Revised Estimates for Public Services 2016 (Resumed)
I move the following Revised Estimates for the justice Vote group:
ICT capital is €34 million, including the first tranche of the capital investment plan of €205 million. I thank the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform under the stewardship of the former Minister, Deputy Howlin, for the work relating to the development of that ICT infrastructure, which was so essential. In total, €330 million, including €205 million under the capital plan, is being invested in Garda ICT infrastructure between 2016 and 2021 to enable An Garda Síochána to deploy the latest cutting-edge technologies in the fight against crime. Having this type of coherent ICT plan in place is long overdue.
In respect of building capital, €50 million is provided for the contractual costs of the construction of three new divisional headquarters as well as a refurbishment programme of stations throughout the country. This was agreed last year and a priority programme was developed in conjunction with and dictated by An Garda Síochána which identified the stations in need of refurbishment. As I have already said, we have the new builds as well.
A total of €6 million was invested in the Garda fleet. This was to ensure that we had a modern, effective and fit-for-purpose Garda fleet. This will continue under the capital plan 2016-2021, which provides €46 million for new Garda vehicles, ensuring that gardaí can be mobile, visible and responsive on the roads and in the community to prevent and tackle crime. This is in addition to €34 million already invested in the fleet since 2012 with more than 720 new vehicles coming on stream since the start of 2015. This must continue and accelerate because the need is out there. It has been clearly identified that we need to replace the old fleet and continually update the fleet.
The Government has consistently made it clear that it would fund whatever measures were needed for An Garda Síochána to best tackle the critical and unprecedented challenges they currently face. The provision of additional funding in the current year is essential in the context of the challenges that An Garda Síochána is currently facing.
These additional moneys are made available based on information from Garda management regarding the level of funding required to maintain the necessary policing response to the current situation on an ongoing basis. This will allow for the kind of concentrated policing targeted operations we need. It will allow for the continuation of the continued intensive and strategic targeting of burglaries and related crime through ongoing support for Operation Thor. We are getting very good results from that. It shows that a specific operation that is very clearly targeted on a particular issue, which is the way of modern policing, gets results. It will also allow for continued support for measures against international terrorism. I have just come from a meeting with the Garda Commissioner and her senior staff where we discussed the interoperability of the various databases and Ireland's situation regarding that interoperability, which is so essential to manage international crime, cyber-crime and terrorism. It is essential that we update the databases we have because we are behind in respect of this. The provision of immediate additional funding is both necessary and welcome but the Government is also committed to ensuring that An Garda Síochána is well resourced and capable of providing a strong and visible police presence throughout the country well into the future.
The programme for a partnership Government commits to continuing the ongoing accelerated Garda recruitment programme with a view to increasing Garda numbers to 15,000. In accelerating recruitment, we must ensure that we have the resources for proper training, support and supervision when gardaí leave Templemore. Mistakes were made previously when high numbers entered Templemore but we did not have the necessary supervision and training. This has been identified in both the O'Higgins report and the Garda Inspectorate reports. At the same time as these investments are continuing, the Commissioner has announced her own programme of reform, better management and change management within An Garda Síochána. This is essential.
My Department is engaging with the Public Appointments Service as a matter of priority in respect of the preparation of a recruitment plan for the next five years that will deliver increased numbers of gardaí without any compromise in respect of the quality of those recruited or the training programme. Work is under way on increasing civilianisation and where appropriate, identifying the number of gardaí carrying out duties that could be taken on by civilians. I have been alerted by other police forces to the need to do this in a very careful way so that the right jobs are freed up and this is handled appropriately. The Garda Inspectorate identified 1,500 jobs that it felt could be freed up in this manner but An Garda Síochána does not agree with this assessment. We are having ongoing discussions to look into the numbers where we can move forward in respect of civilianisation. We are committed to increasing the recruitment of civilians to provide expertise in relevant administrative areas and free up gardaí for front-line policing duties. We will replace the gardaí working in Terminal 2 at Dublin Airport with civilians at the end of the year. Advertisements appeared in newspapers recently in respect of that ongoing process and the process has already happened at Terminal 1.
Deputies will appreciate that increasing resources alone will not defeat the scourge of gang-related and associated crime that currently impacts parts of our cities and country. We need a comprehensive range of measures, including legislative measures to combat the threats from serious and organised crime. We will have a dedicated Garda armed support unit for the Dublin area, which is in the process of being set up. The Garda Commissioner has recently announced the establishment of a new Garda special crime task force under the drugs and organised crime bureau to augment the response to organised crime at a local level through concentrated policing and through a multi-agency approach to targeting the proceeds of crime. The impact of international co-operation cannot be stressed enough. At the recent EU Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg, I met bilaterally with Ministers from Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium to discuss international co-operation and how it could be pursued further to deal with organised crime groups operating in those countries that impact Ireland.
An Garda Síochána is working closely with community representatives in the north inner city. A programme relating to that task force will developed over the coming weeks. More consultation must be carried out, as the House has been informed, but that will develop over the coming weeks.
I have already spoken about ongoing civilianisation. Deputies will see that I have addressed this in more detail in the speech that has been circulated. I am conscious of the time.
I wish to alert people to the work that is being done in the prisons in terms of the prison estate and the money that has been put into that. Further work needs to be carried out in Portlaoise and Limerick to bring the estate up to the appropriate standard. Substantial refurbishment and extension work is being carried out in seven courthouse venues in Drogheda, Letterkenny, Limerick, Wexford, Cork, Mullingar and Waterford. Deputies will be very pleased to see a new development where a site has been acquired at Hammond Lane for the development of a new family law court complex. This is urgent and work has begun on the planning for that new service there.
As Deputies will appreciate, there is much that is taking place in the justice and equality sector. I am grateful to my colleagues in Government, particularly the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and his officials for their support for the necessary additional funding for An Garda Síochána. I look forward to support from this House and a constructive debate on these Estimates.
Vote 16 — Valuation Office (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €9,491,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Valuation Office and certain minor services.
Vote 20 — Garda Síochána (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €1,441,548,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Garda Síochána, including pensions, etc.; for the payment of certain witnesses' expenses and for payment of certain grants, and that a sum not exceeding €6,644,000 be granted by way of the application for capital supply services of unspent appropriations, the surrender of which may be deferred under section 91 of the Finance Act 2004.
Vote 21 — Prisons (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €318,651,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Prison Service and other expenses in connection with prisons, including places of detention and for payment of certain grants.
Vote 22 — Courts (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €63,669,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Courts Service and of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, the Special Criminal Court, the Circuit Court and the District Court and of certain other minor services as are not charged to the Central Fund.
Vote 23 — Property Registration Authority (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €30,434,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Property Registration Authority.
Vote 24 — Justice and Equality (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €350,416,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Probation Service staff and of certain other services, including payments under cash-limited schemes administered by that office, and payment of certain grants.
Vote 25 — Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €6,190,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and for payment of certain grants.
Vote 41 — Policing Authority (Revised Estimate)
That a sum not exceeding €2,640,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Policing Authority.
I welcome the opportunity to present the Revised Estimates for 2016 in respect of the justice Vote group to the Dail. That Vote group is made up of eight Votes with a combined gross expenditure allocation of just over €2.458 billion in 2016. The net expenditure allocation is €2.2 billion.
I will give the House an overview of the main expenditure areas across the Vote group but before getting to the specifics I should say I am pleased with the funding level available to the sector in 2016, an increase of over 6% on the corresponding Revised Estimates for 2015. The Government recently approved substantial additional funding to An Garda Síochána which is reflected in the Revised Estimates currently under discussion. An additional allocation of €55 million will be made available for the remainder of 2016; this includes the €5 million announced in February. This funding comprises €40 million additional Exchequer funding plus €15 million which will be funded from projected savings based on analysis of expenditure trends elsewhere in the justice and equality sector. The €15 million savings within the justice Vote group will be reassigned to the Garda Vote in a technical measure later in the financial year.
The gross expenditure Estimate for the Garda Síochána, Vote 20, is €1.55 billion which amounts to 64% of the funding for the entire Vote group. The Estimate for 2016 also includes an amount of €6.644 million carried forward from 2015 under the capital carryover provisions. Before the recently announced additional funding of €55 million, the 2016 Revised Estimates Volume, REV, published last December included increased funding of over €71 million compared with the original REV for 2015 after taking account of adjustments for non-recurring costs. Thus, the total additional funding for the Garda Vote in 2016 will amount to over €126 million by year end. Even allowing for the gross Supplementary Estimate of €43 million, €35.2 million net, for 2015, there is an overall increase in the Garda Vote of €83 million in 2016.
The main expenditure items include pay at €971 million, including an overtime budget of €91.5 million by year end.
I welcome this opportunity, which is my first one, to speak on the justice Vote group Estimates. Each year, this State spends a considerable amount of money on those elements within the control of the Department of Justice and Equality. It is extremely important that the elected Members of Dáil Éireann have an opportunity on behalf of the citizens who elect us to consider those Estimates and ensure that this significant amount of money is spent carefully and effectively on behalf of the people of Ireland.
It is instructive to note that the justice Vote is the fourth largest ministerial vote in terms of budgetary allocation. Only social protection, health and education exceed it. The total gross Estimate for justice for next year is in the region of €2.4 billion. It is important that we know where that money is being spent. It is also instructive to note how it is apportioned between the different elements under the control of the Department of Justice and Equality. The significant majority of the expenditure goes on the Garda Síochána, which accounts for some 63% of the total Vote. The Department of Justice and Equality, in terms of its management, accounts for 16.73% of the Vote. The prisons account for just over 13.5% of the Vote. In many respects the Courts Service is the poor relation, accounting for 4.5% of the Vote. There are also some other elements such as the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Policing Authority and the Property Registration Authority.
I will start by referring to the Estimate for the Garda Síochána. As the Minister has indicated, the expenditure in respect of the Garda Síochána is in the region of €1.4 billion for 2016. There are some aspects of the expenditure I wish to highlight. I note the expenditure that has been increased in respect of the Garda Reserve. We do not emphasise enough the potential of the Garda Reserve. It is an aspect of policing and assisting policing in this country that could be increased and improved and could be relied on more by the gardaí and the State for the purpose of less important policing activity. I am pleased that there was an increase in the amount of money available to the Garda Reserve. However, I would also like to see an increase in recruitment to the Garda Reserve and greater reliance placed upon it.
The document in respect of the Garda Síochána also identifies key outputs and public service activities in a number of matters concerning the Garda. One which I wish to refer to is the number of new recruits commencing at the Garda college. I welcome that the output target for 2016 is 600 new recruits, which is a considerable improvement on the output target of 2015. It is also noteworthy, as the Minister has said, that overtime allocation for Operation Thor has increased and it appears to be effective. The money appears to be well spent and we are getting a return on it in terms of the overtime, which is having an impact on burglaries and related crimes.
The Minister indicated today and previously that there has been an increase in funding for the Garda Síochána and, as I and my party have done before, I wish to welcome that additional funding. An additional allocation of €55 million is to be made available for the remainder of 2016, including €5 million that was announced in February. The funding is made up of €40 million in additional Exchequer funding plus €15 million to be funded from projected savings based on analysis of expenditure trends elsewhere in the justice and equality sector. However, it should be pointed out that until the Supplementary Estimate of €40 million was announced, the Garda budget on the current side was set to fall from €1.446 billion in 2015 to €1.421 billion, which would have been a fall of €25 million. It appears the extra €40 million announced on the current side means a net increase of around €15 million compared to the outturn in 2015. Notwithstanding that, we welcome the additional funding. We believe that further additional funding may be required in due course if we are to ensure that the policing strategy in this country is effective in terms of fighting crime in Dublin and throughout the country.
The Vote for the Policing Authority, as a percentage of the money we spend on the Garda Síochána, is minuscule. All that is provided for in the Vote is €2.64 million. I do not criticise the amount being spent, nor do is say it is too low, but I wish to emphasise that the Policing Authority is an authority that can be used by the State to ensure we get greater oversight of the Garda Síochána and improvements in management and supervision. I hope to see the Policing Authority driving through some of the necessary changes in the Garda Síochána that the Minister and most other Members of this House recognise are required. One of the requirements of the Policing Authority in the coming year is to publish a code of ethics for members of the Garda Síochána. I welcome that important development. The role of the Policing Authority, acting as oversight for the Garda, is something we should examine and ensure that it is carried out effectively.
The Vote for prisons in 2016 is €318 million. Some useful information is provided in the documents furnished by the Department with regard to the prison Vote, not only in respect of the prison capacity but also in respect of those who are on structured temporary release. I welcome the provision of this information. I also welcome the likely dramatic decrease in the number of prisoners without 24-hour access to in-cell sanitation in 2016. The 2015 output target was 285; the 2016 output target is 80. We have to ensure there is that level of humanity in how we treat our prisoners. I note that the qualitative statements of outputs and activities recorded in respect of the 2015 output target place stronger emphasis and focus on motivating sex offenders and violent offenders to participate in appropriate offence or behaviour-related programmes. We need to do more than motivate; as time progresses, we need to ensure that individuals who are in prison for serious offences are required and mandated to undergo such training.
It is also instructive to note that we still have serious addiction issues in respect of prisoners in prison. The number of prisoners who received opiate substitution treatment such as methadone in 2013 was 1,922. In 2014 this rose to 2,305, which is approximately 12% of our prison population. It indicates the problems we have with drug abuse and the drug problems that prisoners have, which we need to tackle in the future.
I previously described the Courts Service, perhaps unfairly, as the poor relation, but all it gets is €63 million under the Vote. Notwithstanding that, the output from the courts is commendable and deserves to be recognised. With regard to the number of sittings of the Court of Appeal and the High Court as well as civil sittings, the output target was 4,700 in both 2015 and 2016. In view of the fact that we only have 45 judges in the Court of Appeal and the High Court combined, we can see that there is a considerable amount of work being done. Work is being done at a considerable rate. It is noted in the Revised Estimates that the target is based on the maximum possible number of court sitting dates and the availability of a full complement of judges. One of my concerns is that for over six months there have been vacancies in the Court of Appeal and the High Court which need to be filled in order to enable judges to deal with the entitlement of citizens to get their cases heard quickly.
Another point that should be made in respect of supporting the Judiciary is that Ireland, although not unique, is in the minority in that we do not have a judicial college in this country. That is something that is being explored and that we need to move further on.
Of the €350 million allocated to the justice and equality Vote, a considerable amount of money is devoted to ensuring we have an efficient, responsive and fair immigration system. That is something we need to work on, because the delays in it are too long. We need to ensure that the system becomes more effective and user-friendly.
I will try not to cover ground already covered by Deputy O'Callaghan. My party welcomes the additional funding being provided for law enforcement this year. The Ireland for all that we campaigned for this year is one in which communities are protected. A strong community is a safe community, and keeping homes and streets safe from crime is a core priority for our party, which requires increased resources.
