Vol. 666 No. 3
90 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress made on her announcement in July 2008 to achieve targeted savings of €25 million by tackling fraud; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40021/08]
Since July 2008, additional control measures have been introduced with a view to achieving savings of €25 million from the detection or avoidance of fraud. These measures target the jobseeker's allowance and benefit schemes, one parent family payment and child benefit schemes.
This year, the option to review payments by electronic fund transfer was removed for new claimants for jobseeker payments. They must attend in person at the post office each week, thus confirming their continued residency in the country. Their claim is automatically suspended where two consecutive payments are not collected.
Control activity has been across a number of schemes this year. For example, at end September 2008, some 289,000 reviews has been carried out, as well as 2,300 employer inspections, yielding savings of €337 million. In addition, the special investigation unit is undertaking more regular interviews of jobseeker recipients, particularly those with high risk ratings. The savings realised since July 2008 are €5.7 million. Lone parent recipients with earnings are targeted for review, and a special project in Kilbarrack yielded €388,000. Child benefit mailshots have been increased from half-yearly to quarterly intervals. It is expected that 1,200 cases will be terminated with potential savings of €13 million.
I am committed to ensuring that social welfare payments are available to those who are entitled to them. However, I am also determined to ensure that abuse of the system is prevented and dealt with effectively when detected. In this regard, the control programme of the Department is carefully monitored and the various measures are continually refined to ensure they remain effective.
My Department will continue targeting activities to achieve the maximum return on its efforts and will place increased emphasis on eliminating fraud and abuse of its schemes to achieve the necessary savings this year and into 2009.
Looking at the figures cited by the Minister, I do not see how they will reach an extra €25 million in savings by the end of the year. If it is €13 million in total in the six months for child benefit, €5.7 million from July until now in respect of another payment, and €388,000 from a special lone parent project, even allowing for some more from the €5.7 million for this month and December, I do not see how it will reach €25 million. I wish to ask the Minister about controls to achieve savings. I welcome the fact people will have to attend post offices in person, which will obviously reduce some elements of fraud. I draw the Minister's attention to the reply to my freedom of information request about social welfare fraud. According to the reply, in the period from August 2004 to December 2004, one officer assigned to the Garda National Immigration Bureau generated savings of €1.468 million by the termination of about 234 claims for 146 customers. It must be questioned whether there are far more savings to be made from an immigration perspective.
The Minister will also be aware of the different statistics for fraud as between non-nationals and Irish nationals. What extra action does the Minister intend to take in addition to this €25 million saving to address the issue? I understand it is approximately 13% for non-nationals as against 1% for Irish nationals.
The Deputy is correct that it is important to continue to have strong control measures. As money becomes more scarce, we must ensure that it is targeted at the right people. A total of 620 staff members throughout the country are involved in control in some form. The Deputy referred to the rule for signing on each week as having some impact. Other segments being targeted are the 18 to 25 year olds who are regarded as a particular risk group by our special investigation unit. People who have had their claims suspended are also investigated. The group involved in the employment action plan but who are still on the live register are constantly being reviewed, as also are those on the job seekers and child benefit schemes.
I referred to the amounts we intend to save on the child benefit scheme this year. We regularly send out letters to families receiving child benefit to ascertain if they are resident in the country. If a reply is not received within 21 days, payment is suspended after 42 days and then stopped completely if no further information is received from them. We also carry out a check with schools etc. to ensure that the information supplied by the claimant is valid.
A survey conducted on child benefit a few years ago among 500 Irish nationals showed that the fraud rate was about 1.7%, but the fraud rate among a sample of 500 non-nationals was almost 14% so this is a particular group to be targeted. This month, the Department will be writing to 7,000 non-national families with children resident in Ireland and 2,300 with children who are not resident in Ireland.
Is this particular emphasis on child benefit a new initiative? How much money has been lost in the past few years?
Of the cases referred to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor for 2005, 2006 and 2007, there does not seem to have been one case of child benefit fraud referred by the Minister's Department. If there was a potential for several millions of euro in savings from July to date, this begs the question as to how much could have been saved each year for the past three years, which are the statistics available to me. It seems clear that the majority of cases referred to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor are with regard to jobseeker's assistance and jobseeker's benefit. Is it the case that there is more fraud in that area? From what the Minister said, it seems there has been quite a degree of fraud in the child benefit area, yet it does not appear that one person has been prosecuted. Can the Minister explain this?
