Vol. 896 No. 4
60. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she proposes to introduce legislation to deal with the position of persons who no longer qualify for a pension upon reaching 65 years of age; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40183/15]
I raise this question to ascertain the position of a person who has been compulsorily retired at the age of 65 and will have to wait until he or she is 66 before receiving an old age pension.
The Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2011 provided for increases in the State pension age. This process began in January 2014 with the abolition of entitlement to the State pension (transition) at 65 years of age, thereby standardising State pension age for all at 66 years. The changes introduced in 2011 were on foot of a Government commitment which arose out of the memorandum of understanding signed with the European Union, European Central Bank and International Monetary Fund in November 2010.
The purpose of these changes is to make the pension system sustainable in the context of increasing life expectancy. More people are living to pension age and living longer in retirement. In that context, the duration for which an average pension will be paid will continue to increase, albeit at a slower rate than if no such changes had been provided for in legislation.
The number of pensions is increasing by approximately 17,000 annually as a result of demographic change. This has significant implications for the future costs of State pension provision which is increasing by close to €1 billion every five years. In 2013, the cost of the State pension transition was €137 million. It was estimated at the time that the net saving resulting from its abolition, when taking into account that many people were in receipt of other payments at the lower rates applicable to those under 66, would amount to €33.5 million in 2014 and approximately €65 million in 2015.
All short-term social welfare schemes, including jobseeker's schemes, are payable to age 66. Jobseekers whose benefit expires in their 65th year will continue to be paid benefit up until the age of 66, when they can come into receipt of the State retirement pension. There are no plans to introduce legislation to change from the current position.
I thank the Minister for the reply. As she will be aware, a great many people are forced to retire at 65. Take those who retire, through no choice of their own, at the age of 65 but cannot qualify for the old age pension until they are 66. Accordingly, there is one year of a gap. During that year, the Department insists these people actively seek employment.
We have changed those regulations from the age of 62.
As the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, can tell the Minister, we had a debate on this on Committee Stage of the Social Welfare Bill 2015 last week. My understanding from what the Minister of State told me then was that the requirements for getting involved in activation schemes, etc., were abolished from the age of 62, whereas people from the ages 65 to 66 still have to be actively seeking work. That is my understanding of his reply to me then. I raised this question for clarification.
Several years ago, I introduced some fundamental reforms as to how people over 62 years of age right up to 66 were dealt with by the Department of Social Protection. First, once people reach the age of 62, if they so wish, they are placed on a yearly signing. In other words, they only need to sign on once a year. If they wish, they can transfer their payments to an electronic fund transfer, to whatever appropriate mechanism or they can continue as they are with their current collection arrangements. They are not subject to the commencement of mandatory activation measures but they may avail of employment supports should they wish to do so. They will not be subject to any activation-related sanctions, such as penalty rates of any kind. The provisions of the circular on that do not apply to anybody over 62. People are already engaged in activation and we would expect them to continue to finish whatever it was they were doing in it. For people over 62, we have allowed for two streams. If they wish to be involved in activation, education or other opportunities, they can avail of them if they so wish. If they do not wish to do that, they can sign on once a year and receive their payments as they see fit. These arrangements are now working successfully. If one comes into one’s 65th year, one’s jobseeker’s benefit - if one is entitled to it - continues until one reaches 66 years of age.
Take the case of somebody who is compulsorily retired at 65 and then applies for jobseeker’s benefit because he or she cannot get a job.
Is the Minister saying that in order to qualify for jobseeker's benefit this person does not have to establish or can never be asked whether he or she is actively seeking or available for work? I need clarification of the matter because what she has said seems to differ somewhat from the reply we received at the committee. Has she been contacted by her colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, about the matter? On 9 October Mr. Jack O'Connor, general president of SIPTU, received a letter from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform which stated:
You have raised an important issue with me regarding the income gap faced by workers who are required to retire at age 65 given the age for entitlement to the State Pension (age 66).
There would appear to be a disconnect between policy and practice here that needs to be examined. Furthermore, I am also conscious that the State Pension age is set to increase ... to age 67 ... and to age 68 [etc.], which could exacerbate the problem you have outlined.