The confidence and supply arrangement that Fianna Fáil has agreed with Fine Gael provides for an increase in Garda numbers to 15,000, investment in CCTV and mandating the Policing Authority to oversee a review of the boundaries of Garda districts and the disbursement of Garda stations, all of which were key priorities for my party in the recent election. We certainly will be vigilant in monitoring the delivery of these commitments.
Regarding the need for more gardaí to work on front-line duties, building on the findings of the Garda Inspectorate report, there is a clear need to ramp up the use of civilian staff in the force to alleviate the burden of administrative duties on gardaí. New workforce planning and outsourcing of certain non-essential duties that do not require a sworn officer would certainly help free up gardaí to get them back on the beat, visible in their communities and directly tackling crime. In one station in Kildare last year, more than 5,000 passport applications were signed at 20 minutes each. This is not a good use of Garda time.
Strong community relations are the bedrock of an effective police force. However, the imbalance in community gardaí across the country is damaging local links to the force. We need to cover all Garda districts to ensure that a community garda is based in each area with strong links to the local community. For example, County Kildare does not have one community garda. How can resources be so misappropriated when, for example, Bray has 13 community gardaí?
In relation to Garda stations, the closure of the stations in Ballitore and Ballymore Eustace in my county has been devastating and the resulting burden that has been placed on the remaining resources is far too onerous. Currently, the ratio in Kildare is one per 697 persons, while the national average is one per 335. This is wrong. There is a significant potential threat in the future following the closure of rural Garda stations. It is the wrong policy as it jeopardises the security of countless communities and homes. The decision to extinguish the blue light of the local station sent a clear message to criminals that resulted in a wave of burglaries hitting cities, towns and villages around the country, and while there was a decrease nationally of 2.2% in theft and related offences, the rate of such crimes has doubled in my county. The paltry savings from these closures, which I understand amounted to €500,000, did not justify the deeply damaging impact on the communities they served. As a party, we believe there should be a Garda Inspectorate report on the 139 station areas to gauge the impact of the closures and make recommendations on whether each station should be reopened or, in cases in which the building has been sold, a new station established.
We also believe there should be a new victims' law and a victim surcharge. The victims of crime need to be fully supported. Too often, the justice system appears to be balanced in favour of criminals and repeat offenders while ordinary people who fall prey to criminality are left unrecognised.
I have a few points on the equality aspect. I would draw the Minister's attention to the International Protection Act 2015. The Estimates provide for the commencement of this Act as an output target. Last week, of course, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission raised this issue and called on the Government to move without delay in implementing in full the recommendations of a steering group on reform of the direct provision system. I note the statement by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, that several of the recommendations would be provided for and commenced later this year. When will this happen? When will the sections be commenced? The Act was passed before Christmas.
When will the proposed family leave Bill be published? The Estimates provide for its enactment as a 2016 output target. We have a paternity Bill this week, but is further legislation planned for publication and enactment this year? Finally, on other strategies promised, I would appreciate if the Minister could be specific on when we will see the new LGBTI strategy and new Traveller and Roma inclusion strategies.
I now call on Deputy Jonathan O'Brien.
Deputy O'Brien is not here. I am deputising for him.
Is Deputy Cullinane sharing time?
Deputy Cullinane is speaking instead of Deputy O'Brien.
I will not take the full 15 minutes. First, I apologise to both the House and the Minister on behalf of an Teachta O'Brien, who was not able to make it for personal reasons. Obviously, the Deputy would have been here if he could, and he asked me to raise a number of points on his behalf.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on these figures today. One of the issues that an Teachta O'Brien asked me to raise with the Minister was that it would have been preferable for these issues and the Estimates to be dealt with at the justice committee, as has been the case in the past. I am a member of the Select Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach, which was attended today by the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, who spoke about the Estimates in his Department. That was done at committee level. As a matter of good practice, it is a better way to deal with these issues. Deputy O'Brien asked me to say that from the outset.
I welcome the additional €40 million being given to An Garda Síochána. We all have been crying out for additional resources for An Garda Síochána for many years. Those of us who were in opposition for years and those who are now in opposition, along with those in government who wanted to spend more money in this area but could not at the time, can all welcome the fact that this €40 million of additional funding is being made available. I also note that a further €15 million will be reassigned to the Garda Vote from elsewhere within the justice group in a technical measure later in the year. It is essential that the Minister stipulate exactly where the additional €15 million is coming from. It would be madness - there would be no point - to rob Peter to pay Paul, if Members will pardon the pun. We need to see where else exactly within the Minister's overall budget this funding will come from.
I also note that there is an allocation of €875 million in capital funding for the justice sector alongside multiple public-private partnership, PPP, projects. My party's position on PPPs is a matter of public record and we would question the wisdom of significant PPP investment in much-needed infrastructure when the record of delivery in this area has been far from ideal. The PPPs will be used to develop Garda projects, yet we have not received any real detail of what these projects are.
We have also called on numerous occasions for money seized by the Criminal Assets Bureau to be ring-fenced and channelled back into the communities that are most affected by crime. Indeed, this was Fine Gael policy in the early 2000s, yet it never happened. I note as well that an important meeting took place between the Taoiseach and representatives from the inner city area of Dublin to deal with the real issues of criminality in that community, but also the issues of disadvantage and underdevelopment and the need to invest in these communities. Would that not be one way of doing so, and is there any reason it has not been done in the past? As I said, it was formerly a policy of the Minister's party. It would make sense.
Apparently, an investment of €205 million has been allocated for the new Garda Síochána technology systems, but the anecdotal evidence from gardaí on the beat is that they are still using their own mobile phones on occasion to communicate. If additional funding has been allocated for new technology systems, that should not be happening. The Minister might comment on that as well.
Irish justice policy has been characterised in the past by waste and an illogical and unproductive emphasis on imprisonment when the State would have been far better to invest in crime prevention measures and schemes that have a demonstrable effect on reducing reoffending. We acknowledge that there have been some moves in this direction in recent years and we were supportive of those moves when they were put in place by the previous Government, but there is still scope for significant improvement in this area. There are large numbers of people who end up in the criminal justice system who would be far better off receiving assistance from the social work and health care systems. I am not talking about those who are involved in the big crimes. I am not talking about the drug lords or those at the heart of the criminality that is terrifying people on the streets of Dublin. I am talking about the lower levels of crime, where it need not always be about imprisonment. It is about adopting more creative ways of dealing with offenders, but also more productive ways and ways that benefit both the person who has offended and the State. As I said, I acknowledge the good work that has been done in this area, but we have an awful lot more to do.
Preventative measures that work will reduce crime. Knee-jerk responses have never worked. Snappy soundbites do not work. I have seen far too much of that in the past. I am not accusing the Minister of this, but I have seen many former Ministers for justice beat their chests and talk tough when it comes to crime, yet the real action does not happen and the resources are not being put to their appropriate use.
Politicians jump up and down and create much noise but unless it is backed up by resources and sound policy, that is all it amounts to. We need to see proper outcomes. Increased funds should be directed towards preventative measures, including investing in early intervention where there is systemic social and educational disadvantage, in conjunction with spending on supports to reintegrate former prisoners which are also key to crime reduction.
As I stated, I will not take the full 15 minutes but I am sure Teachta Jonathan O'Brien will raise various other issues with the Minister in due course.
I am sure the football lovers in the House are very grateful to Deputy Cullinane for his succinct presentation. I begin by agreeing very strongly with Deputy Cullinane on the mechanism for dealing with this issue. I am conscious that on this occasion I probably have an advantage over most people in the House in that I was involved in the construction of these subheads. The forensic process in committee is the way to go; it is the way this has happened over the past number of years and it has been very beneficial. All we can do in a debate like this is give a few general observations, without discussion back and forth. No doubt later in committee we will have the opportunity to deal more forensically with these issues.
I will deal, if I can, more thematically with some of the issues I intend to develop with the Minister, I hope, over the coming weeks, months or perhaps even years that we have in this Dáil. I begin with An Garda Síochána. It will come as no stunning shock to the Tánaiste that I have a very deep interest in the reform agenda. I warmly welcome the new Fianna Fáil spokesperson in the equality area to the debate and I paid very careful attention to her contribution. I ask people to think outside the box on all these matters. There is the notion that more is good, no matter what; it is as if I say we should have 15,000 gardaí and another Deputy argues there should be 16,000 gardaí, the latter argument is better. We really need to get objective analysis of how many gardaí we should have, what they should be doing and where they should be. I know colleagues from the Deputy's county have told us repeatedly there is no rhyme or reason for the number of gardaí in one Garda division as opposed to another. It is a matter of history and the disposition of Garda stations, as determined in the 1920s. We should have logical and modern analysis of how we deploy a force, the type of force we deploy and equipment given to that force. I classify that as smart policing.
We need to move away from the notion that with the number of Garda stations, no matter what it is, the more, the better. Surely the way we deploy policing in 2016 must be different from the way police forces were constructed in 1928, when members were on bicycles and did not even have telephones. My constituency has endured much burglary but that was done by organised gangs moving out of Dublin on the new motorways, and I suggest that it is a big part of the impact in places like Kildare as well. Therefore, operations like Thor - instanced by the Minister - are having an impact. We should move to smart policing to provide the type of equipment and information and communications technology that is required. Over time I hope to be able to develop those ideas with the Minister and work in consort with her. That is as opposed to the knee-jerk reaction that the old way we did things must be defended, and when we go to a public meeting, we must all say "Yes, let us do it as we have always done".
I am specifically interested in hearing what the €40 million is to be used for. There is €55 million but, as Deputy Cullinane noted properly, €15 million will be made in savings. Will the Minister instance where she sees those projected savings? They may or may not materialise, so there may or may not be €55 million at the end of the day. We should note that. There is community policing, smart policing and the role of the Garda authority in ensuring we are objectively making the right decisions, and not because there is local pressure in one geographical area over another. I wish I had more time but as I do not, I will move to a number of other items.
I know the House has focused on the north inner city and we must know what are the justice inputs into the new task force. Will the Minister tell us? I have repeatedly asked for the information and, bluntly, I have not got it. I raised the matter with the Taoiseach and on Leaders' Questions with the Minister, Deputy Bruton. I do not know the structure of the new task force, how it is to be funded and the justice input for it, including the resources the Tánaiste expects to deploy. When will we see it up and running?
I will briefly touch on the courts area, an issue that has already been raised. In the programme for Government, the parties and Independents in government promise an annual study on court efficiency and sitting times. The programme promises legislation to reduce excessive delays to trials and court proceedings. What exactly is envisaged by an annual study? Was that a sop? Who will cause the study to happen? Access to justice is an enormous issue for people, and many people feel intimidated by it. I received a letter today from a person who cannot even get legal advice; that person tried to get it but was told it would take €750 that the person does not have to get it and begin a process of getting justice. We must have a system of justice that is affordable and accessible.
I do not say it in trying to be discordant but the notion that our free legal aid system allows a Deputy paid triple the average industrial wage to get free legal aid means people do not have confidence in the system. We must ensure people genuinely denied access to justice can have a system working for them. I want to see the courts working in a way that is efficient, working and providing access for ordinary people. I want to hear what the annual study envisaged in the programme for Government is to be, who will carry it out and what the reform in the area will be.
With regard to prisons, we require a proper and accountable body, independent of the Department of Justice and Equality, to run our prison system. It should be a new and independent prison agency accountable to the Oireachtas. We had this discussion when debating a very fine Bill produced by Deputy Jim O'Callaghan relating to putting the parole board on a statutory basis. There should also be a new legislative framework to give the prison system statutory independence. That would be really important.
I will move to the probation and welfare service. I know Deputy O'Callaghan called the courts system the lesser beings in this great debate but everybody always characterises the probation and welfare service as the Cinderella service. It is a very important service that could do an enormous amount more than it is doing, keeping people out of prison and reducing recidivism. In speaking to people who have run the prison service, they can almost identify the schools from which they will see their clients of the future. With those in the system, they can tell who will be back again and again. That is a failure so if the probation and welfare system was reconstituted and underpinned by new statute law, it would have an enormous role to play in giving a different role model in providing justice for people and ensuring there will be fewer people in the prison system and recidivists going through revolving doors in prisons.
In the few minutes I have, I will mention direct provision. My colleague Senator Ó Ríordáin, a former Minister of State, drove the McMahon report as hard as he could. I acknowledge that very good progress has been made and the personal commitment of the Tánaiste in this regard. I have discussed the matter with her and heard her views. I know she feels strongly about it because this is the issue for which we will be held accountable in a decade for what we do in our time.
Although there were 173 recommendations from the McMahon report, and I understand about 140 of them have been implemented at least partially, we need to ensure that all of them are fully implemented and that they are fully resourced. We need to ensure that we provide a service and a support base to this vulnerable category of people living in our community, of which we should be proud, that we would expect to have ourselves in the awful event of Irish people needing that kind of support in another country and that we would expect our families to get if they were in desperate need of support. They are not getting that in the direct provision that we have collectively provided as a people over the last little while.
On 15 June, I raised with the Taoiseach the issue of funding for the Women's Aid 24-hour helpline. It was on foot of the very shocking facts - I do not want to use the word "statistics" - about violence against women in particular - domestic violence in the home. That is just the domestic violence that has been reported. So much goes unreported. Women are brutalised in their homes, behind closed doors and closed curtains, and they live in fear with their children. We need to ensure this is addressed. The very basic first step would be the provision of a 24-hour helpline. In response to my raising the issue on 15 June, the Taoiseach promised to investigate. I believe he was truly sympathetic, but I want to know what has happened on that matter. Has that resource been provided? It is a very basic resource. People who are in that dreadful situation - women who are terrorised in their own homes - should at least be able to pick up the phone and know they can talk to somebody on a 24-7 basis and that there is someone there to answer that call. That is the least that is required.
I want to mention two other brief matters before I conclude. The Garda authority is something I have sought for more than a decade. I produced legislation on that in the first years of this decade. I note that €2.5 million or €2.6 million has been allocated to the Garda authority. It is really important now that it is not only resourced but allowed to do international studies and look at best practice internationally, and that it is listened to in terms of implementation. I am very confident, because of the personnel selected to serve on the Garda authority, that it will certainly not be ignored. However, I want to hear that it will be the driver of the reform agenda that has been advocated by a number of independent groups, most emphatically the Garda Inspectorate itself, which is hugely detailed in the report it has compiled and the analysis it has done. There will be significant resistance to change. I can tell Members that as the Minister who was charged with reform for five years at the worst of times. Everybody sees the requirement for reform elsewhere, but very few see the requirement for reform in themselves. Bluntly, as the economy recovers, the status quo will reassert itself and the propensity to resist change will grow. We need to ensure the changes that are outlined actually happen and that all of us - this is what I said to my new Fianna Fáil colleague - approach these matters with an open mind. It is not simply a matter of doing business as we always have done.