We are out of time on this question. I ask the Minister to reply.
When tackling fraud one must use methods of prevention, detection, deterrence and debt recovery. All of those methods can be used before ever resorting to prosecution.
Prosecution is the best deterrent.
Every effort is made at all stages to try to recover any moneys which have been overpaid. So far this year, 235 cases of general claims have been sent to the Chief State Solicitor's office. We do not wish to go down the road of taking prosecutions against people but debt recovery is probably the most important. We will continue to ensure that good control measures are in place.
91 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the consideration she has given to the implications of the proposed removal of child benefit in respect of 18 year olds for the participation of poorer children in their final year in secondary school or in further education. [39946/08]
Child benefit is paid for all children up to the age of 16 years and also for children up to the age of 19 years who continue in full-time education and for children with a disability. Child benefit is tax free and is not affected by the level of income of the claimant.
The rates of child benefit have increased very significantly since 2001, by over 200% for the first and second child and by over 185% for each other child. In the same period, total expenditure on child benefit has increased by 297%.
In the context of the current economic circumstances, it has been necessary to take a number of steps to reduce overall public expenditure in order to restore order and stability in the public finances. Spending on social welfare payments at some €19.5 billion in 2009 forms a substantial portion of public finances. Expenditure on child benefit will reach €2.53 billion in 2009. In these circumstances, it has been necessary to limit spending on child benefit by lowering the upper age limit that currently applies from 19 years to 18 years. The impact of this measure is being phased in, with payment for existing and future qualifying children being halved from January 2009 and payment stopping from the 18th birthday from January 2010. The vast majority of leaving certificate students will not be affected by this change because over 70% are under the age of 18 years when they sit their leaving certificate examinations. Many others turn 18 within a few months of their exams.
It is recognised that any changes in child benefit entitlements may have implications for family budgets. Accordingly, in order to assist the more vulnerable in society, special alleviating measures are being introduced for those in low income and social welfare dependent households. A compensatory payment of €15 is being provided during 2009 and 2010 for any week during which those affected by this measure are receiving a social welfare payment, which includes an increase in respect of the 18 year old child or a family income supplement payment which includes payment in respect of that child. The compensatory payment will also apply where the child in question is receiving a disability allowance payment in his or her own right. In addition, households affected by the measure who also qualify for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance will receive an extra payment of €215, bringing the total payment in respect of such a child to €520. These transitional measures will cease in January 2011.
The Minister has not answered my question. I asked her a straightforward question about the consideration she has given to the implications of withdrawing child benefit for 18 year olds. The reason I asked that question was because she, of all people, should know the implications of withdrawing child benefit for 18 year olds, given her experience in the Department of Education and Science. She should know that a minority of children from low income families actually stay on in school until the leaving certificate. She should also know that there are huge financial pressures on teenage children in low income families and, unfortunately, many of them — if not the majority — cannot stay on in school for financial reasons. The Minister knows that at this stage, because of transition year, a great many leaving certificate students are over 18 years. Education should not end at 18 anyway and all efforts should be made to ensure that children from low income families remain in the education system past leaving certificate and into further education.
The Minister also knows that the evidence from research indicates that leaving certificate students who participate in part-time work do so to the detriment of their academic achievement. The Minister knows all of this from her previous experience as Minister for Education and Science and in view of those facts, I am asking her why she decided to target the teenage children of low income families. Will the Minister tell the House on what basis she thought those families could take a hit of €38 a week?
We appreciate it is always very difficult for any family to have to take a financial hit.
The Minister does not seem to appreciate it. What is the basis for the hit?
Allow the Minister to reply without interruption.
Unfortunately, when one is faced with the current economic situation and financial pressures, and given that the budget of my Department is €19.5 billion, we are under pressure to find money to protect the people who will lose their jobs and their families. The money had to be found somewhere. We looked at the figures and realised that the Deputy is incorrect. The vast majority of students are under 18 years when they sit the leaving certificate——
Many are over 18. Does the Minister want them to drop out of education?
Certainly not. I wish to correct the Deputy's statement. In the leaving certificate cohort of 2007, some 35,900 were under the age of 18 and 14,000 were 18 years. Many of those would have turned 18 between April and June of that year so, in effect, they would have completed their second level education. That is not completing education, which I fully accept. The Deputy is also incorrect to state the vast majority of people are dropping out of school. The completion rates in school are now 86%, which is also very——
The majority of low income teenagers are dropping out of school before leaving certificate.
