my Department's support for information and other support services for departing emigrants and those wishing to return home and that he is aware that the funding allocated to ICTU for 2004 was not for that purpose.
The primary responsibility of my Department in dealing with emigrant issues is the provision of comprehensive and accurate information in an accessible manner to those wishing to emigrate and to Irish people living abroad who wish to return home to live. Emigrant Advice is the main voluntary organisation in Ireland disseminating information to intending emigrants and those wishing to return home. This year, I have increased the core funding for the organisation from €70,000 to €100,000. That funding will enable Emigrant Advice to continue its valuable work on behalf of our emigrants from its drop-in centre in Dublin. It will also enable it to update its various information publications for intending emigrants and maintain its website with up-to-date information.
In addition to funding for Emigrant Advice, I have provided funds in recent years to other organisations disseminating information to our emigrants. Emigrant Advice Network is an independent network of various organisations involved in the provision of information and advice to intending emigrants. It consists of several youth information centres, centres for the unemployed, and two centres dedicated specifically to providing advice to migrants, one in Dublin and one in Cork. I provided core funding of €71,916 to that organisation in 2003 to enable it to employ a full-time development worker and develop a website to expand and develop an independent national network of emigration advice and information agencies. An application for funding for 2004 from this organisation is awaited.
I have recently approved funding of €18,500 to the Safe Home programme. The main objective of that organisation is to help those elderly Irish emigrants wanting to return to Ireland to live but lacking the means or resources to do so. My Department's funding enables Safe Home to publish and distribute a monthly newsletter to those on its waiting list and to the various Irish centres throughout the UK. The newsletter contains information on a variety of topics including social welfare entitlements.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The funding provided by my Department to those organisations is very much in line with one of the main recommendations of the report of the task force on policy regarding emigrants, which was published in August 2000. The task force recommended that there be close co-operation between the various Departments and voluntary agencies at home and abroad regarding the provision of pre-departure advice and information. I am very pleased that I was able to increase the funding available for those services from €127,000 to €427,000 in January 2003. That increase in our funding has enabled us further to engage with the various voluntary organisations working in that field and to help them enhance the services that they provide.
My Department will consider an application for project funding from any voluntary or community organisation working in the field of information provision to our emigrants. Applications will be considered on their merits and will be subject to the budget allocation available at the time of application.
I notice that funding is for emigrants before they go and for those returning home. There was a Government task force into which the Minister obviously must have had some input. Are there proposals for direct monetary or financial help for those organisations in Britain dealing with the welfare of the Irish emigrant population, many of them from my county and that of the Minister? Surely they must be considered part of the Irish nation under Article 2 of the Good Friday Agreement. Does the Minister accept any role or responsibility arising from the task force on emigrants? Does her Department have any role, apart from fulfilling those objectives in that regard, which she has done? Does she accept that we should now be allocating significant resources to improve accommodation and services for the neediest and most vulnerable among our emigrants in Britain in line with the task force's recommendations, which I have here? What steps has the Minister taken to implement the recommendations, in particular during our Presidency of the EU, to deal with the link between migration and social exclusion, which is very important? Did she organise a Presidency conference on reconciling mobility and social exclusion?
In the wake of the "Prime Time" report that many of us viewed with shame and in the context of the indisputable fact that our emigrants sent back remittances of over €5 billion to these shores to help us all, does she not feel that it is incumbent upon her to establish a properly resourced and funded scheme for the provision of care and support services to elderly returning emigrants and support them in getting housing and accommodation? In particular, she must try to help those who currently feel left out and under pressure, especially in Britain. We now have undoubted reservoirs of wealth to help pay back in some small way the help they gave many of us in this country in the bad old days from the 1950s to the 1970s. Has the Government considered with the Minister putting in place and implementing in full the recommendations of the task force on emigration? We heard Father Burns saying that it was a piecemeal and disappointing response. Surely we should take cognisance of what someone who works with Irish emigrants is saying and act on it in the best interest of the many Irish people abroad.
One of the main recommendations of the task force was that we provide funding and ensure that there is close co-operation between various Departments and the voluntary agencies at home and abroad, with particular regard to advice and information in my section. I have increased that money and provided funding to a very fine initiative in Mayo, the Emigrant Liaison Committee. It is a pity Deputy Ring is not here to hear me praising the people of Mayo. That brings people home, and it has been tremendous.
I also fund the Episcopal Commission for Emigrants, facilitate the Coalition of Irish Immigrant Centres in the United States and provide funding for the Irish Commission for Prisoners Overseas. A considerable sum has been made available — it increased from €127,000 to €427,000 from last year to this. That is a huge increase in funding. I am totally committed to ensuring that we live up to the recommendations. As the Deputy indicated, we had a first and very successful European conference on mobility and integration. For the first time, the emigrant advice centres and the coalition were invited from the United States and the United Kingdom. They facilitated several of the discussions that took place. It was very fruitful and encouraging. People were very happy with the outcome and the interaction between the European issues, which certainly exist.
Someone very high up in the Commission, a French gentleman, said that he could not understand the problem that we had with the Irish in the United Kingdom. However, he said that once he had the opportunity to listen to the British and United States organisations, it became particularly and peculiarly clear to him what the issues were. His view was that, on that basis, such things should not happen to migrants in the European Community. He took that as a policy initiative to be considered by the Commission. I will therefore forward recommendations to the Council in Luxembourg to make progress on this issue in particular. Our interaction has been fabulous and I intend to continue the support and funding of this programme.
I agree with the Minister for Foreign Affairs that whatever resources are available should go to those who need them most. I appreciate that people wish to have a committee set up and an organisation. I am not sure if that is the right way to go forward at present — perhaps in due course. However, we can achieve more interaction regarding emigrants and emigrant advice in particular, supporting those who wish to come home.
There have been several new initiatives on the basis of that in Mayo which I feel it is incumbent on communities to consider, for example, in voluntary housing projects, where two or three houses are made available. I believe that Kerry does that too. Those housing facilities are there for two or three people to be repatriated. There are other issues, as the Deputy knows, relevant to why people will not come home and find themselves in various situations. However, in the main, we can more and more facilitate work on this issue, and I have considerably increased the funding this year to ensure that that happens.
That concludes Priority Questions. We now come to Other Questions, the first of which is No. 69.