My very final point relates to the capital programme, because there is a need for significant capital investment on the justice side. We tried to provide that in my own time, with very scarce resources, through both PPPs and direct Exchequer funding. Deputy Cullinane, who is gone, was very critical of PPPs. He was critical of the delay. I will give one concrete example, if Members will pardon the phrase. Originally there was a programme of work last year that was envisaged to be a joint PPP for both courthouses and Garda stations. I decided to divide this into Garda stations and courthouses, to see which would be the quicker, and actually the two were almost identical in terms of delivery time. Obviously the cost would be different, but that must be aggregated over the building's lifetime of 25 years, during which all maintenance, repair and so on will be provided, as in the school system. I would be cautious about PPPs, but we need to do a proper evaluation in a situation in which we have very scarce resources and the choice is between providing a facility and not providing it. We do need the family courts, the forensic lab and all the other things about which I know the Tánaiste will be knocking on the door of my successor. She would now have my very strong support on the need for resources to do these much-needed things.
I understand Deputy Bríd Smith is sharing time. Is that correct?
Yes. I am sharing time with Deputy Seamus Healy.
What is the ratio of time-sharing?
I will have ten minutes and Deputy Healy will have five minutes.
If one looked at it on paper, one would say an additional allocation in this budget is very welcome indeed. I want to query some of it, specifically the additional budget in relation to the Traveller initiative, where funding has been increased from €855,000 to €2.2 million. If I am not here at the end to hear the Minister's answer, I will check back on it tomorrow, but in 2015 the National Traveller Partnership budget of €1.2 million came through the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. This year, that funding stream was transferred to the Minister's Department, along with the national network funding, under the scheme to support national organisations, SSNO, which is normally allocated to the Irish Traveller Movement, ITM, the National Traveller Women's Forum and Pavee Point. That was also transferred to the Department of Justice and Equality and is approximately €200,000. This would mean that the difference between what we did have for Traveller initiative funding and what we do have may be made up of a transfer of funds from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to the Department of Justice and Equality rather than extra funding, because the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government would have spent the €1.2 million on the National Traveller Partnership budget and €200,000 on the National Traveller Women's Forum, the ITM and Pavee Point. Is this increase on paper, or is it a real increase and not just a transfer from one Department to the other? Does it, for example, include funding for local-based national organisations under the National Traveller Partnership, which was previously under the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and has now been transferred to the Department of Justice and Equality? We know there were previous claims of great increases in spending in the area of Traveller funding. For example, it was said that the housing budget was increased to €4.2 million. The Minister could say that is not directly her responsibility, but she is the Minister responsible for equality and Travellers tick all the boxes in suffering extreme inequality in this society. That €4.2 million was lauded as a great step forward in terms of funding for Traveller accommodation, but in fact it was not acknowledged that funding for Traveller accommodation in 2008 was in the region of €40 million. That lack of acknowledgement of what the Department is coming from and going to makes things look good, but in fact they are still very dismal. They still seem to look dismal for Travellers from a spending point of view, and the cuts implemented on the Travelling community during the austerity years were indeed - practically everybody with a heart in them acknowledges this - the most vicious, the deepest and the most heartless that could possibly have been made to any aspect of society. The Travelling community took most of the hits.
I will give a couple of examples of the withdrawal of State funding over the past five years. Inter-agency activities were cut by 100%. I was on the Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee, LTACC, on Dublin City Council for Traveller accommodation, and at the beginning we very much relied on the inter-agency model. Traveller education was cut by 86.6%. One may as well just tell the kids to go home and play on the site, because there is no point in educating them. Traveller accommodation lost 85%, equality lost 76.3% and the Traveller organisations were cut by 63%.
The Minister is probably saying to her officials that this is not her brief, but her brief is equality, and the most vicious, inhuman and cruel of these cuts have deeply increased inequality for Travellers vis-à-vis the rest of society. Travellers tick all the boxes for low life expectancy, low infant mortality rate, poor health and poor educational attainment. The suicide rate among Traveller men is 17 times that of the suicide rate in the rest of the population.
There has been an extraordinary level of disinvestment by the Irish State in the Traveller community. One of the most striking cases is the fact that statutory agencies did not even spend what was allocated to them. In the years when I was on the LTACC, there was a housing underspend of several million euro in a period when Travellers, like the rest of the population, were going through a housing crisis. Many Travellers were in private accommodation and - again, like the rest of the population - lost their accommodation because of soaring rents and ended up in homeless agencies. The underspend on health in that period was 18%. On equality, it was 28% and on accommodation, it was 26%. Much of this may be from the budgets of different Departments but, ultimately, the Minister is responsible for equality and we need to look carefully at what has happened to the Irish Traveller movement, particularly in the years of austerity.
We also need to think about how we are going to address it. How, for example, will we restore special assistants to Traveller children in normal mainstream schools? Two special assistants were cut from a school in Bluebell. They just disappeared because there was no budget for them but the school takes on the bulk of the Traveller population from Ballyfermot and its surrounds. Many of these people end up doing very well but not because the Minister's Department or the Department of Education and Skills are any great help to them. It is because of the dedication of teachers and parents and the determination of the children themselves.
The Cabinet needs to address Traveller accommodation, given the terrible tragedy that happened last winter when five young Travellers lost their lives in a dreadful fire. The State needs to look at this on an equality basis, not on the basis of throwing a few crumbs here and there. It needs to address the deep inequality that exists. Later on in the year, we hope to pursue this by pushing for legislation that recognises Traveller ethnicity and would legally bind the State to deal with them on an equal footing to the rest of the population.
I have a question on the integration, asylum and migration budget. As I understand it, it remains the same as last year, at €1.5 million, but we are supposed to be taking in extra refugees from Syria and war-torn and famine-stricken areas. This does not match up to any commitment we give to asylum seekers coming into the country. There is a slight increase in the immigration budget but that may be just to help the Irish immigration service, run by An Garda Síochána, to process people faster. Does it really deal with delivering a budget that will help us look after the needs of asylum seekers and their families?
These are a couple of things which I find challenging in the Estimates and I would like to hear the Minister's answer to them. I may be moving slightly outside the Minister's brief but she is Minister for Justice and Equality and holistically responsible for all the issues to do with the lives and livelihoods of Travellers. The lack of equality for Travellers ends up on the Minister's lap and we need to address it to stop visiting desperate inequality and tragedy on the Traveller community.
I welcome any increase in the justice budget, particularly an increase that goes to the Garda Síochána. However, there is serious discontent on a number of fronts within the force, not least within the area of pay and conditions of employment for members of the gardaí and for industrial relations generally. The swingeing cuts of the past number of years to pay and conditions of employment have undermined individual gardaí and their families and their ability to properly and fully carry out their functions in protecting the public. That has not been helped by the reductions in Garda numbers of up to 2,500 members, initiated by the previous Fianna Fáil-Green Party Government, which introduced the moratorium on recruitment and the non-filling of vacant posts. That reduction has heaped huge pressure on the gardaí as they try to fulfil their role in society. I acknowledge the commitment in the programme for Government to raise Garda numbers to 15,000, but there appears to be no timeframe for that. Perhaps this is something the Minister will address in her response to the debate.
The situation I have outlined has been raised publicly by the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors. They rightly demand that the area of pay and conditions of employment be addressed urgently, particularly the two-tier pay system now in place in An Garda Síochána, which should be abolished forthwith. There is also an issue with the pay of Garda recruits and there should be an immediate reinstatement to the pre-2008 attestation salary for all new Garda recruits. The salaries were arbitrarily cut by 10% by the last Government and new recruits now have a basic wage of little more than the minimum wage. They have lost the rent allowance of €4,017, which was always recognised, by the Conroy Commission and others, as being part of core pay. The cuts to pay and conditions must be reversed to ensure there is proper support for members of the Garda Síochána and proper policing within the State. The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors has already indicated that it will not be engaging in the modernisation and reform programme 2016-2021, announced recently by Commissioner O'Sullivan, until the whole question of pay and conditions is satisfactorily concluded. It points out that there are 100 reforms within the modernisation programme and these cannot be implemented without consultation with, and the co-operation of, the various Garda bodies, the Garda Representative Association and the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors in particular. It is time for gardaí to have the right to be represented by a trade union and to have all the rights associated with trade union membership, including the right to take industrial action.
I wish to raise one further issue, to which I intend to return on another occasion.
I am not quite sure whether the Minister herself, her officials or senior management in An Garda Síochána understand the devastation being caused by the illegal drug trade, and not just in places such as Dublin. In every town and village and at every crossroads in this country, drugs are easily available. Families are being absolutely destroyed by the trade. There is a focus on this in the Dublin area at the moment, and rightly so, but there are equally serious problems throughout the country. For instance, parents are being forced to pay the drug debts of their children. It has also contributed to significant rates of suicide among young males. There must now also be a focus on local areas and regional and local drug task forces. There needs to be a zero-tolerance approach to the issue, not just in the bigger cities such as Dublin but in every town and village and at every crossroads where these drugs are available throughout the country.
I now call on Deputy Thomas P. Broughan, who has 15 minutes and is sharing his time with Deputy Thomas Pringle. What ratio is to be applied? Is it 50-50?
Yes, it is 50-50.
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly on the topic of the Revised Estimates for the Tánaiste's Department. It has been widely reported that the €55 million, including the additional moneys and the money from savings in the Revised Estimates, is directly in response to the recent spate of horrendous gangland crimes and murders in the city. The Tánaiste promised on 8 June last that she was committed to funding "whatever measures were needed for An Garda Síochána to best tackle the critical and unprecedented challenges they currently face".
I am a member of the committee making arrangements for the new committee on budgetary scrutiny. I hope that when the budget committee is established, it will, along with the Department of Justice and Equality and the justice committee, have a strong relationship in assessing the Estimates for this Department and getting the best performance outputs.
I welcome the Tánaiste's commitment to increase the number of gardaí to 15,000. Does she intend to have another recruitment campaign this year? It is quite clear that the numbers in many areas of An Garda Síochána, such as the traffic corps, have been allowed to deteriorate severely, which has had a negative impact over the lifetime of the last Government. This has to be remedied. I welcome the resources that are being put into An Garda Síochána - or are promised to be put in - in central Dublin in the dedicated Garda armed support unit, and the other initiatives she mentioned. As stated by another speaker, I also hope the mini-CABs, which the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste have previously referred to, will be able to utilise the resources seized by the State to provide necessary social infrastructure in areas such as the centre of Dublin and areas of my constituency where there has been gross under-investment in such facilities.
The Tánaiste also stated that the additional funding would be used by An Garda Síochána to continue Operation Thor, which has been quite successful and reports to the Joint Policing Committee. I repeat that I welcome the committed attitude of senior gardaí to our local joint policing committees, in my own case in Dublin city and Fingal. I also welcome the additional resources being provided across programmes A to E. In programme B, there have been reports that there is a shortfall in the number of scientists necessary in the critical forensic investigation agency for it to do its important work. Has the Minister plans to remedy this shortfall? I noted also that under programme A, Leadership in and Oversight of Justice and Equality Policy and Delivery, 2015 and 2016 target outputs include the continued implementation of medium and long-term recommendations of the Garda Inspectorate in relation to the fixed charge processing system. In programme B, A Safe and Secure Ireland, there is reference to the context and impact indicator.
This year, 2016, is currently shaping up to be one of the worst years for road fatalities in a number of years, with 83 lives tragically lost as of Monday, 20 June, this week. The figure has increased by 17 compared to the same time last year. Yet the Revised Estimates and the Tánaiste's contribution barely mentioned the need to address all the areas of administration in respect of creating a safer road traffic environment. I know there are many competing aspects in trying to keep our citizens safe, and certain areas have to be prioritised. However, when one looks at the resources that have been cut from An Garda Síochána's traffic corps during the austerity years, there seems to be a clear correlation between those cuts and recent spikes in the number of traffic deaths. The strength of the dedicated traffic corps was 741 in 2015. We do not yet have the figures for 2016. The number of traffic corps personnel in 2014 was 749, in 2013 it was 811 and in 2012 it was 877. There has been a significant cut. The number of vehicles allocated to the traffic corps was also reduced from 295 in 2014 to 258 in 2015. This is clearly an area that the Tánaiste must address as soon as possible.
We also mentioned in a previous debate the unbearable criminality in the centre of our capital and the impact of the closure of stations, including significant stations in Dublin, and the reduction in Garda station strengths. These are important factors in the impact of the cuts on crime prevention. In her replies to me, the Tánaiste often stated that all members of An Garda Síochána take on traffic and road safety duties at times. However, the reverse is also true in that there are instances in which traffic corps personnel are redeployed for significant periods to other duties and cannot fulfil their primary function.
The Tánaiste has reported that €205 million has been made available to An Garda Síochána for much-needed ICT. I noted with interest that in the recent O'Higgins report, issues with the PULSE system were highlighted. Improvements in this area have long been championed by the road safety group PARC, Promoting Awareness, Responsibility & Care on our Roads, and its indefatigable leader Ms Susan Gray. I have tabled many parliamentary questions over the years regarding the failures of the PULSE system and its lack of interoperability with the operating systems of the courts and the RSA and other systems necessary for the safe policing of our roads and communities.
Most recently, I requested further information on the new hand-held devices reportedly being made available to gardaí on the beat. Unfortunately, no information was available from the Tánaiste's Department, so it remains to be seen whether these devices will also be stand-alone devices or whether the Garda Síochána Modernisation and Renewal Programme 2016-2021, launched by the Commissioner and mentioned by the Policing Authority - I wish An Garda Síochána well with it - will address the serious deficiencies in the Garda ICT system. I remember, as will the Acting Chairman, Deputy Durkan, when we contacted Garda stations and they had no e-mail facilities. That was not a long time ago; it was only three or four, perhaps five, years ago. They were not online.
It was in the media last weekend that the Tánaiste brought a note to Cabinet about section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, providing for the introduction of a third payment option for the payment of fixed charge notices. I hope that is something that will proceed. Will that be dealt with under different legislation or will it be dealt with externally to the road traffic Bill that is to come forward? Given the severity of the number of deaths and casualties on the road, does the Tánaiste intend to progress the road traffic Bill before this House reaches the recess? Those were the reports and, of course, the Tánaiste is working with her ministerial colleagues, Deputies Ross and Donohoe, on the introduction of the third payment option, which I have long been calling for.
We are at the halfway stage.
I understand one of the main barriers to a quick and seamless introduction of section 44 was and is the IT systems of the stakeholders. When will they be updated?
I heard a Fianna Fáil Deputy speak on vacancies and so on in important courts. However, the experience of the Courts Service in respect of road traffic law has come across as incredibly inefficient.