The Minister, without interruption.
The Deputy is incorrect. It is not the majority.
It is the majority in any disadvantaged area.
Allow the Minister to continue.
Increasingly, we are seeing that the completion rate of people in second level schools is at 86%, which is encouraging, although of course it would need to go higher.
It is also the case, although I would like to see it otherwise, that schools that qualify for disadvantaged status for the most part do not offer transition year. Many of the students who would be completing their education at 18 years of age, with the opportunity of hopefully continuing on to third level education, would also qualify for third level grants. These are the people about whom the Deputy expressed concern. They will not have to pay registration fees and may also qualify for maintenance grants. Given the changes in child benefit, we are at least getting them through their second level education and hopefully they will then qualify for the third level education grants as well.
The Minister is being fundamentally dishonest. There is a sizeable number of teenagers who are still in school after the age of 18 years. In view of what the Minister knows about educational disadvantage and the fact there are scandalously low levels of participation in education up to leaving certificate in low income families and disadvantaged areas, on what basis did she decide that low income families can take a hit of €38 per week?
The Deputy will be aware that the low income families are the people who are protected for next year and the year after.
They are not.
This is pathetic.
The compensatory factors which have been introduced to support those people who are on social welfare——
The Minister is being dishonest. There are transitional arrangements for two years.
Deputy Shortall——
After the two years, how do they make up the €38 per week?
Can Deputy Shortall hear me? My job is to chair these proceedings. We are over time on this question. I must ask the Deputy to have respect for the Chair when she is called to order, whatever about for myself.
The Minister——
Will Deputy Shortall do that, please?
The Minister is being dishonest in her replies.
Will the Minister give a short reply because I need to move to the next question?
I understand that. The last paragraph of the reply I gave to the Deputy set out exactly what the compensatory measures were. The final line was——
What happens when they are finished?
If I may, the final line of the answer states: "These transitional measures will cease in January 2011". The figures I have given show that approximately 10,000 students are 18 years of age when doing their leaving certificate. All others are under the age of 18 or have just reached it coming up to the examinations.
It is too bad for them. Is that what the Minister is saying?
92 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will provide details of the increased controls designed to achieve savings which were initially intended to be realised by stopping the payment of the disability allowance to disabled teenagers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40022/08]
In the social welfare budget, I announced that the age of eligibility for entitlement to disability allowance would be increased from 16 to 18 years for new claimants with effect from 1 January 2009. As an alleviating measure, the age for entitlement to the domiciliary care allowance would be increased from 16 to 18 years from the same date. These measures were estimated to save €5.6 million on my Department's Vote while giving rise to a cost of €1.4 million on the HSE Vote. Accordingly, the net saving to the Exchequer in 2009 was expected to be of the order of €4.2 million.
The changes announced in the budget were designed to address concerns raised about the appropriateness of paying young people a social welfare payment in their own right at the age of 16. It was feared that receiving the payment at an early age could undermine the incentive to pursue work, training or education options and cause them to become welfare dependent too early.
Following the budget I met six different groups representing people with disabilities and disability service providers. At these meetings, the underlying principle of the budget measure, namely, that it is inappropriate to pay a social welfare payment to a 16 year old in his or her own right, was not seriously contested. The key concern expressed by the groups related to the loss of expected income at short notice to families of young people with disabilities.
Following these meetings, I recommended to the Government that the disability allowance continue to be paid to 16 and 17 year olds pending a full review of the scheme. The review is considering a wide range of issues as identified by groups representing people with disabilities, their families and service providers, and will take account of a forthcoming report on disability and illness benefits by the OECD. It will also draw on new data published by the Central Statistics Office last week from the national disability survey 2006.
An amount of €1.4 million which will not now be required for the domiciliary care allowance measure will be transferred from the HSE Vote to my Department. Accordingly, the net impact on social welfare expenditure of not proceeding with the budget proposal is €4.2 million. This represents just 0.02% of projected overall social welfare expenditure in 2009 and will be accommodated by ongoing efficiencies across the whole range of the Department's activities next year. It will not be necessary to introduce further measures affecting entitlements or payments.
Given the Minister's answer, she clearly did not learn anything from the announcement made in the budget. She is still trying to claim that the families were looking for this measure when she refers to the six different voluntary bodies which did not seriously contest what she did. The families involved seriously contested the decision the Minister made. The decision was wrong and the fact the Minister still seems to be considering it in a different context is wrong.