In light of this, I think we need to move now to address this issue in a comprehensive and sustainable way, including through legislation as required.
To this end, I intend to bring a Memorandum to Government shortly-----
I call the Tánaiste to conclude.
To be absolutely clear, we have a two-option process for persons aged 62 years and older. The option chosen is entirely at the person's discretion. If he or she wants to avail of an activation scheme and is currently involved in such a scheme, he or she would be expected to continue in that regard. If he or she does not wish to opt for an activation scheme, he or she does not have to so opt. This might, in particular, be the case for people who are a little older. They will go to their local social welfare office and thousands of Deputy Willie O'Dea's constituents will have had this experience. They will be told their options and asked which one they wish to choose. We must remember that some people, when aged more than 62 years, if they have, for instance, been working outdoors or on the heavy side of the construction industry, may not wish to take on heavy work again. They might, on the other hand, wish to be involved in something like a community employment scheme.
Do they have to establish availability?
We have to move on to the next question.
Do they have to establish that they are available for and actively seeking work?
No; it is entirely optional. It is an option for them to say to a social welfare officer that they really want to continue working and would like to take part in a community employment scheme. It is also an option for them to say they do not wish to take part.
I apologise to the Tánaiste for interrupting, but Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh has the next question.
With what precisely is Mr. Jack O'Connor dealing?
I am sorry-----
What precisely is Mr. Jack O'Connor's problem? We are going to receive a memorandum from the Government.
Check it out locally.
I call Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh. We are trying to make some progress.
61. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the reason persons placed on the JobPath programme are prohibited and excluded from taking part in other job activation schemes such as community employment schemes, part-time job incentive schemes, jobs clubs and local employment services and from participating in all other forms of training other than that supplied by private companies such as Seetac and Turas Nua. [40185/15]
This question arises from the need for clarification in respect of the company or companies granted the contract for dealing with long-term jobseekers, the contract known as JobPath. Do those involved understand fully the implications of being landed with a JobPath interview?
I should first note that we have reached another milestone today in getting people back to work. There are now 1.983 million people at work and the unemployment rate has fallen below 9% to 8.9%. As a consequence of the significant increase in the number of people at work, we now have more tax revenue and greater capacity to invest, as announced, in primary and secondary schools across the country.
JobPath is a new approach to employment activation which is supporting people who are long-term unemployed. The long-term unemployment rate today has fallen to 5%. We have made very good progress for those most distant from the labour market in securing and sustaining full-time paid employment. Participants in JobPath will receive intensive individual supports to help them to address barriers to employment and assist them in finding jobs.
Each person is assigned a personal adviser who will assess his or her skills, experience, challenges and work goals. A personal progression plan will be drawn up that will include a schedule of activities, actions and job-focused targets. Participants are also provided with a range of training and development supports, including online modules, career advice, curriculum vitae, CV, preparation and interview skills. They will spend a year on JobPath and if they are placed in a job, they will continue to receive support for at least three months and up to 12 months while in employment.
JobPath is one of the range of activation supports, including schemes such as community employment, CE, and Tús, which cater for long-term unemployed jobseekers. In general - JobPath is not an exception - it is not possible for clients to participate in two separate schemes at the same time. In addition, given the need to manage the allocation of places effectively, the Department does not facilitate or encourage jobseekers to leave one scheme early in order to take up a place on another. This approach is particularly relevant in the case of JobPath, whereby providers are paid on the basis of outcomes. It is important that service providers have the opportunity and time to achieve the outcome, which is to help the jobseeker to secure and sustain full-time employment. However, jobseekers can be referred to relevant education, training modules and the like.
The Minister's opening gambit contradicts the logic behind the JobPath scheme. She has already shown that people will find work by themselves or with the help of Intreo offices and the job activation schemes already in place without introducing this scheme. However, a debate on JobPath is for another day. The Minister's statement confirms some of what I believe is happening. Some people have been waiting for places on some of the schemes I mentioned in my question such as the community employment and job incentive schemes or for opportunities that have been flagged with them by local employment services. The Minister is saying if they are placed on JobPath in the meantime, they will be foregoing such opportunities. There are sometimes cases where people wish to access a scheme that will give them a level 5 qualification in child care, for example. This type of community employment scheme is available. Is it possible for Turas Nua or Seetac to refer people to it, if that is the best career path for them, or home help or some of the other schemes that have opportunities available for people to pursue?