The Courts Service, especially regarding road traffic law, has come across as being incredibly inefficient and, in some instances, as with the recent disclosure about the NCT and the prosecution of people who had paid their fixed charge notice for not having an NCT certificate, it sometimes seems that the actual problem lies with the Courts Service and not with An Garda Síochána. The media sometimes does not show that clearly enough, and it is something that perhaps the Minister could address. I welcome the additional resources for the Department and for An Garda Síochána, and I hope, particularly in the area of road safety, that those resources will be deployed to very good effect.
This Revised Estimate is for a very wide-ranging brief, and one could really spend an awful lot of time discussing all the ins and outs of it. However, I want to focus on the programme expenditure titled "An efficient, responsive and fair immigration, asylum and citizenship system," which - according to the Estimates presented to us in this programme - has an increased projected budget of 25% from €116 million to approximately €145 million. Of the €145 million allocated, there is an increase in expenditure for asylum accommodation by €17.2 million, yet there is no breakdown of where and how this money will be spent. I hope the Minister will provide a breakdown to the House to show exactly where this money is going.
Despite this increase, there is no indication that additional staff numbers will be provided, which leads me to question the Minister’s claim that reform of the asylum system is under way. Last week the Minister confirmed that the Department of Justice and Equality has implemented 91 of the 173 recommendations from the working group report. However, the Minister has again provided very little detail in her reply to me on the recommendation, and we are still no better at understanding how in fact she has implemented those recommendations. All that the Minister provided in her PQ reply was ticks in boxes marked "implemented." The budget simply does not match the level of reform that the Minister claims has been carried out. Sufficient funding is central to any reform programme. The McMahon report stated that a failure to invest in decision-making staff will inevitably lead to significant backlogs in case processing and a consequent need to accommodate ever-greater numbers in direct provision, “with all the attendant concerns”. I do not need to go into what is meant by "attendant concerns" because it has been well documented how degrading it is for people in long-stay direct provision.
I acknowledge that certain changes were made in terms of the provision of staff resources, including the extensive changes to the Refugee Appeals Tribunal membership, with a new panel of members appointed during late 2013 and 2014. However, it did take time to appoint and train the new members, which inevitably affected the tribunal’s case processing capacity. Additional resources were also provided for the establishment of Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner, ORAC, including an appointed legal panel of 20 persons to deal with the backlog of cases, with 4.8 internal staff assigned to sign off on decisions alongside an additional 16 support staff. There has been an increase in the direct provision weekly payment, the first increase since 2000, which raised child benefit by €6 per week to a rate of €15.60 per week, but it fell short of the rate of €29.80 recommended by the working group. These attempts are far from the recommended allocation of resources as set out in the report of the McMahon working group.
The working group undertook and costed a financial modelling exercise which included a long stayer solution effectively granting the 4,207 persons who have been five or more years in the system, leave to remain in a speedy, effective manner on a legally sound basis. The group also costed the introduction of a single procedure which is underway with the passing of the International Protection Act 2015. Despite a commitment from the Government for an additional budget allocation to deal with demands on the asylum and immigration systems including backlog cases identified in the report, there are huge concerns regarding the capacity of the various authorities charged with making decisions on protection applications. Without the extra resources the benefits of the single procedure in speeding up the processing of applications will not be achieved, especially as the number of applications may increase over time.
Reducing time spent in the system will see a reduction in the numbers in direct provision, a reduction in the pressure put on accommodation needs and will bring large savings to the State which can then be reinvested in integration and child benefit for asylum families. Each year a person remains in the system it costs the State an average of almost €11,000 for the provision of accommodation. Today in the Estimates, the provision of an additional €17 million for asylum accommodation is an indication of the increased pressure on the existing protection system. While addressing the accommodation needs is absolutely necessary, it is a reflection of the fact that little reform has been carried out on the asylum system as a whole. Huge savings could be made if the recommendations were properly implemented. Again the working group has calculated potential savings as some €194 million over five years. That number justifies the expenditure of €135.4 million over the same period and which is required to fund the recommendations the Minister claims her Department are undertaking. The additional €135 million in costs are broken down between improvements to the protection process of costing €14 million, improvements in living conditions in direct provision accommodation centres costing €69 million and improvements in supports to applicants costing €52 million.
A reformed system would see increased staffing to facilitate speedy processing of applications, meaning less reliance on direct provision, less pressure on the direct provision system and more scope to increase social welfare allowances etc. The financial modelling exercise demonstrates conclusively that investing in decision-making not only yields returns in reducing time spent by a person in the system, but also makes financial sense. A lack of reform in the protection system might cost the State more money in the long run, but the human cost from the failure to act will be too high. It is the asylum applicants and their families who will pay the greatest price in this system.
I will now turn to issues relating to crime statistics and the resourcing of the Garda which is vitally important in dealing with the upsurge in gang related crime across the State. However, we also need to talk with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and the Minister for Education and Skills to focus on funding diversionary projects for young people in communities that are at risk of high levels of crime. These areas have suffered successive cuts over the years and things are at a standstill now in the probation services, juvenile diversion programmes and community service orders. These creative type programmes can deliver and divert young people, especially young men, away from crime. This is vitally important in looking to the future and ensuring we can divert people away from crime. While it will not deal with the current crisis it means that we would not be looking at other crises further down the road.
I thank Deputy Pringle. I now invite Deputies from the Rural Alliance, Deputies Michael Collins, Mattie McGrath and Danny Healy-Rae, who will take the middle part of the speaking time. Is that agreed? Agreed.
One can never over-emphasise the importance of the partnership between An Garda Síochána and the community in continuing to prevent and detect crime and maintaining a safe environment for everyone. The role of our police force is of vital importance to us as a civilised society. The Garda Síochána Inspectorate report Policing in Ireland states that "community policing should be at the heart of policing in Ireland". Community policing is a term used to describe the process by which the police engage with the community in the prevention of crime. At its core is the recognition that by working with the community in voluntary organisations such as community alert and neighbourhood watch schemes, law enforcement agencies can find local solutions to local problems. Community policing provides people in an area with their own dedicated garda. International studies have shown that community policing has many benefits. It helps develop a positive attitude towards police, it reduces crime rates and fear of crime and it discourages anti-social behaviour. As a result of both parties working together towards shared goals, the flow of information between the police and the community is enhanced, which results in better implementation of crime prevention and crime control.
The dedicated community garda provides a reduction in fear of crime, peace of mind and a feeling of safety and security for the community at large. In rural communities particularly, the local garda builds a strong and supportive relationship with young and old in the community. The role of the local garda in the community alert group, where the community and the garda join forces in being vigilant in their concern for the elderly in particular, is of huge importance. In recent times, the additional dimension of the text alert scheme has proven to be of enormous benefit in detecting and preventing crime.
Former Garda Commissioner Fachtna Murphy has said that it is essential that the community remain at the heart of everything An Garda Síochána does. He believed the community to be the Garda's greatest ally in preventing and detecting crime and protecting the safety of the people they serve. However, the decision of the subsequent Garda Commissioner, Martin Callinan, to close 139 Garda stations nationwide was in direct contradiction of this belief. That was a very retrograde step for policing in Ireland, and one that will have serious repercussions in future years. These stations were closed largely as a cost-saving exercise, but we subsequently learned that it costs only €60 per week to keep a rural Garda station open and that it is costing the OPW more to have them closed than when they were operational. We know that the closure of 550 rural police stations in 13 counties in England over a ten-year period led to a rise in crime, and rural crime rose by 60% compared with 35% for the country as a whole. The rise in crime was directly linked to the closure of the police stations in those areas. In January of this year, CSO figures showed a rise in rural crime here in Ireland, yet there is still no plan to reopen the stations closed in 2013.
It is vital that we recognise the huge value of the dedicated garda in our small communities. It is here that the potential for much criminality can incubate in the absence of effective policing. The rural stations act as a filter for crime, nipping petty crime in the bud before it escalates to a more serious level. We must remember that the raging forest fire started with a single match.
The role of the Garda needs to be considered as a matter of urgency. It is paramount that the Garda Síochána is seen as a force to protect the innocent and vulnerable against all kinds of crime, rather than a force to generate revenue in the form of summonses and fines. Using the Garda Síochána as a revenue-generating source is a very foolish and short-sighted approach to policing, which will inevitably lead to a them-and-us situation. We want at all times to ensure that the public sees the Garda Síochána as a strong and effective force, completely on the side of the law-abiding citizens whom it is their role to protect and support. Based on all the evidence to support the importance of community policing and the role of the community garda, I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to reopening all rural Garda stations.
In respect of Garda cars, the average Garda car in larger stations clocks up approximately 50,000 km per year. When the car reaches 300,000 km it is taken off the road. These cars would be approximately five or six years old. I would suggest that when a Garda car has 250,000 km on the clock, it should be given to the smaller stations, where it would do in the region of 5,000 to 10,000 km per year and would last a number of years in the station. These cars could then be used by the gardaí in these rural stations.
I want to highlight what has happened in my neck of the woods, in Sneem and Lauragh. Sneem, which always had two gardaí and a sergeant, is reduced to a part-time garda who is only available for an hour now and then. At certain times of the year the population of Sneem trebles and more, with an influx of visitors from all over the world.
Lauragh Garda station was closed down two years after €300,000 had been spent on it. Lauragh is 17 miles from Kenmare, the nearest Garda station on the eastern side, and 20 miles from Castletownbere, the next nearest Garda station. The Minister should review that and see how wrong it was to do that to the people on the southern side of Kenmare Bay. The people of Sneem are 17 miles from Kenmare Garda station, 30 miles from Killarney Garda station and 37 miles from Cahirciveen Garda station. It cannot be right that the entire area is not properly policed and gardaí are not visible on the ground. They do their best and come from the nearest Garda stations now and then, but it is not enough. In that vast expanse of Kenmare Bay, all the piers along each side of the bay are open now for the delivery and importation of drugs. There is nothing in the world to stop it because the drug runners will know that when the Garda car is parked in Kenmare, Killarney or Cahirciveen it is not in Sneem or Lauragh or along the bay. I ask the Minister to review that decision urgently and put a full complement of gardaí into Sneem Garda station and do likewise in Lauragh for the protection and safety of the people, because it takes too long for a Garda car or presence to arrive when something happens.
I am delighted to speak on this Estimate. I welcome the Minister and I am delighted that she was reappointed to this portfolio. She has made a vast improvement since she took it over. We have a very sanitised relationship with her, as does the Garda Síochána, unlike some of her predecessors, the one previous to her especially.
We need a Garda Síochána force. We have been proud of it since the inception of the State. Gardaí cannot police without the support of the public. That has been recognised all over the world. I salute An Garda Síochána, the men and women who go out every day of the week on front-line duties and face all kinds of threats. That is not only in Dublin, as has been seen recently, although I welcome the impetus put into dealing with these marauding gangs of terrorists here.
The Minister met the people of mid-Tipperary last year. There are still pressures there. New recruits are coming out of Templemore and we are promised five in Clonmel in the next tranche of recruits. We need them badly. The numbers are on the floor in the Tipperary division. Under Chief Superintendent Catherine Kehoe and the superintendents in the southern half of the county we are at an all-time low, especially when members are out sick or on maternity leave or holidays. We need a visible presence. In our area there has been a community garda for the past few years, Garda Niall O’Halloran, and he is doing tremendous work. He is in the station. He is available, he is at matches and he is involved in the community alert scheme. We have text alerts set up with many groups and they know he is there. People have to know the garda. If they go in to get a form signed, a bit of information will be passed innocuously. This is not the informer. That taboo has to be banished. It is us standing up for ourselves. When people ask about the community alert scheme - I have been the chairman of my own scheme for years - I say “It is you and I looking after each other. If we do not look out for each other, nobody else can be expected to do so.”
We need the numbers and we need the support. The AGSI and the GRA need to have negotiating rights and be allowed to have them and not be depending on some other group in talks to have a vote for them. They need full recognition and rights to negotiate for themselves and receive respect for their very dangerous occupation. We saw the murder of two gardaí in recent years. There are daily attacks on them. At protests here they are treated shamefully by some of the protesters, in the name of free speech and protest. I have witnessed them spitting at the gardaí and threatening them with all kinds of vile abuse.
I ask the Minister to visit the Garda station in Clonmel, the biggest inland town. It is a Dickensian station. There is a plan to relocate to the old army barracks, which we should never have lost. I ask her to visit and see for herself. There is an increased Estimate for the refurbishment and building of Garda stations. We badly need it. It is not fit for purpose and the members of the Garda Síochána deserve better, as do the public in Clonmel. Beidh fíor fáilte roimh an Aire i gCluain Meala.
I also ask the Minister to look at the restorative justice project in Nenagh. It is a wonderful project. The gardaí visit the schools. Their involvement with Foróige and youth groups and the youth diversion projects is invaluable. They have been cut to the bone in recent years and volunteers are trying to carry on services where there is a limited number of staff. The Tipperary Regional Youth Service and the Waterford Diocesan Regional Youth Service are looking for projects and they are on the Minister’s desk. We want support for those because they do invaluable work in getting people involved at an early age, keeping them involved in civic society and having respect for institutions such as an Garda Síochána.
There has not been a superintendent in Cahir district for five or six years since Superintendent Duggan retired. There have been inspectors, and a very good one in Inspector Eddie Golden, but we need the superintendent level there because the stripping away of these services and officers is not acceptable. We also need a decent fleet. The purchase of the vans was a great idea because they are quite mobile and visible. They can also carry a prisoner and seized property or whatever. The fleet has improved in Tipperary, but we need more high-powered vehicles for the special units because, with the onset of the motorway, which is a great service for Tipperary, it is too easy for marauding gangs of thugs to maraud, attack and prey on families in rural communities an hour or an hour and a half from Dublin. Some years ago I asked that CCTV be put on the major junctions on and off the motorway and I was told it could not be done. We need that to monitor the kinds of people entering and leaving our county with bad intent. Visitors are all welcome to Tipperary - it should not be said they are not - but not these kinds of visitors. They are unwelcome and they must be hunted down and dealt with.
We need a big shake-up in the court system and a review of free legal aid - one or two strikes and out. Ordinary people cannot be paying for these people to have free legal aid 20, 30 and 40 times.
We must also examine sentences and the use of the Garda by sheriffs and other agencies. Homes are being seized with the aid of Garda time and resources. Homes should not be seized unless people have another to go to. Garda resources are stretched enough. I have come across a third force a few times. There is no room for that in this country. It has acted in different places, involving people with balaclavas, dogs and marauding people, while gardaí are nearby. That should not be allowed in any modern democracy. All we have are An Garda Síochána and the Army. We must not have a third force acting with balaclavas and intimidating and threatening people in the name of the law. That is not good enough.
I am all for supporting and resourcing An Garda Síochána. Above anything else, it has been cut too much. The traffic corps has been depleted. We need it on the roads, not as a money-raising effort but rather to watch those who are engaged in illegal activities and who want to carry out monstrosities and atrocities.