In any case, that was not the question I asked. If the Minister reads the question, she will see the last line of her answer is all that refers to the question asked. I asked the Minister from where in her budget she will save the €4.2 million that was ring-fenced when she was going to make this change. Both the Minister and the Taoiseach said in the media that she was going to find these savings elsewhere in her Department. The specific question I asked was from where those savings will come. The Minister was able to say she would get them so she should account for them to the House.
I met the six groups to which the Deputy referred and, as I noted in my reply, those whom I met have not contested the principle of this, either then or subsequently. If anybody in the House would look at this, they would realise it is a valid principle not to make a social welfare payment to a person at 16 years of age.
The Minister should deal with the question. She has a requirement to do so.
That issue is not contested.
It is not Deputy Enright's job to intervene. Her job is to hear the answer.
The Minister is not giving the answer to the question asked.
Let the Minister speak. Let me do the job I am put here to do and let the Deputy do the job she is supposed to do, if she does not mind.
Do it, please.
The overall budget is €19.6 billion. We believe that with increased control savings, some of which I referred to in the first answer, we will be able to save another €4.2 million. A figure of €19.6 million is an enormous sum in this context. Judging by the success of some of the activities we have undertaken this year in our controls, particularly in regard to the jobseeker's and child benefit, as well as other initiatives we hope to take in this regard, I envisage there should be no difficulty in saving €4 million next year.
Every time there is a problem, the Minister tells us she will make increased savings. She told us in July or August she would get €25 million in savings, which was the subject matter of the first question. However, she was unable to explain how that €25 million has been obtained. Now, she is telling us she will save another €4.2 million in respect of this through increased savings. From where is that €4.2 million to come? If it is so easy to make savings by increased controls, as she seems to think, why has the Department, the Minister and her predecessors not been doing this every year for the past number of years? I again ask the Minister to outline how exactly the saving of €4.2 million will be accounted for in the Department's budget.
This is only early November, which is why we have not yet reached the target of €25 million, but we would envisage doing so by the end of December.
It does not look like it.
To the end of September, total savings of €331 million were made by the Department in all kinds of savings and control.
They were already budgeted for.
I will be reviewing those that have been the most successful, and I have already highlighted some. Out of a budget of €19.6 billion, it is my intention to save the further €4 million that would have been required under this disability allowance initiative.
The Minister cannot answer the question.
93 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason she has not used the social welfare Bill as an opportunity to address the eligibility criteria for the back-to-education allowance; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40023/08]
The objective of the back-to-education allowance scheme is to equip people on social welfare payments with qualifications that will enable them to obtain employment in the modern labour market. It is a second chance educational opportunities scheme for people on welfare payments who wish to participate in full-time education and who would not otherwise be able to do so.
The allowance is paid at a standard weekly rate equivalent to the maximum rate of the relevant social welfare payment that qualifies the applicant for the scheme. It replaces the existing social welfare income and, in addition, an annual €500 cost of education allowance is payable. Also, participants may continue to receive any secondary benefits to which they may have been entitled. In general, an applicant must be in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment for six months if pursuing a second level course or 12 months if pursuing a third level course. The qualifying period for the third level option is reduced to nine months for persons who are participating in the national employment action plan process. People who are awarded statutory redundancy may access the scheme immediately, provided an entitlement to a relevant social welfare payment is established prior to commencing an approved course of study.
The scheme has been improved in recent years. The qualifying period for illness benefit recipients was reduced from three to two years and the qualifying period was removed for people who are awarded statutory redundancy. In addition, the cost of education allowance was increased to €500 and the allowance was extended to people signing on the live register for PRSI credits.
The Government has devoted significant resources to the back-to-education allowance. Up to €519 million has been allocated over the lifetime of the national development plan. This year, €70.8 million is available. The number of participants in 2007-08 academic year was 8,883, an increase of 9.8% on the previous academic year. The number of participants has increased again in the current academic year. The number of people on the scheme at the end of September 2008 was, encouragingly, 24% higher than at the end of September 2007.
The back-to-education allowance is an important part of our overall strategy to provide opportunities for unemployed people to upskill in order to enhance their prospects of entering or returning to the labour force. I will continue to monitor the scheme but I believe it continues to meet its objectives and ensures limited resources are directed at those most in need.
I do not agree with the Minister that the scheme achieves its objectives in that not enough people can get on to it. Since the Minister was encouraged by the increase in the number of participants over the past two years, is she now discouraged that there will be 500 fewer places on the scheme next year?