It is important to note that jobseekers can be referred to relevant employment focused further education and training opportunities provided under the auspices of education and training boards, ETBs, and others while on JobPath. In such cases the engagement period with JobPath will be adjusted. In other words, in a situation where people might be undertaking FETAC level 4, 5 or 6 courses, that would be factored into the equation. However, if somebody is on JobPath, it is an intensive year to help him or her to find a job. The start of it is making a career progression plan by working with the adviser and the local Intreo office and then working on skills such as CV preparation and certain other skills that they might need to improve to be able to avail of employment. The scheme has already started on a limited basis and the results so far are very promising. I have met some of the people involved. The objective is to give everybody across the range of supports the Department offers an opportunity to get back into or find work in the first place.
It may deliver results in some cases but, as I argued, it is not anything that could be delivered through the public service or through the changes the Minister brought about in the Intreo offices. All of what the Minister described sounds good but the experience to date is that people referred to JobPath cannot access a community employment scheme and, even if it is to their liking or part of a beneficial career path for them, they are being discouraged by JobPath officials. Either there is a communication problem or the officials are not aware of all of the angles through which they can refer people back to the progression or activation measures or to education, given some of the activation measures have a component educational part. That is why I particularly mentioned the CE schemes that have education tied to them as part of the person's activation scheme and the progression path the person builds up, which starts with Intreo.
As the Deputy knows, we have completely reorganised the provision of the training and education in regard to the areas referred to, particularly child care. This is in order to provide a qualification opportunity for everybody who goes into child care, whether that is at level 4, level 5 or, as is increasingly demanded, level 6. If such an individual was long-term unemployed and his or her interest was very much as the Deputy suggests, namely, to go into personal care, whether child care or elder care, obviously, the person would have to get qualifications to work in that field. Therefore, the schemes aim to provide a structure, for example, working in a community-based crèche alongside training and education.
I would anticipate that the person the Deputy is talking about would discuss this with his or her local Intreo case officer and seek to get a place. However, there are also people who have no particular idea what it is they would like to do. It may be they have had spells of employment and then unemployment, given Job Path is for people who are more than one year unemployed. What we must do is increase employment opportunities, which is what JobPath is going to do for us.
62. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will address, the anomalies in relation to the coding of part-time farmers as self-employed in her Department, even if they engage in off-farm seasonal work as employees; that coding them as self-employed excludes them from obtaining a payment under the jobseeker's benefit scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40182/15]
This question arises from a situation that has arisen in local offices in Donegal in recent months, where unemployed people or those who try to claim jobseeker's benefit have been coded or, if that is not the right term, identified within the local office as self-employed farmers rather than people who work in casual work or seasonal work. Therefore, because they have been classified as self-employed farmers, they are being excluded from jobseeker's benefit because, as the Minister knows, one of the conditions is that the person has to be available for work. These people are available for work but, because of this coding, they are being excluded.
The jobseeker's benefit scheme provides income support for people who lose work and who have the required number of social insurance contributions. The 2015 Estimates for the Department provide for expenditure on jobseeker’s benefit of €407 million.
Individuals who are self-employed cannot typically access jobseeker’s benefit as class S contributions do not qualify a person for jobseeker’s benefit. However, a self-employed person who has sufficient social insurance contributions as an employee could qualify for jobseeker’s benefit provided he or she either gives up his or her self-employment or his or her self-employment is considered to be subsidiary employment, which is one of the situations referred to by the Deputy. To be considered as subsidiary employment, the relevant employment should be in addition to the jobseeker’s usual employment. In addition, either the amount of earnings or profit from the occupation cannot exceed €12.70 per day, or the jobseeker must have a minimum of 117 PRSI contributions paid immediately preceding the date of the claim or in respect of the last three contribution years.