As I said, we should have restorative justice. People should not be in courts and jail for non-payment of fines. Some unfortunate people incur fines because their businesses have gone into liquidation. Garda time is being used to bring to prison people who are let out a few hours later. Restorative justice and community service should be used if necessary. We want root and branch reform of the court and justice systems, alongside support for An Garda Síochána.
I am glad Templemore has been reopened, but rebuilding Garda numbers to 15,000 will be slow. We should consider bringing back senior members of the force who retired over the past couple of years, particularly for special operations, because they have the knowledge, the expertise and, above all, the know-how. We need them to train new recruits who graduate from Templemore and can learn from experienced members. They have built up a significant repertoire of knowledge, expertise and know-how over service of 30 years or more. We should also re-examine the retirement age. I look forward to working constructively with the Minister, and I appeal to her to visit us in Tipperary as soon as she can.
I hope that by the time I have finished my speech we will have scored at least one goal. It is somewhat difficult to disconnect and be in the Chamber when one wants to be in front of a television.
This is more like a Second Stage debate. It is unsatisfactory, and I am sure the Minister feels the same. We will all touch on various issues. The Estimates primarily deal with funding for the Garda, the courts, the Valuation Office, the National Property Services Regulatory Authority and so on. There is very little difference between 2015 and 2016 in the justice Estimates. In fact, on the salaries side the figure has decreased slightly. Pay rates were mentioned frequently during the general election with regard to gardaí, teachers and nurses. New entrants are being paid a different rate, something that is found by many to be very offensive, a view I share.
The fact that the intake into Templemore was postponed for several years means that people who really wanted to be gardaí postponed their applications. Those recruited were not always those at the very early part of their career. Rather, an older cohort are applying to join the Garda. Sometimes they may have mortgages or other family commitments. We have to understand that not all circumstances are the same. Differences in pay rates have to be addressed.
I refer to the very ad hoc method that appears to be in place in terms of the number of gardaí employed in any one division. I look at the policing plan every year. I constantly say that many aspects of it are a cut-and-paste job. It is refreshing that the new Policing Authority will have a real focus on that, because demographics and crime rates matter. I constantly update a document on where gardaí are deployed. Kildare is the worst, followed by Meath, Wexford, Laois and Offaly. The areas that have been subject to the greatest population growth are those that have the lowest ratio of gardaí.
It does not appear that a strategic approach to policing is in place. This approach produces a reactive rather than proactive type of policing. Certain types of crime are not detected by virtue of the fact that they require proactive actions. Drugs offences, and sometimes motoring offences, would fall into that category. It is to be hoped that the initiative of the Policing Authority in terms of examining policing plans will help to deal with that issue.
I do not see a great deal of change in the budget. Perhaps we do not need change in terms of the amount of money that is spent; perhaps, instead, it should be spent differently. On the doorsteps on several occasions members of the force were quite critical of some of the equipment that was bought and said it would not provide them with the opportunity to do their job properly. There is no doubt that there will be some investment in IT systems, which is needed. We cannot have smart policing if we do not have the technology to implement it.
In my area there are some opportunity costs in terms of the low level of gardaí. I jokingly say that if the national average in terms of policing was as it is in Kildare, 4,800 members of An Garda Síochána could be dismissed. That is how bad the situation there is. I make that point in order to exaggerate so that the situation is understood. It is not acceptable. The opportunity cost means that, for example, there is no community policing in an area with a population of 210,000 people. The county of Kildare has quadrupled in population since 1971, something no other county has experienced.
I refer to the amalgamation of bodies such as Ordnance Survey Ireland, the Land Registry and the National Property Services Regulatory Authority. The latter did some very fine work. The Valuation Office could do with a little acceleration. I understand only four counties have been digitised. Revaluation has been an ongoing process since, I understand, the mid-2000s. Given that well over €1 billion was brought in in commercial rates - it is probably €1.25 billion - it is important that we accelerate the digitisation process. Some records are historical.
I was intrigued to see that Land Registry fees are foregone in the case of bodies such as NAMA. If there are full recovery costs, would it not be better to build them into the process when something is being sold? We are selling assets to very large vulture funds, something of which I am very critical.
The very fact that the State is forgoing land registry fees as well is perhaps not understood or factored into the cost. I am interested in hearing a response from the Minister in that regard because if we could bring in money in another way it would be useful.
I spoke in the Dáil previously about how we need to look at what is working and not just at what is not working, so I will apply that to the discussion on the Revised Estimates. One must be careful with lies, damned lies and statistics, but at the same time it is an interesting body of material to go through for someone who is not directly involved. I wish to refer to the first statistic where, to my mind, things are working. When I was in government I was ashamed that at the time the prison population rose, but according to the latest statistics since 2010, we have gone from an average prison population of approximately 4,500 to 3,795. The Minister's response to my parliamentary question today indicated that the information is provided online on a daily basis. That is great news. It is something we are doing better. We do not need to go down the American route of a large incarceration system. It does not work and it does not reform people.
The Estimates process must examine how we can do things differently, not just keep doing the same. We must examine whether we can use some of the money we must have saved in that regard to change the prison system further and to provide for education and training and get young people out of a life of crime. That is the first thing I propose. We must endeavour to keep the number coming down. We should not stop there but try to be one of the best. It is interesting to look at the statistics. It is interesting when looking at the statistics that our prison population per head is similar to what it is in the North, so we are not out of line. It is not too low. One of the first things that jumped out at me is the good news that our prison population is falling and we should use the resources to help that continue to happen.
The Tánaiste and I probably first met in Dublin City Council in 1997 when I joined the city council. In that year 472 people died on the roads. The figures for last year show there has been a reduction to 166. Again, that is an amazing achievement for the State and it is done by thousands of small political decisions to put in a ramp here, apply a speed limit there and make a change to drink-driving legislation. We must keep going and aim to get the number of fatalities under 100. We must ask what it would take to achieve that, and to continue the example of where politics has worked. I say that on behalf of all of us. We have changed the nature of the environment to save between 200 and 300 people a year. That is just the fatalities, let alone the injuries, and the number of lives we have improved through that process. We should invest further the money the State has saved in terms of the lives saved. It is not always a case of just money; change can also be achieved by legislative means. We should be brave and willing to go for it and get down to zero fatalities.
The third area on which I wish to focus is an interesting one because it defies what we ordinarily hear. The journalist Vincent Browne is correct when he says the media has a tendency to paint a picture of an increasingly unsafe and insecure society. However, unless there is some major reason for a statistical change in how the CSO records the figures, as I read the statistics in the Revised Estimates report, the number of reported offences has fallen by 8% from 2012 to 2014, from 201,000 to 185,000. Again, we should seek to keep the trend going. The Minister will argue in the Estimates process for an increase in the number of gardaí. Deputy Catherine Murphy might be correct that there are certain black spots where we need to reallocate resources, but we should not be afraid to change instead of just sticking to the way things are. Where I would like to see the extra gardaí is involved in a range of community services rather than just processing a criminal-oriented, prison-based, punitive, fine-based system - creating a genuinely safer environment by bringing gardaí into the heart of the community and giving them advanced training so that we continue those positive trends. It is important to recognise that, because if we do not recognise success then what is the incentive for making more of whatever created the success in the first place?
However, there are also things that we need to change. I will just pick three things at random out of the Minister's extensive Department in terms of how it interacts with our lives. First, in a response to a parliamentary question that I received today, it is stated that some 417 inmates are in prison on drug-related offences. I noted with interest a comment from the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Stanton, the former Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, whom I hold in very high regard. Anybody who has been on the committee seems to think he did an excellent job in that role. He came out with a very strong statement - stronger than what I had heard previously in Government circles - that we need to move towards a decriminalisation process of the drugs system as a recognition that it is not working. It does not save us money. It costs us money and it does not reduce the amount of drugs being taken, so instead of imprisonment and the criminalisation process we should invest money in education and health supports. We must do things differently this time. We have the opportunity to be flexible and change.
I note the Minister has responsibility for the Data Protection Commissioner, which is a critical office in the future development of the economy. We have all the big digital industries here and we have only 50 people working with Helen Dixon, an excellent Data Protection Commissioner, following on from an excellent predecessor. In my experience of dealing with the Department, I do not think it was coming at it with the right attitude. It is coming with a very strong security protection focus in terms of getting as much data as we can and storing as much data as we can. I do not think the Department's attitude is in tune with where the digital world is going and where we need to place ourselves as a society and country. If the Minister is reallocating resources within the budget process, there is a case for further investment in the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner and in making Ireland the best country in the world for citizen-centred data management and for building up trust in terms of how we share and use data, not based around excess Government control, which I sometimes feel the Department is slightly inclined towards, or corporate control, which the large corporations are inclined towards, in favour of a citizen-controlled system.
Finally, and where, to my mind, we must hang our heads somewhat in shame, I wish to speak about the nature of the asylum process, which, due to its extended period, is, in effect, incarceration. We do not allow people to cook for themselves or work, which has led to the creation of a system that is not serving us well and is not serving the approximately 4,000 asylum seekers in the system. It is expensive. The cost is approximately €140 million. If one looks at the accommodation and administration costs, it amounts to almost €33,000 per annum for each asylum seeker. The system is not working any which way and we must change it.
The other day on Leaders' Questions I argued that the choices the Minister must make should be discussed in July with the committee, because it is such an interesting and broad Department, in order to strengthen her hand in the budgetary process. I regret that I will not be able to be a member of the committee to take part in the discussions, because it seems to me that the Minister has one of the most interesting opportunities for change within the political system.
I welcome the additional funding being provided for law enforcement this year. I wish to reflect on the recent gangland shootings. There has been widespread outrage in relation to the recent gangland killings in Dublin and we need to see renewed efforts to defeat organised crime gangs before the situation escalates even further. In February, the Minister announced the provision of €5 million for a task force to tackle organised crime. Since then, unfortunately, we have seen more violent killings as the war between feuding gangs has escalated.
My party has consistently raised concerns about Garda numbers and resources. The force has been seriously depleted and starved of funding and resources are needed to ensure that it can effectively target criminal activity. We need a crime policy that is ahead of the criminals. We cannot allow the gangland feud to spiral further and efforts to defeat it must be intensified. It is important to show that law and order will prevail in society and that the gangs will be defeated.
The concept of a Garda Reserve has proven to be an efficient way of getting more feet on the ground. We need to double the Garda Reserve to more than to 2,500 to complement and support the work of the main force and to encourage community engagement with policing. In addition, a special accelerated training scheme should be put in place for Garda Reserve members selected to join the main force to ensure they are put on the beat as quickly as possible.
I concur with other speakers who have called for an increase in Garda numbers to 15,000. Garda numbers have been reduced below the level of 13,000 by the Government and that, accompanied by the closure of 139 Garda stations, has reduced the effectiveness of the Garda on the ground.
Reducing the force to such low levels jeopardises the safety and security of communities nationwide. The numbers of An Garda Síochána must be significantly increased to take the fight to criminals. The only way to keep homes safe and to protect communities is by increasing Garda numbers and to do this in as short a time possible. Rural Ireland has really felt the reduction in the numbers of gardaí and people's insecurity in their homes must be seen to be believed. More gardaí are needed to work on front-line duties and it is vital to get as many uniformed gardaí as possible working on the ground where they can be most effective. Everything must be done to relieve uniformed gardaí from administrative duties and get them back onto the street. There is a clear need to use civilian staff in the force to alleviate the burden of administrative duties on gardaí. This can be done by outsourcing certain non-essential duties that do not require a sworn officer and this would help to free up gardaí and put them back on the beat.
The role of community gardaí must be increased. Strong community relations are the bedrock of an effective police force. However, the imbalance in community gardaí across the country is damaging local links with the force. All Garda districts must be covered to ensure that a community garda is based in each area with strong links to the local community. The closure of Garda stations has been the one major mistake, above all others, that has helped the criminals in their activities in rural Ireland in particular. In the past, when crime in rural Ireland was at a low level, gardaí were deployed in rural Garda stations right around the country. At present, however, while mobile criminal gangs travel the countryside in search of opportunities, it has been decided to close these Garda stations and this was a mistake. In my native county of Tipperary, one can travel from Nenagh to Tipperary town, a distance of 60 km, and find no Garda stations. This is a paradise for the criminal. The closure of 139 Garda stations and the potential threat to the future of other small stations throughout the country is the wrong policy, as it jeopardises the security of countless communities and homes. The paltry savings of €500,000 from the closures did not justify the deeply damaging impact on the communities they served. I assure the Minister that crime and the fear of crime in rural Ireland is changing the very nature of society and this cannot be allowed to continue.
As for a new sentencing council, members of the public have doubts about the possible leniency of sentencing policy in the courts. Public faith in the justice system is an integral part of enabling the courts to do their job properly but inconsistent sentencing and a lack of information on decisions harms public trust in the justice system. The public also is frustrated that criminals are not held to account financially for their criminal activity. I believe that victims of crime must be supported. Too often, the justice system seems balanced in favour of criminals and repeat offenders, while ordinary people who fall prey to criminality are left unrecognised. I believe that criminals convicted of an offence should be expected to pay a victim's surcharge. This would be a charge to be paid by an offender after he or she had pleaded guilty or had been convicted. On the establishment of a national major crimes investigation team, I note that outside the capital, much of the Garda force suffers from a lack of expertise and resources in investigating serious crimes. It is necessary to invest in resources. If the Garda is to be given the best chance of defeating criminal activity, it then must be resourced properly. It is vital that the Garda is equipped with the resources and technology necessary to combat crime. As for the Garda fleet, a multi-annual vehicle investment programme will ensure the fleet is constantly upgraded and kept up to scratch to enable front-line officers react quickly and effectively. In short, resources are the key to fighting crime and Members must ensure that proper resources are put in place for this to happen.
I call on the Minister, for whom this has been a long and difficult day. I have been in and out of the Chamber a number of times and she has been present. She has five minutes with which to conclude the debate.
I thank the Chair and Members from all sides of the House who have contributed to the debate on the Estimates this evening. In the first instance, a number of Deputies noted they would have preferred to have had this discussion in committee, where there would have been a more detailed opportunity to discuss the various issues and I agree. I believe the Business Committee decided that the major Estimates be taken here on the floor of the Dáil and certain other Estimates in committees but I have no doubt that we will continue the conversation and discussion that has been started here tonight in the Select Committee on Justice and Equality. I look forward to constructive engagement with colleagues on the various issues that have been raised. There has been a wide-ranging debate and that reflects the broad areas for which the Department of Justice and Equality is responsible, quite a number of which have been touched on during the course of the debate this evening. In general, it would be correct to state that the increased funding for the justice sector has been welcomed by most speakers in the Chamber. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the Estimates will be put to good use across the broad range of areas in the eight individual Vote areas.