I am constantly raising this issue because I believe the scheme gives people a chance to re-train and re-educate themselves. When the Minister was recently on the "Prime Time" programme with Deputy Gilmore she said her main priority was education and training. If it is, then how this scheme works should be changed. The Minister claims people who are made redundant do not need to have been in receipt of a year's relevant social welfare benefit before they can go on to third level. Is she aware that of the 94,502 people who joined the live register in the year to October, only one third was made redundant? This means only one third of those people are eligible to apply for the back-to-education allowance. Has the Minister reviewed or thought about allowing people on the minimum wage to participate in the back-to-education allowance, particularly for those in employment where their prospects are doubtful?
The Deputy is incorrect in saying there has been a cutback in the back-to-education allowance. There has been none and I am particularly encouraged by the numbers applying for the scheme. This summer we focused the scheme on those who want to take it up. The more people we can encourage to join the scheme, the better. The facilitators are doing a good job in highlighting the scheme. It shows by targeting a particular group, especially young workers, that it can be successful.
It is a scheme which supports employability, my main aim, and getting people back to work by supporting and facilitating them with education and training. It is not, therefore, appropriate to shift it to people who are currently in employment, albeit on low incomes.
The Deputy referred to those people who unfortunately lost their jobs in the past year. They might not have been able to access education or training immediately but they would have been able to access it within a few months, such as six months in respect of second level. If they were called for the employment action plan, it would mean nine months for third level.
The six month requirement for second level schooling is about right. Many people would start into academic education in September. Were it to be reduced any further, people would be claiming unemployment benefit for three months which is not what we want.
This is a valuable scheme and one I will keep under review. Up to 8,803 people participated last year and participation rates have increased by 24% already this year. The scheme is working and it is my aim we ensure people know and are given advice about it.
Will the Minister clarify the budget brief on education funding? It states: "This will require a reduction in the provision of 500 places on the back to education initiative — reducing the total number of places to 9,000".
That is the back-to-education initiative. The Deputy's question was on the back to education allowance. This is provided to people involved in full-time education. There will be an increase in the amount available for people in that scheme. The back-to-education initiative under education concerns part-time courses and is completely different.
It is still equally important.
No, it is not. If I may, Acting Chairman.
Deputy Enright, we are out of time.
I am entitled to a supplementary question.
I do not think there is time but I will allow the Deputy to continue.
For example, a person going on the live register on 31 October would be ineligible for a college course which commences in September or early October next year because he or she will not have been in receipt of the relevant social welfare benefits for one year. People are having to wait a month short of two years to fulfil the criteria for eligibility for the course. This needs to be addressed.
The Minister must also address the small number of people eligible under the redundancy rules and the employment action plan. Two thirds of those coming on the live register must wait one year before they can go on to third level education. I accept the six months' criteria for second level but that is little comfort to those who want to go into third level education. Will this be re-examined for the coming year or will it be left as it is for now?
There is no cutting back on the back-to-education allowance. Its purpose is to facilitate people in full-time courses and I am anxious to ensure as many people as possible benefit from it. A person who lost their job on 31 October this year would be able to enter second level education——
I asked specifically about third level.
If I may, Acting Chairman. A person who is part of the national employment action programme can, within nine months——
Only if they are participating in that programme.
——which would expire at the end of July of next year, then start on a third level course. People on the live register are called for the employment action plan every three months to ensure we are targeting the right people. The opportunities are there. To claim someone is left on the live register is not the case. The employment action plan is designed to interview people, support them and give them information.
It is not available to everyone.
If they are involved in that, they can get——
Only if they are involved.
Yes, if they are involved, they can get to third level education in nine months.
Not everyone is involved.
We will move on to Question No. 94. I am trying to get through all the questions so that Deputy Enright's will be answered. She knows better than I do that six minutes is allocated to each priority question.
We want to get to the bottom of matters.
94 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she will provide details on the transfer of the Combat Poverty Agency to the Office for Social Inclusion; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40024/08]
The Government's decision to integrate the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion within my Department was informed by the findings of a review of the Combat Poverty Agency which was undertaken on foot of a Government decision on 6 June 2007. The review will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas today.
I intend through the integration of the Combat Poverty Agency with the Office for Social Inclusion to ensure we make the best use of the considerable experience and expertise of the staff of both bodies. I believe the new division will provide the framework for an enhanced research role that will provide a stronger voice for those affected by poverty and social inclusion issues. Furthermore, it will have more immediate access to advising the Government and influencing policies on these important issues.