I am not completely clear on what the Deputy means by coding. However, it may be possible for a part-time farmer, who has a very low income from farming, less than €12.70 per day, or who has the required number of social insurance contributions as an employee, 117 PRSI contributions, to qualify for jobseeker’s benefit. The individual must satisfy all conditions of the jobseeker’s benefit scheme, including being available for and genuinely seeking full-time employment.
If the jobseeker does not have the relevant number of contributions, he or she may be eligible for jobseeker’s allowance. Alternatively, if his or her earnings from part-time farming are higher than the €12.70 limit for subsidiary employment, he or she may qualify for farm assist. I understand the Deputy has already discussed this issue with the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys, but I will ask my officials to look at the issue. Any cases the Deputy is aware of would be of help in that examination.
The people in question have met all of the conditions outlined by the Minister in regard to the required number of contributions, including the fact their farming income was below €12.70 per day. The only reason they were refused jobseeker's benefit was because the local office identifies them as self-employed farmers. It is for that reason they were refused access to jobseeker's benefit. I have been in contact with the Minister of State on this issue and I acknowledge the work he has done on it.
Over the summer months, I dealt with 17 appeals. All of these have not been decided but all bar one of those that have been decided have been upheld as having an entitlement. Four appeals remain outstanding. I believe a decision has been taken within the local offices to identify people as self-employed farmers, although in reality they are not. They may be part-time farmers who make an income tax return on their farm income but they are not self-employed farmers and are not paying class S contributions either.
In regard to these specific cases, departmental policy has not changed. However, the Department is currently in the process of issuing revised guidelines which will provide greater clarity to deciding officers when dealing with similar cases that involve subsidiary employment. These revised guidelines will state that in cases where a person has previously been assessed as having had subsidiary employment, for example, part-time employment, provided there is no change to the scale of this part-time employment, it should continue to be regarded as subsidiary. This means that where the individual has the appropriate social insurance contributions, 117, or the earnings from the part-time employment continue to be €12.70 or less per day, the part-time employment will continue to be regarded as subsidiary employment for the purpose of assessing an individual's entitlement to jobseeker's benefit.
I welcome that guidance and I hope it gets out to all the local offices. However, the situation remains that people are being identified within local offices as self-employed farmers, which automatically implies they have no entitlement to the jobseeker's benefit. This situation has caused extreme hardship for many people. If my office has had to deal with 17 cases, there could be many more that have not come to the attention of a Deputy or many others could have accepted the response from the local office and lost out on entitlements. This issue needs to be addressed in the local offices and people should not be classified as self-employed when they are not.
I do not think the problem is an issue of coding, although that may make it more identifiable. I believe that what has happened over the years is that a deciding officer has made a particular decision and then the decision has been appealed and upheld. We are now in the process of looking at that situation to ensure the guidelines are clearer.
I appreciate that it is an important matter for the individuals involved. We will continue to keep it under review.
63. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her views on the adequacy of payments under the rent supplement scheme, given the increase in rents nationally and that approximately 1,500 children are living in emergency accommodation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [40184/15]
I hope to ascertain whether the Government is considering introducing a temporary increase in rent supplement to supplement its recent package on rents and for the homeless.
Primary responsibility for the provision of emergency accommodation rests with local authorities, as the Deputy well knows. The Department’s role with regard to homeless persons is mainly income maintenance.
Rent supplement plays a vital role in housing families, with the scheme currently supporting approximately 63,000 people, at a cost of €298 million in 2015. Properties are being secured under the scheme, with over 17,200 rent supplement tenancies awarded this year. A review of rent limits earlier this year found that the impact of increasing limits at a time of constrained supply - we all recognise that the problem is constrained supply - would increase costs disproportionately for the Exchequer, with little or no new housing available to recipients. Rather than increasing limits, rent supplement policy will continue to allow for flexibility where landlords seek rents in excess of the limits for both existing customers and new applicants. The circumstances of tenants are considered on a case by case basis and rents are being increased above prescribed limits, as appropriate. This flexible approach has assisted approximately 4,700 households nationwide to retain their rented accommodation.