The reality, however, is that Members are having a discussion on these Estimates almost six months into the year to which they refer and therefore, spending is well under way across the sector within the various Votes and the spending is yielding results. A number of Deputies have reflected on this and in particular, I will mention Operation Thor as an example of the multi-strand national anti-crime and anti-burglary operation nationwide. Expenditure on Operation Thor has been reflected in the €31 million in Garda overtime spent in the year to date and in the allocation of more than €90 million for the rest of the year, which is intended to be sufficient to cover additional Garda overtime expenditure on a range of headings. Operation Thor has resulted in 24,000 crime prevention patrols, approximately 30,000 targeted checkpoints nationwide and detection of offences which, in addition to burglary, have included handling of stolen property, possession of firearms and drugs offences. The financial provision is just one part of the Government's approach to dealing with criminal activity.
In the short time available to me, I wish to address a number of points. Deputy O’Callaghan referred to a decrease in the Garda Estimate prior to the recent funding increase. That is incorrect; it already was ahead of the 2015 Revised Estimates Volume, REV, by €71 million when adjustments are made for a non-recurring additional payday cost of €26 million in 2015. I was asked for a breakdown in respect of the €55 million that has been announced and there is provision of €50 million for overtime, of €2.7 million for travel and subsistence and of €1.3 million for equipping the armed response unit. The gross budget for the courts is €110 million, less court fees of €46 million and the net Vote is €63 million. The Vote in respect of the Traveller groups does reflect the consolidated position on funding that previously was dealt with by other Departments. A number of Deputies have asked me about the savings within the justice group. The savings in question of €15 million represent approximately 0.6% of the entire Vote group allocation of €2.458 billion. While it is too early to pinpoint precisely the subheads from which this saving will come across the eight individual Votes, it is likely that the scope for such savings will be in the administration subheads, including payroll, where filling of vacancies does not arise as quickly as planned, due to the specialist nature of some posts in the Charities Regulatory Authority and the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner in particular, for example. Savings also will come from surplus receipts in the form of appropriations-in-aid. I reiterate there are no cutbacks in Garda spending. Expenditure across the entire Vote group will be monitored closely for the remainder of the year and the specific areas of underspending will become more apparent closer to the end of the year.
Quite a number of other issues were raised with regard to Garda resources. I already have made the point that I believe Garda resources must be allocated to areas of greatest need, that is, where there are increases in population or where there are crime trends of a particular type. My understanding is the allocations being made of Garda resources by the Garda Commissioner are indeed based on such criteria in respect of the new recruits who are coming out. There will be accelerated recruitment this year and as I stated, the Government has reopened Templemore and has started to invest once again in many of the areas about which Deputies spoke in the House tonight. Reinvestment in capital for the refurbishment of stations, including Clonmel, has been earmarked in the capital programme for investment in Garda stations, quite a number of which are being refurbished and extended. In addition, the Government will continue the investment in Garda vehicles. I will conclude on that point and will correspond individually with some Deputies who raised particular points I have not had an opportunity to discuss this evening.
I thank the Minister who can now unwind for a couple of hours, probably for the first time today. I also thank her officials. That concludes consideration of the Revised Estimates for justice and equality. We will allow the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar a moment to get in situ. We will move on to the Revised Estimates for the public service. Like a few of us here, the Minister cannot go and look at the match.
We can hopefully wait for a roar.
You have 15 minutes, Minister.
I move the following Revised Estimate:
Weekly personal rates of payment for all those aged 66 years and over were increased by €3 per week with proportionate increases on qualified adult and reduced rates. In addition, all of those eligible for the fuel allowance, including jobseekers and people with disabilities, gained from the increase of €2.50 per week, from €20 to €22.50 per week over the fuel season. Funding for the free travel scheme, which benefits a large number of people with disabilities, carers and pensioners, was increased by €3 million from €77 million to €80 million, to meet increased numbers eligible for the scheme, access new services and therefore fully protect entitlements under the scheme. I intend for this to continue. Families with children benefitted from a €5 increase in the monthly rate of child benefit while lower-income working families also benefitted from increases in the family income supplement thresholds. The respite care grant was renamed the carer's support grant to better reflect the usage of the grant and was fully restored to its previous maximum level by increasing it by €325 from €1,375 to €1,700 per annum.
I will briefly discuss the area of fraud and control. It is essential that we maintain public confidence in the welfare system by vigorously tackling fraudulent activity. My Department implements a range of measures to prevent and detect fraud and also ensures that effective debt recovery and deterrence measures are in place. Data exchanges between the Department and other State bodies, including the Revenue Commissioners, are being enhanced on an ongoing basis. The Department is now acting on information received through these links in a timelier manner. For example, commencement of employment information from the Revenue Commissioners is now received weekly and acted on automatically and prisoner data are exchanged weekly. Predictive analytic projects on jobseeker, disability and one-parent family payment controls should result in better targeting of cases for review. Some 1.1 million reviews were carried out in 2015, achieving €463 million in savings, which was 91% of the Department's target. The target for control savings in 2016 remains unchanged at €510 million.
Looking ahead, the programme for Government contains a number of commitments relating to social protection, such as increasing pensions and the living alone allowance, protecting free travel for pensioners and people with disabilities and supporting a rate increase for people with disabilities and for carers. We intend to reinforce the contributory principle of social insurance by strengthening the social insurance system. I intend to extend the treatments available under the treatment benefit scheme, which was significantly cut back during the austerity years. Importantly, I will extend the level of social insurance coverage available to the self-employed, in line with the agreement with Fianna Fáil as well as the programme for Government. This will form part of the Government's new deal for the self-employed which will encompass tax as well as welfare changes.
I am delighted that the paternity leave and paternity benefit legislation is before the Dáil this week. It will be introduced by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, on Friday next. I am sure Deputies from all sides of the House will welcome this innovation and, once enacted, my Department can commence the payment of paternity benefit from September to social insurance contributors, including the self-employed.
This concludes my overview of the main areas of expenditure and associated activity for my Department for 2016. I look forward to hearing Members' views in the debate and responding to their questions in so far as possible.
Vote 37 — Social Protection (Revised Estimate).
That a sum not exceeding €10,872,429,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31 December 2016 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Social Protection, for certain services administered by that Office, for payments to the Social Insurance Fund and for certain grants.
I am pleased to open this debate on the 2016 Revised Estimates for my Department. The Revised Estimates which are before the House provide for an allocation of €19.625 billion in 2016 for my Department. This represents 38% of all gross current expenditure. The major element of the social protection spending by far is expenditure on a wide range of schemes which are paid on a weekly basis. Each week, some 1.37 million people receive a payment from my Department. That is 2.1 million beneficiaries in total. It includes payments for pensioners, people with disabilities, carers and jobseekers.
In addition, more than 625,000 families receive child benefit each month for almost 1.2 million children. The wide range of payments and services provided by my Department has an impact, either directly or indirectly, on the lives of almost everyone in the State. We also have a huge impact on the labour market. Payments or social transfers play a crucial role in alleviating poverty and are essential in providing adequate incomes to live. Social transfers freed over a fifth of the population from the risk of poverty in 2014, representing a poverty reduction effect of 56%, which is among the best poverty reduction effects in the EU.
It is not always fully appreciated in public debates as to who benefits from welfare expenditure. There is a misconception that most of the payments go to the unemployed. This is not so. Accordingly, as a starting point today, it is useful to outline the Department's expenditure on its various programmes in 2016. The biggest single block of expenditure in 2016 will be expenditure on pensions, which will amount to almost €7 billion or 36% of overall expenditure. Expenditure on working age income supports - including jobseekers, one-parent family payment, maternity and paternity benefit - accounts for some €4 billion or 20% of overall expenditure. Expenditure on working age employment supports, such as community employment, back to education and enterprise and various employment supports amount to €1.1 billion or 6% of the Department's expenditure. Expenditure provision for illness, disability and carers amounts to €3.5 billion or 18% of expenditure in 2016. Expenditure on children and families will account for nearly 13% of expenditure or €2.6 billion, of which €410 million will be spent on the family income supplement paid to low-income working families.
Expenditure on supplementary payments, agencies and miscellaneous services accounts for €867 million or 4% of expenditure. Supplementary payments have four main elements. These include rent supplement, the household benefits package, fuel allowance and free travel. It is worth highlighting that expenditure on pensions and children alone will account for almost €9.6 billion or just under 50% of the Department's overall expenditure in 2016.
Deputies might note that in order to enable an accurate year-on-year expenditure comparison to be made, account must be taken of two items in 2015. Some €135 million was needed to enable pensioners and other recipients who were due to be paid on bank holiday Friday, 1 January 2016 to have their payments brought forward to Thursday 31 December 2015 and €197 million was needed to pay out the Christmas bonus last year. I will return to the topic of the bonus in a few minutes. When these two items are excluded, the 2016 allocation is over €52 million higher than the net outturn in 2015. Indeed, the allocation in 2016 is more than €1.6 billion greater that what was spent in 2008, or more than 9%.
It is important for the House to note that, given the demand-led nature of most Department of Social Protection expenditure, the allocations for the vast majority of schemes vary from year to year based on emerging trends. The variations can result in a higher or lower requirement. The very welcome reductions in expenditure on jobseekers, due to falling unemployment, means that we have been able to meet expenditure pressures in other areas.
Deputies will be already familiar with increased spending on pensioners as the number of seniors rises, but there are two other areas I would like to highlight. First, payments to carers will amount to almost €912 million this year, an increase of 18% since 2012 due to a higher number of carers being supported. Similarly, expenditure on disability and invalidity payments has increased by 13% or €232 million since 2012, again due to increased numbers of people on the schemes.
As already outlined, the 2015 outturn included expenditure of €197 million on the payment of a Christmas bonus. The Christmas bonus was introduced in 1980 and was abolished in 2009. The last Government re-introduced it partially in 2014 with the payment of a 25% Bonus, followed by a 75% Bonus in 2015. If one looks back historically, a 75% bonus was a relatively normal payment hitherto 2009. As happened in 2014 and 2015, when a bonus was subsequently paid, there is no provision for a bonus in the Department's allocation for 2016. In both 2014 and 2015, the Government was ultimately in a position to proceed with a bonus given the continuing improvement in the State's financial position. The State's financial position is improving again in 2016 and I will therefore be seeking approval from my Government colleagues in the coming months for the payment of a Christmas bonus once again this year. An announcement will be made on budget day in October.
The job of the last Government was to fix the economy and rescue Ireland from national bankruptcy. At one point, unemployment had reached a crisis peak of 15%. Central Statistics Office, CSO, data published recently shows that the monthly unemployment rate has fallen to 7.8%. Long-term unemployment has fallen below 5% for the first time since the crisis and youth unemployment has fallen from a peak of 33% to 16.9% last month. Deputies will be aware that it is typical internationally for youth employment to be roughly double the average unemployment rate largely as a consequence of the very large numbers of young people who are in education.
At the end of May, there were approximately 38,500 fewer people on the live register than the same time last year. There continues to be a strong decrease in the live register, with an 11% decline in numbers in each of the past two years. Recent CSO data shows strong increases in employment. Employment has increased by 47,000 people in the past year and it is particularly welcome that the construction sector has experienced one of the largest increases. As I said earlier, the ongoing drop in the live register is freeing up resources to meet rising demand in other areas such as pensions, people with disabilities, carers and so on.
A growing economy generates more jobs for more people. However, some people are still struggling to break into the workforce. There is evidence of rising levels of people who have been unemployed for more than five years. This is where my Department's Pathways to Work strategy comes in, which aims to ensure as many of the new jobs as possible go to those who are on the live register, particularly those who are long-term unemployed. It also aims to gradually expand access to activation services, as resources allow, to other jobless people of working age in order to promote active inclusion, which is participation in both the economy and society. Having a job is not only good for one's financial well-being, it is also good for a person's welfare, family and community.
The Intreo integrated employment and support service marks a fundamental transformation in how the Department of Social Protection supports and assists jobseekers, representing a move away from a passive payer of benefits to actively engaging with jobseekers and employers. In 2015, the Department provided group information sessions to 189,000 jobseekers, including 47,500 people who were long-term unemployed. It also provided initial one-to-one guidance interviews with 126,000 jobseekers. Last year, the Department also commenced JobPath. JobPath is a payment-by-results contracted service whereby long-term jobseekers receive intensive individual support to help them overcome barriers to employment and to assist them in finding jobs. Referrals started last July. It is expected that 60,000 referrals will be made to JobPath providers in 2016. I am pleased to report that my Department is phasing in a full activation support service for people with disabilities who wish to avail of the service on a voluntary basis. To this end, Intreo will become a gateway to employment activation not just for people who are unemployed, but also for those who have disabilities who will be case managed along with the live register cohort.
Turning to additional expenditure items announced in 2016, the social protection budget for 2016 has four keys aims: to increase income for pensioners aged 66 and over, to strengthen supports for families with children, to further hasten momentum in helping jobseekers back to work and to provide targeted assistance for vulnerable groups.
I note the Minister's outline of the commitments in the programme for Government. There are also commitments in the document which was signed on behalf of our party and the Minister's party. Nevertheless, it must be made clear that over the past five years, there have been five regressive budgets in which the poor bore the brunt of austerity. It will take a number of budgets and quite a shift in expenditure in the Department of Social Protection to repair the damage that has been done over those years.
The Government's main contention, and the former Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, repeated it again this evening in an unrelated debate, is that the last Government maintained the social welfare system and maintained the level of benefits or the purchasing power of benefits. Of course, that is not true. The claim is undercut immediately by the fact that over the past five years, when there has been no increase in social welfare rates apart from the €3 per week in the old age pension in the last budget, inflation has increased by just under 5%. That is a 5% erosion of the purchasing power of social welfare benefits. Some studies have been conducted on the impact of this on the elderly. Due to the type of goods the elderly purchase, it is estimated that the inflationary impact on them is approximately 7%.
Leaving that aside for a moment, the Government claimed that it did not cut basic rates of social welfare in any way. It did not cut the basic rate of jobseeker's benefit or jobseeker's allowance, but it made it more difficult to qualify and it paid jobseeker's benefit for a shorter period. That is tantamount to a cut. It claims it did not cut the rate of carer's allowance, which is true, but as the Minister is aware every carer in the country is automatically entitled to the respite care grant and the reduction in that grant of €350 per year represented a cut of €7 per week for every carer. It was only restored in the shadow of a general election. That was the equivalent of a cut in the weekly payments. Most people on social welfare who did not have a large extra income were entitled to a fuel allowance but that allowance was cut. It has been restored by 45% to 50% but that is a basic cut.
Instead of having to provide for themselves for the first three days of illness, people who claim illness benefit must now provide for themselves for the first six days. In effect, that is a cut. Maternity benefit was cut and taxed. We could also mention the household benefits package, the free telephone rental allowance and the school clothing and footwear allowances, which were designed to assist the poorest people in society. They have been slashed quite blatantly. These cuts have a particular impact on the elderly.