The Department is working with the board of the agency in finalising a plan for the smooth integration of the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion. It is planned to hold meetings and workshops with the staff in both organisations before the plan is finalised.
Several steps are necessary to achieve the integration of the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion. As the Combat Poverty Agency is established under statute, legislation changes will be required to alter its status. I intend bringing forward legislative provisions to effect those changes on Committee Stage of the Social Welfare Bill (Miscellaneous Provisions) 2008. Arrangements regarding the position of the agency staff will be finalised following discussions with the Department of Finance, the staff and their union representatives. Other work will involve winding up the business of the agency including finalising accounts and transferring assets.
I am conscious of the concerns about the need for independent scrutiny of public policy that have been expressed by some interest groups. I agree that independent critique is very important and I intend to ensure the scope for such work continues with the new arrangement. The Combat Poverty Agency has provided a valuable service in highlighting issues of poverty and social inclusion over the last 22 years. However, as the review report notes, the function of independent reporting on poverty is no longer as dependent on the Combat Poverty Agency as it was in earlier years.
Why? Who does it now?
I intend to ask the new division to prioritise the development of procedures to ensure the views of all stakeholders, including people experiencing poverty, continue to be available to Government in developing and monitoring social inclusion strategies.
The Minister's reply raises quite a few questions. It is utterly cynical and disingenuous of the Minister to introduce the proposed amendments on Committee Stage. She knew at least last Wednesday, two days after the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was published, that she was going to bring in these changes, and I do not see why she could not have published her intentions in the Bill instead. The way in which the abolition of the Combat Poverty Agency has been handled is deplorable.
What does the Minister mean when she says she wants to guarantee that information will be available to Government? The Combat Poverty Agency had a far wider role than that, which included highlighting issues and making information available to the public and to public representatives in a truly democratic way. How will it operate within the Office for Social Inclusion? Will the members of the agency be able to decide for themselves the issues that need to be highlighted? Does the Minister not think it is an unusual decision, in a time of increasing unemployment and in which we have not met our targets in reducing child poverty, to abolish the Combat Poverty Agency? Can she tell us what financial savings will be made from the amalgamation of the agency with the Office for Social Inclusion?
The Deputy will be aware that the process started in June 2007 with the review of the role of the agency and an examination of how it could be more effective. Although the main impetus was not financial, to answer the Deputy's question, the amount currently spent on the agency is €4.6 million, although some staff will transfer. There are costs with regard to staffing, community projects and so on, but there is much information in the review about how these things should be handled.
I specifically mentioned information for Government because one of the key issues with regard to the Combat Poverty Agency is that its views are taken on board in producing Government policy, legislation and decisions. One of the findings of the review was that the output of the agency was very good but its input was not. It was not effective in ensuring its voice was being heard.
The Government did not take its ideas on board.
That was actually in the review.
So it was the agency's fault the Government ignored it.
Allow the Minister to continue without interruption, please.
The agency has been in existence for 22 years, which was an issue. We must now find a mechanism whereby the views of the whole team of people——
Whereby the Government can muzzle them.
——can be taken on board in conjunction with those of all the other groups that have emerged since the Combat Poverty Agency was established. All these groups play a valuable role, particularly those in the community and voluntary area, although the community and voluntary pillar was unheard of at the time the agency was set up. The amount of statistical information we get on a national as well as an international level from the CSO, the ESRI, the OECD and the EU——
The ESRI commissions work from the Combat Poverty Agency.
As does the HSE.
In fact, it is the other way around.
That is not true.
Quite a substantial amount of work has been commissioned by the Combat Poverty Agency to be carried out by the ESRI.
It is the other way around.
Of the last 38 policy documents and reports drawn up in the name of the Combat Poverty Agency, 28 were done by outside bodies, while ten were done by the agency itself. There is very good expertise within the agency at research level and other levels. These experts will now be able to avail of the good expertise in the Office for Social Inclusion. By integrating these two bodies, which is the recommendation in the review, we can strengthen their roles.
The Minister filed the report——
We will move on to Questions Nos. 95 and 97.
A Chathaoirligh, I am entitled to ask a supplementary question.
I am sorry; we are out of time.
The report was commissioned through the Minister's Department——
Questions Nos. 95 and 97.
The next question deals with it anyway.
I am sorry, Deputy; we were out of time.
The Acting Chairman let the Minister go on.