In addition, the Department, in conjunction with Threshold, operates a special protocol in the Dublin and Cork areas, where supply issues are particularly acute, with plans under way to extend it to Galway city. It should also be noted that under the exceptional needs payments scheme, assistance may also be provided towards rent deposits or rent advances, with over 2,100 payments made this year, at a cost of €1.1 million.
These measures and the reforms in the private rental sector announced last week will provide increased certainty for both tenants and landlords in the current market. I am continuing to keep the matter under close review. This work is ongoing in the Department.
I agree that the main underlying problem is supply. The Minister of State has mentioned flexibility and that rents can be increased above the cap limits on a case by case basis. I think he mentioned a figure of 4,000 cases in which that had been done.
It was 4,700.
There are over 64,000 people in receipt of rent allowance. The difficulty is that while supply takes time, there are 1,570 children living in emergency accommodation. They have no place to play or do their homework and are without any of the facilities one needs to enjoy a normal childhood. Rents nationally are in excess of 20% above rent supplement levels for a typical property. In urban areas the gap is wider, up to 40% in some cases. Does the Minister of State agree that, while controlling rent increases may assist some people at risk of losing their homes, it will not do anything for those who are already homeless?
I thank the Deputy for acknowledging the work of the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, in seeking to provide rent certainty. That will help to stem the number of people in rental accommodation. At least, they will have rent certainty for the next two years. Fortunately, the measure will prevent people from becoming homeless.
We all rightly have grave concern about children living in hotel accommodation. However, as far as we can see, before they became homeless, the vast majority were not actually living in rent supplement accommodation. There are a number of measures being introduced by the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly. Deputy Willie O'Dea might, therefore, be better off asking him a parliamentary question.
It is certainly to the forefront of his agenda. In addition to providing rent certainty, there is flexibility in respect of the allowance and the HAP system operating in Limerick, which has been quite successful, and several hundred new tenants being dealt with through the HAP. This is a priority and we are working diligently to make sure that we have results as soon as possible.
Perhaps this question is better addressed to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Why has there been no increase in the HAP cap levels in Limerick because we have a severe problem there? There are 5,500 people on the housing list with about 40 houses available for renting as I speak.
Focus Ireland, which is at the coalface of this problem, issued a statement in the aftermath of the Government's package. It said that, "The package risks not stemming the constant flow of 70 to 80 families a month losing their homes and becoming homeless in Dublin alone. This problem is also rising now in other major cities nationwide such as Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford". Rent supplement has not been raised in three years despite rents rocketing by 30% to 40% in this period. We need to close the gap between this payment and actual rents. These households need an increase in rent supplement now to keep them in their current homes.
Many voluntary groups such as the Peter McVerry Trust have welcomed what the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has done in respect of this issue. As the Deputy knows, the HAP is operating in Limerick and is working well there. I understand there are 960 HAP payments in the Limerick area, of which 510 are for new applicants. I would like to ensure that nobody is in danger of becoming homeless but there is flexibility within the rent allowance scheme. The HAP allows for an uplift in respect of that. Significantly, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government has given 100% mortgage interest relief to landlords where they commit to accommodating tenants in receipt of the HAP or rent supplement for a minimum period of three years. This will keep a number of units within the process. Of the 960 HAP tenancies in place in Limerick, approximately 450 transferred from rent supplement with the remaining 510 cases being new applicants. In many ways, the HAP is working well in Limerick.
64. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection if she will consider widening the eligibility criteria for participation in community employment schemes to facilitate adult dependants, those not in full employment, those on low hours or on low pay who do not qualify for family income supplement, and those who are not in receipt of a Social Protection payment. [40186/15]
I ask this question to ascertain whether the Minister will live up to a commitment made in Pathways to Work 2014-2015, which stated that the Department would develop and evaluate options to extend employment services to people who are not on the live register and improve the promotion and communication of existing activation options, particularly for those who are unemployed or underemployed or whose caring regime is nearing an end.
All current schemes are kept under review in respect of how well they work. Community employment, CE, is the largest employment programme administered by the Department and is a valuable resource for both jobseekers and communities. The Deputy knows the work done by CE schemes in the Ballyfermot area. Currently, there are almost 22,500 participants and nearly 1,400 supervisors employed on the programme at a cost of approximately €373 million in 2015. As the Deputy will be aware, CE aims to enhance the employability and mobility of disadvantaged and unemployed persons by providing work experience and training opportunities for them within their communities. In addition, it helps long-term unemployed people to re-enter the active workforce by breaking their experience of unemployment through a return to a regular work routine.