I already mentioned the impact of inflation. In addition to that, the free telephone rental allowance was abolished, which impacted on the elderly, and there was the evisceration of the household benefits package, changes in the method of calculation of pensions to the detriment of pensioners, restrictions in the higher rates of disability allowance and invalidity pension for people over 65 years, restrictions in tax relief on medical insurance which disproportionately affects the elderly, the increase in the threshold for the drug repayment scheme, again affecting the elderly disproportionately, and changes in the qualification conditions for people over the age of 70 years.
While this erosion of purchasing power was taking place, a raft of new charges were introduced, such as water charges and property tax. People who were trying to provide for themselves were subjected to a pension levy, whereby €2.5 billion was gouged out of their savings. Contributions to the fair deal scheme increased, as did carbon tax. The waiver for refuse collection was abolished. The increase in the VAT rate from 21% to 23% also had a disproportionate effect on the elderly. After all of that, a €3 increase per week after five years appears quite meagre.
All of this has given rise to poverty levels I do not have time to discuss but they are quite considerable among the elderly, children and lone parents. We must have the worst poverty rates among lone parents in the civilised world. It has given rise to horrendous inequality. The most recent figures for disposable income show that the top 10% of people in the country had 25% of all disposable income, while the bottom 10% had just under 3%. That is just income. If one factors in access to capital and assets, which is almost exclusively confined to people in the upper echelons, inequality in this country has reached a perilous stage.
I am not pretending, nor will I suggest, that these matters can all be dealt with in one budget. Obviously, it will take several budgets but we have a number of very specific commitments relating to these matters. We do not envisage making Ireland a perfect society as a result of the next budget but we are certainly determined to ensure that it will be a better society. We are determined to ensure that the era of regressive budgeting will be over and that there will be specific measures in the budget relating to social welfare that will halt the increase in poverty, particularly consistent poverty, and move more quickly towards the targets the Government set itself and that it failed abysmally to achieve.
I wanted to ask the Minister about a number of specific items in the Estimates. He referred to the reduced expenditure on lone parents of €170.5 million. He said this was partly offset by increases in jobseeker's payments, the family income supplement and the back-to-work dividend. According to my calculations, the increases in the family income supplement and the back-to-work dividend only come to approximately €42 million between them and that is not all. That increased payment does not all go to lone parents. I would like to get a specific figure for the loss to working lone parents as a result of the changes introduced by the previous Minister.
I also note an allocation for the back-to-education allowance. The Minister will be aware of a pretty damning report about this allowance and its impact on employment. I would like to hear the Minister's views on the future of the allowance.
There is also a transfer of €24.5 million to the housing assistance payment, HAP. Could the Minister tell us what percentage of dwellings have been transferred from rent allowance to the HAP? I also notice that there is a €20 million reduction in rent allowance. This will change pretty dramatically if the programme for Government is to be fulfilled.
That is all that I have time to say in this very short debate. I heard the end of the previous debate. The fact that we are discussing this matter through exchanges and one-off speeches on the floor of the House is a retrograde step. The real place to debate Estimates is in committee and I strongly recommend to the business committee that we go back to that system.
I thank Deputy O'Dea for sharing time. I also thank the Minister for his presentation, which I appreciated. I thank the two civil servants sitting here tonight.
I will focus on Tús, the rural social scheme, community employment schemes and Intreo offices. East Galway, where I live, is very different to Dublin because people could not have it harder when it comes to Pathways to Work. The reason for this is because someone trying to access Intreo offices faces a problem with transport before they even get off the ground. Therein lies the problem because we are short on numbers on the ground and are struggling to fill Tús and community employment schemes even though we have numbers on the live register. Why are we struggling to fill them? It is because the service is outsourced to an English company, the name of which escapes me. This company is taking people off the live register and the supervisor on the ground in charge of a Tús or community employment scheme is failing to get people employed in their own area because they must go to the Intreo office in either Loughrea or Galway city. This is where they are being serviced. They are forgetting about local communities. The idea behind Tús, the rural social scheme and community employment schemes was to support rural communities and be a part of their rejuvenation but, regrettably, the Department is forgetting about the smaller towns and villages in rural Ireland.
Approximately 4,500 people are waiting to get on the rural social scheme. In Galway, 154 people are waiting to get on the scheme. This includes the county and the west. That would mean that we would need seven schemes along with seven supervisors and seven assistant supervisors. Most of the people on farm assist or jobseeker's payments possibly already receive €188 and to increase it by a couple of euro to €233 would involve in the region of €175,000 for Galway. We talk about financial well-being, which was referred by the Minister, but it is also about mental well-being. These people want to go to work. They are farmers on farm assist, which the Minister needs to look at because the IFA spoke in detail about it yesterday. They are not farmers who do not want to work. They just do not have enough work and are making themselves available but there are no spaces on the schemes throughout the country. I ask the Minister to look at this element of it. It can give a lot back to communities. The knock-on effect is that the men on those schemes are contributing to the community and are going home in the evenings in a better state of mind because they have been out working and communicating as opposed to sitting at home thinking that they have not been providing.
When those responsible are assessing whether there is a vacancy on the rural social scheme, they look at the family circumstances. A single man finds it much harder to get on such a scheme than a married man because of the allowances and attempts to get them the grants. I know the Minister is looking at me but it is a choice when they are trying to see how they support the family in the community. I can only credit the supervisors and people involved in Tús, the rural social scheme and community employment schemes.
Regrettably, I think we might have got it wrong with Tús because there is no progression. People are only there for 12 months. By that time, they have done their work for 12 months and they have nothing to move on to. Can we move them to community employment schemes because they have only just learned a skill, such as stone wall building, for example, when they finish? If we could provide a pathway to progression in the community, the good people will come through and will find jobs out of it. It is very hard for someone who has taken part in a Safe Pass programme for 12 months to find anything as result of it.
Intreo is a fabulous service but I would make one suggestion. Can we put some Intreo case officers out in the field as opposed to having everybody travelling to the main towns? Can we bring them out to rural communities where there are people on the live register? They should come out and meet and assess them where they can. This would mean that there would be a continuation. In respect of not being able to get through on the phone, some people have problems with reading and writing. They need someone to spend time with them because this is the sector we are trying to support. They do not have that capability and it is sometimes easier to stay at home than go and sit in an office.
The rules for women who stayed at home to rear their children were changed in 2012 and it appeared that it would halve their entitlements or allowances. We should look at this. We spoke very clearly about Gateway and activation for people with disabilities. We should look at the mobility allowance and when we do so, we should look at the family situation. I have a huge problem with the primary medical certificate. The person driving a disabled individual could be his or her mother, father or wife but we must look at the broader family.
I thank the Minister for his speech. I am surprised by Fianna Fáil Deputies speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They failed to mention that they were in government and implemented many of the cuts to which reference has been made.
The Shinners complaining about people speaking out of both sides of their mouths. They should hang their heads in shame.
Did I steal Deputy Brady's thunder?
Fianna Fáil cut rent supplement when it was in power and also initiated the cuts to social welfare for those under 20 years of age.
Could I ask Deputy Brady to address the issue?
Absolutely. It is surprising there is no increase in funding for social protection. One would think we lived in some sort of utopia, with no serious social or economic difficulties facing massive sections of Irish society.
The programme for Government acknowledges that Irish people have worked hard for the economic progress we now have. The Government continued to pat Irish people on the back for the sacrifices they have made and continue to make to achieve this economic success. The word "sacrifice" suggests that people had a choice. People make sacrifices for something better, to achieve something they can benefit from, but what have people gained from the sacrifices they have made? Do they have more money, stability or recovery? Fine Gael, Labour, and Fianna Fáil before them chose who to target in their austerity agenda, including lone parents, carers, children, those with disabilities and the elderly.
We did not shoot anybody.
While the Government can talk about GDP growth and Ireland having the fastest growing economy in Europe, we are also a country with 1.3 million people experiencing deprivation, thanks to Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
A lot of them are in west Belfast where Deputy Adams-----
According to CSO figures and research carried out by Mandate, three quarters of a million people living in poverty-----
May I speak without interruption from Deputy Willie O'Dea?
Obviously I have touched a raw nerve with Deputy O'Dea.
If the Deputy apologises to the McCabe family, it will be okay.
It is important that Fianna Fáil is reminded-----
If the Deputy apologises to the McCabe family, it will be okay.
I will interrupt Deputy Brady for a moment. Deputy Brady should not tell anybody sitting in the Chair how to do his job. I will do it.
They are used to that. It is army council stuff.
Yes. I thank the Acting Chairman.
I have asked Deputy O'Dea not to interrupt the Deputy. Will the Deputy please continue?
In research carried out by Mandate, one in ten people are experiencing food poverty, which is nearly half a million citizens. We have a crisis in housing, healthcare and education. We have families struggling to feed their children and heat their homes. Poverty is rising among children and pensioners as well as among people with disabilities and carers. Lone parents are among the most vulnerable and impoverished in the country with 63% of one-parent family households experiencing enforced deprivation. Homelessness is a greater threat than ever before. At any one time, two thirds of families in emergency accommodation are lone parent families. The rationale put forward for the cuts to the lone parent allowance was to incentivise lone parents to seek more hours at work, but in the absence of affordable child care and legislation enabling workers to seek more hours, these cuts are an attack on the living standards of lone parents. We are still waiting on the Scandinavian child care model which was constantly referred to by Deputy Joan Burton. Will the Minister be able to give us an update on that child care proposal?
Sinn Féin called on the Government to reverse the changes to the lone parent allowance in a Private Members' motion on the eve of the change in July 2015 and the Labour Party refused to back down. Today, Labour Party Deputies are standing up whinging about cuts as if they played no part in standing over the harshest of cuts ever seen in this country. Where is the recovery for lone parents? There is none; they are certainly not living in a utopia.
A man from Baltinglass in my constituency of Wicklow contacted my office last week. He is caring for his daughter and has been told he will have to wait 19 weeks until his application for carer's allowance is even examined. Thanking him for his sacrifice in turning the economy around will not get him the carer's allowance he is entitled to more quickly. The reality is that carers right across the country have nothing left to give. Carers, who save the State over €4 billion each year, are experiencing unprecedented hardship. Is that their sacrifice? Where is the recovery for carers? There is none for carers; they do not live in the Minister's utopia.
In 2015, the CSO reported that there are 755,570 people living in poverty in Ireland, which is a rise of 55,000 since the Minister's party, Fine Gael, and Labour came into office in 2011. Over 230,000 of these are children. What is the Government doing about this? Even the Minister's targets to reduce child poverty had to be revised from taking 70,000 children out of poverty to 97,000 by 2020. How can any Government stand idly by when children are going hungry in 2016? This has not happened by accident. It is the result of several successive regressive budgets started off by Fianna Fáil. It has been caused by the Government's own polices. Yet, the Government continues to sit on its hands on this issue while organisations such as St. Vincent de Paul are left to spend €7 million a year providing for people who are the most needy in this State. We see thousands queueing for food parcels at Dublin's Capuchin day centre. In Cork, the Penny Dinners feed 1,400 people per week, which is up 55% in a year. Children should never pay the price and should never suffer the severe deprivation they are suffering today thanks to the Government's policies and austerity agenda. Where is the recovery for children? There is no recovery for children.
Last week, there was a real opportunity for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil to make some effort in tackling the housing crisis through Sinn Féin's Bill on rent certainty, something Fianna Fáil had their part-----
The Deputy should read it right.
-----something Fianna Fáil had as part of a policy document it produced only last year. Last year, Fianna Fáil had this as a policy.
The Deputy should read it right.
The Sinn Féin legislation would have saved renters up to a €1,000 per year. Yet, Fianna Fáil decided to go against its own party policy to run along with its coalition partners, Fine Gael. This really begs the question as to why Fianna Fáil did not go into coalition with Fine Gael in the first place-----
Because that is what Sinn Féin wanted us to do.
-----if it is going to copy everything Fine Gael does during this term. Fianna Fáil was adamant in standing by its commitment not to form a Government with Fine Gael-----
-----yet every other commitment it made before the election seems to be out the window.
They are gone out the window-----
-----while thousands of families and lone parents are struggling to pay rent-----
Deputy Brady has the Minister here. Why is he taking it out on us?
-----all over the country.
Can I stop Deputy Brady for a moment?
I need to stop the Deputy for a moment. I do not want Deputy O'Dea to use the word "lie". In this Chamber, you are not allowed to use it.
No. Please withdraw the word "lie". I do not want to get into conflict here.
The Deputy is not telling the truth but I withdraw the word "lie" just for the sake of parliamentary procedure.
"Untruth" is fine. The Deputy should continue.
We did not interrupt those Deputies when they were speaking. Can we be treated fairly?
It is Deputy Nolan's colleague who is speaking. I know she-----
Can they wait outside the Chamber until we finish if they are not going to be polite?
It is not for the Deputy to-----
I will say anything I like.
Hopefully the Acting Chairman will give us-----
This is ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Deputy Nolan has been making gestures at me for eight minutes.
It is Deputy Nolan's colleague who is speaking. He should continue.
There has been constant interruption from the Fianna Fáil benches so hopefully there will be a little bit of latitude given with the time.
Deputy Brady's attitude is not helping the situation. The Deputy has one minute.
Where is the recovery for people sleeping on our streets tonight? There is absolutely none. This evening, there are 2,000 children sleeping in hotels right across the State.
The elderly have seen the abolition of the telephone allowance, which was a lifeline, especially for those living alone or in rural Ireland. They have seen increased prescription charges which have left many picking and choosing what medication they should take. They have seen a reduction in household benefits and the fuel allowance. Cutting the fuel allowance from 32 weeks to 26 weeks has had a devastating impact, particularly on our elderly.
I must remind the Deputy that his time is up.
Currently, Ireland has the largest levels of excess-----
The Deputy's time is up. He is using up his colleague's time.
The Deputy asked me to give five minutes to his colleague.
Deputy Brady is now using up the other Deputy's time.
I will conclude. If this is the way it will continue here with Deputy O'Dea interrupting every time Sinn Féin stands up-----
Deputy Brady is still using up his time.
Obviously, we are touching a very raw nerve with the austerity issues-----
The Deputy should continue.
The Deputy needs to stop telling lies. We will start telling the truth about Sinn Féin.
-----and the fact that Fianna Fáil is effectively in government.
Will the Deputy please continue addressing the issue?
I will finish up. Sinn Féin has produced measures and pre-budget submissions. We presented them to the Government and to Fianna Fáil in the past.
Sinn Féin did not. That is rubbish.
We will continue to present them to Fine Gael to deal with the inequalities, to deal with the deprivations and to deal with the child hunger and the poverty-----
Like they do in the North.