Currently, to be eligible for CE, a person must be in receipt of one of a number of social welfare payments such as jobseeker's allowance or one parent family payment for 52 weeks. This is in keeping with commitments in Pathways to Work to target initiatives at those who are long-term unemployed.
However, it should be noted there is special provision for individuals who are stabilised drug users and ex-offenders. They are not required to be in receipt of a social welfare payment in order to be referred to CE by an appropriate agency.
The adult dependant of a social welfare claimant is not eligible for CE in his or her own right as eligibility rests with the main claimant only. Family income supplement, FIS, is not a qualifying payment for CE and CE participants are excluded from claiming FIS while employed on the programme.
Persons engaged in short-term, part-time employment may be eligible for CE if they have been employed no more than 30 days in the previous 12 months. If they exceed 30 worked days in that time, they fall outside the definition of long-term unemployed for the programme eligibility purposes, as they have proved themselves to be capable of finding and retaining employment.
However, it is worth noting that there is a range of options open to those who do not qualify for CE. In this context, the Department’s Intreo office staff will be happy to advise clients of the intervention that might best suit their individual needs. There is a significant drop, according to today's figures, in long-term unemployment and people who were in part-time work are going into full-time work, which is quite welcome.
We discussed this recently at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection and there is a range of people not captured by social welfare payments, for example, people who work two hours a day and do not have any family do not qualify for jobseeker’s allowance and would have to give up their work to get the allowance and to qualify to access to the CE schemes.
In respect of adult dependants there are cases where it would be problematic for people to have their payments separated in the home. This applies particularly to stay-at-home mums who want to re-engage with the workforce. If there is increased capacity because of the change in job availability would the Minister, instead of reducing the job activation places retain them at the current level to ensure that those who are unemployed or underemployed, or who have been out of touch with the workforce can get some training and access to training at an early stage, rather than having to go on to jobseeker’s allowance for long periods before they can qualify?
I thank the Deputy because it is not very often that Sinn Féin acknowledges that there is an increase in job availability but the numbers are improving. It is great to see people going back to work and when they do so it is certainly better for their families.
There are several schemes and training programmes available: Springboard offers 9,000 free places; Skillnet actively supports and works with businesses to address their current and future skill needs, which enables people to access its activities; the education and training boards, ETBs, run several education and training courses and there are other training schemes under SOLAS, the back-to-education programme and community traineeships. These programmes endeavour to maximise the number going back to work. I encourage people in that situation to engage with their local Intreo offices to make sure they are aware of what is available to them and what they can access. It is in all our interests to get as many back to work as possible and make sure they have the skills to take up those responsibilities.
I am aware of some of those courses but they do not capture everyone. There are people who fall through the cracks. I have referred such people to the Intreo offices and some have come back frustrated because there was nothing available. Some have been shown a career path or educational path to help them engage in the workplace or at least enhance their curriculum vitae.
The Minister of State mentioned the back to education allowance. There is a restriction on that in that one must be unemployed for nine months, therefore, there are specific instructions in this regard. I am trying to be positive. What I am saying is not a criticism. If the change we are starting to see continues at that rate, rather than reducing the numbers of job activation places we should hold them at that number and try to capture those people currently not on the live register. That would give them greater opportunities in the future, especially carers. A large group of carers who are caring full-time came to see me about this issue. Prior to the ending of care when people know in advance when it is ending they may want to engage for a short period in making sure there is a seamless transition from caring to work.
I accept that the Deputy is being constructive in his suggestion, and we have been working with the Carers Association. As people move back into work it opens up other opportunities because it gives the Government further flexibility. One of the positive measures the Tánaiste has introduced within the Department of Social Protection is that there is a constant review to ensure the schemes do what they say on the tin, so to speak. As more people go back to work there will be opportunities to look at other areas, and I will be open to looking at the area the Deputy mentioned also.