-----right across this State which is of epidemic proportions and is a result of the policy of successive Governments, whether be they Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael. We have an opportunity here to deal with the deprivation. We need to get out of the false sense of utopia that this Government and its Fianna Fáil predecessors seem to believe in.
Will Deputy Brady allow his colleague in?
We need to get away from thoughts-----
Will Deputy Brady allow his colleague in?
-----of investing in rainy day funds while every day is a rainy day for those about whom I speak - the elderly, the carers and the unemployed across society. We need a change. We need a rainy day fund to help out the most vulnerable in society. I hope Deputy O'Dea will cease from his futile interruptions.
I hope Deputy Brady does a better job than his party is doing in the North.
I hope Deputy Brady does a better job than his party is doing in the North where it is in power.
I remind Deputy O'Dea to recall what happened the last time he claimed someone was telling lies.
I must ask Deputy Brady-----
The Shinners live by lies.
Deputy O'Dea should remember where he ended up with that.
I would ask Deputy O'Dea to co-operate. I must ask Deputy Brady to withdraw the word "lie". Deputy O'Dea had to withdraw it. In all fairness, one cannot use the word "lie" in this House and I ask Deputy Brady to withdraw it.
I withdraw it. I was merely reminding Deputy O'Dea of his history.
I thank Deputy Brady for doing so.
What ultimately is behind all these figures? We must ask why are these moneys are being made available. We are here to debate moneys for the protection of the most vulnerable in society and those at risk of poverty. In essence, when looking at past policies and figures, these moneys are about aiding those where needed. The Government needs to connect to circumstances on the ground, and to the needs of those in receipt of social protection.
We must remember there is a direct link between unemployment and poverty. We, as public representatives, should be about eliminating this link as much as possible but it is in the hands of the Government to pursue this end. The Minister outlined a high-level aim to attain better outcomes in tackling poverty. The most recent figures from the CSO state that 140,000 children were in consistent poverty. That is the reality. We must also be conscious of the reality on the ground for pensioners, lone parents and those on jobseeker's benefit, to name but a few, and we must be conscious, most importantly, of the realities on the ground behind these titles and the figures presented by Government.
What does the cut to lone parents mean in reality? According to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, lone parents comprise the largest group that requests its services, and this group has the highest poverty rates of any household type. That is the reality. I understand that at the time, the so-called logic for the Government introducing the cuts was to get more people back to work, but the reality was, with the lack of child care and the lack of limited after school opportunities, it was harder for parents to enter the workforce, given the pressure arising from the cuts to their income. The cut to lone parents must also be seen in the context of previous cuts, such as the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowances, which Barnardos previously recommended should be increased.
Looking past the figures, what does the €3 rise in the pension mean in reality? When reaching a certain stage in life one wants to feel comfortable and to have enough means to live. Seriously, what will €3 a week provide?
I must ask Deputy Mitchell to finish.
I wish the Minister the best of luck as I never got the opportunity to say it to him. I hope that the Minister and the new Government will connect to the reality on the ground. Let us see beyond the titles, the terms and the figures and touch base with the reality.
I thank Deputy Mitchell for her contribution. Deputy Penrose is next. I would prefer that there were no interruptions because everybody has their opportunity to make their point of view. If somebody feels wronged by something else that has happened, he or she will have an opportunity at some stage to answer back. Deputy Penrose without interruption.
I like to be constructive and I do not invoke any interruptions. I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to contribute and I wish the Minister well.
It is an important fact that almost €4 out of every €10 that is spent in this country is allocated to the social welfare Vote. Indeed, notwithstanding all of the comments here, the former Minister, Deputy Burton, during the period of the worst economic recession across the world, a great depression, managed to maintain funding with minimal impact and cuts. In programme countries all over the world, there have been significant reductions in expenditure on social welfare and benefits. One must face a bit of reality as well from that perspective. Indeed, some have forgotten that, while there was only a €3 per week increase for pensioners, there was also the restoration of the Christmas bonus. For a married couple, that was another €6.50 a week, which brought it up to €9.50 a week. If Deputy Denise Mitchell is going to give the story, she should give the full story and not offer a selective view.
I was one who championed carers at a time when some new Members had not even been elected to the Dáil. After writing a report on this aspect, I helped to ensure carers continued to receive the 50% additional rate in relevant supports. I am unashamedly a strong advocate for carers, yet I do not hear too many mention them. The carers are the ones who put in hundreds of thousands of hours and save us many man-hours across the State, and we must continue to ensure that the caring profession in this country, those who care within their own homes, are helped to maintain and live within their own homes and look after those for whom they are caring. Often the carer is the person who suffers most and that is why we maintained the 50% additional rate. Indeed, the late Seamus Brennan introduced that and I remember him saying here on the floor of the Dáil to me that this could be one that would certainly be significant in the long term. That allowance was maintained through thick and thin, and it is an important allowance. I acknowledge such measures.
I want to be constructive and look at areas that some do not seem to understand. I want to address the important topic of the treatment of the self-employed within the social welfare system, of which I know something. I have often heard Members here speak as if they were late converts to the cause of the self-employed and now portray themselves as almost their saviours or the only advocates left. We all are aware of the importance of having a safety net in place in the social welfare system, as previous Members have spoken about, for when one falls into personal difficulties, such as illness, or where one loses one's job unexpectedly. It is important that those who find themselves in these positions have seamless access to the welfare system and receive due payments in accordance with their contribution rates as laid down by law.
Both myself and the former Deputy, Senator Ray Butler, raised the important issue of the plight of the self-employed in the previous Dáil on a number of occasions. I raised it as far back as the early 2000s. I remember meeting, in 2010, 2011 and 2012, throughout my constituency of Longford-Westmeath, many hundreds of self-employed who had become unemployed unexpectedly. This occurred due to the downturn, due to illness and for other reasons, or due to a closure of business. Such persons are liable for PRSI payment under the class S rate of 4% which entitles them to access long-term benefits, such as the State pension - contributory - or the widow's, widower's or surviving civil partner's pension - contributory. From the foregoing, they do not qualify for jobseeker's benefit, irrespective of how long they have been making contributions, and these people are compelled to seek recourse to the jobseeker's allowance which, as Members will be aware, is means tested. For many formerly self-employed, this turns out to be their first encounter with the social welfare system. It is an emotive, tortuous and complex process in so far as the assessment must reflect the income that the self-employed person might expect to get from his or her business in the previous 12 months. It involves a minute examination of the previous year's activities and income arising is then gone through. Most people do not have €1 left at that stage. It is rather like looking for last year's snow in the middle of summer. It is an exhaustive process that takes a long time and it taxes everyone's patience. Often these people are left in limbo. It must be remembered that there are over 300,000 self-employed. It is a significant cohort. Not too many Members here seem to want to speak up for them, but I will do so unashamedly. At the end, one goes to the community welfare officer and that involves going through a whole process. Those to whom I referred felt bruised, isolated and irritated.
I raised this with the previous Government and I got included in the programme for Government a commitment to examine the feasibility of providing social insurance cover for self-employed persons. The previous Minister established an advisory group on tax and social welfare to progress this issue and to establish whether cover is technically feasible and financially sustainable. I realise the current Minister, Deputy Varadkar, will focus on this, and I laud and compliment him and urge him to do so.
We should not forget that many of these people who are self-employed also provide valuable employment for others. Many were sole traders or partners and found themselves victims as money due from a main contractor or subcontractor, which may have gone out of business, did not materialise, or they were subject to part-payment, ultimately leading to the collapse of that self-employed person's business. These are relevant issues. The previous Government commenced some policy of equalisation with respect to the taxation treatment of the self-employed compared with employed people by increasing the earned income tax credit for self-employed people. That will match the PAYE tax credit by 2018. They are now on a current-year basis in terms of taxation, so this should be done in the sake of fairness. I hope this process will continue. We must confront the issue and address in a positive and constructive way the plight of the self-employed.
From my discussions with self-employed people, I know that, given the opportunity, they would be willing to contribute a special rate of PRSI. I accept this would likely be significant but it would enable them, on cessation of employment because of a downturn or other circumstances, to immediately qualify for benefits and have access to the full range of social welfare insurance benefits arising from making contributions at a given level or class. This may not mean a person would be entitled to the full range of social welfare benefits but it should correspond to the appropriate class. The cost might not be as much as people have indicated, as many self-employed people must register as an employer and self-employed people never received recognition for their role as tax collectors who furnished payments to the Exchequer on a monthly basis. They must employ people to do so. I hope the Minister will apply fairness in trying to achieve a just and equitable resolution for the self-employed in the application of the social welfare system for them, especially in the context of a specific PRSI scheme underpinning the equality objective. It should recognise their special position as employers as well as employees. I understand the Minister wants that.
Another bugbear of mine that is becoming more evident across the country is the low take-up of pension plans. The rate is well below 50% in the private sector. I understand the former Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, put in place a universal retirement savings group to embark on the process of developing a roadmap or timeline for the introduction of a new pension scheme for all workers in Ireland. On completion of its work, the universal retirement savings group will submit its recommendations to the Minister and the Government, leaving a roadmap to plan for increasing pension coverage and a likely timescale.
I recall a survey from the Irish Association of Pension Funds last year indicating that up to 70% of people would support some form of mandatory pension scheme. Has the Minister any idea when the report will be concluded and ready for publication? Does he support the introduction of a mandatory or quasi-mandatory pension scheme? When is it likely that such a scheme might see the light of day? Does he intend making provisions in the Estimates to commence the roll-out of a mandatory pension scheme, as this would obviously necessitate a State contribution, as well as employer and employee contributions?
The Minister is aware that the portion of the population aged 65 or older in Ireland is projected to increase from approximately 12.4% today to 25% by 2050. This demographic change is welcome and represents longer lives for our people, although it brings significant challenges. For example, currently there are 5.3 people of working age for every such person, but this ratio is expected to decrease to 2.1 people by 2050. The State pension will remain the bedrock of the Irish pension system. However, while the State pension is expected to provide a basic retirement income for workers, many people retiring may experience significant drop in income if they do not have adequate supplementary private pension provision. That relates to a key recommendation of the OECD review of the Irish pension system, which is to improve the adequacy of pensions by increasing coverage in the funded part of the pension scheme through a universal mandatory or quasi-mandatory employment-based pension scheme. Ireland is one of only two member countries of the OECD that does not have a mandatory or quasi-mandatory earnings-related supplementary pension for workers. It is out of this that the universal retirement savings group emerged and it has entered a consultation process. I know the Small Firms Association is opposed to the idea of a mandatory pension scheme for Irish workers, probably because of its cost to business, the State and employees. It would rather pursue a voluntary approach to pension provision, but how successful that would be is open to question. I suppose one must see how far it could go.
We welcome the introduction of the paternity leave scheme, with legislation being initiated before the weekend. Our own Minister and then party leader introduced the idea of two weeks of paid paternity leave in recognition that fathers should have the opportunity to bond with newborn children. It is a step forward but we are still a long way from becoming one of the more father-friendly countries in the European Union. Is this the first step of a scheme of expanded paternity leave, and if so, what is the timetable for expansion? Is there any consideration of shared parental leave, which has been successful in Norway and Sweden?
The Christmas bonus was abolished in 2009 and 2010, with a 25% and 75% bonus reintroduced in recent years. There were 1.2 million people benefitting from this bonus last Christmas, and it is a very welcome assistance to people at a demanding time of the year. We are all aware that people who receive a Christmas bonus are not hoarders and they spend money within the local economy and businesses; it can be a major boost in that way. The bonus has always come from current departmental expenditure and that will be the case this year. Will the new fiscal rules demanding that any Supplementary Estimates be funded through expenditure savings in other Departments or through discretionary measures have any impact on the Minister's ability to ensure the Christmas bonus can be provided in December? As the economic recovery will continue, I hope, will the Minister give consideration to a full restoration of the bonus?
I notice in the programme for Government that there is mention of a new working family payment targeted at low-income families. Anything that improves the lot of low-income families, especially those who are working for low incomes, is welcome. Every parent working at least 15 hours per week will be guaranteed that every extra hour he or she works will result in more take-home pay, which is laudable. How much has been allocated for the new payment and when will it be introduced? How many people will benefit from the payment and by how much will they benefit? How will the payment work alongside the existing family income supplement and the back-to-work family dividend? Those are important issues.
The universality of child benefit is important and it goes to mothers in 95% of cases. It is important that this will continue, with no proposals for changing the way child benefit is paid. That must be clarified. Last year our parliamentary meetings raised the idea of increasing the funding available for school meals by €3 million. There are over 1,430 schools and community groups providing meals in schools, preschools and community groups. If we returned to government, we had hoped to increase the funding available by €5 million each year, expanding the school meals programme to at least one third of all schools and preschool settings, with particular focus on promoting breakfast clubs. That is an important way of tackling child poverty so does the Minister know how much might be provided for such programmes to tackle child poverty, such as the important school meals programme? Is there funding for minor capital works required in some schools? These are important issues.
I am particularly concerned about carers so I will finish on that point, which I referred to when I started. Much tremendous work is done by carers who are unpaid. If one works it out, such carers might get one third of the minimum wage per hour that they devote to their work. The work put in could be valued close to €4 billion, even if the work was valued at the minimum wage, which is a large amount. Money is still tight and there are many demands. There were adjustments in many areas in the past number of years and the Minister will have to address them. I know he has priorities of his own. I urge the Minister to do whatever can be done to improve the plight of carers, who are the unsung heroes of Irish society. These people fought a battle and achieved the restoration of the respite care grant, which was welcome after a very difficult time. Anything that can be done to ameliorate their position, such as providing additional financial resources, should be done. I include in this even small elements, such as allowances for phones. This area should see the first allocations as these people have done a tremendous service. One wonders how our hospital system would cope if they did not do their work, and the cost-benefit analysis of every €1 spent on carers is phenomenally positive. They should get whatever funding can be raised.
They are deeply appreciative people. They have the Carers Alliance and what used to be the Carers Association. Recognition was the first step.
I am very glad that back in the early 2000s I, as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, brought forward a report with my colleagues. We did not engage any consultants or anything else. We wrote 15 recommendations and seven of them were implemented. That is the one thing I think is important. The moral of the story is that one does not need consultants to achieve progress.
The Government's approach to the Revised Estimates shows that despite the setback in its fortunes last February, which to a large degree can be attributed to its overblown claims of recovery, we still have all the cuts and impositions left in situ. Lessons have not been learned about the hardship being felt.
Savage cuts in the one-parent family payment, which remain unaltered, were implemented by the former Minister, Deputy Burton, on the basis that so-called Scandinavian standards of affordable child care would come on stream. This still proves to be a chimera. Such cuts served to tip a number of predominantly young mothers into homelessness.
The provision for activation schemes remains unaltered. We have to square the projected spend for the remainder of the year with the utterances of Ministers about their desire to see the abolition of JobBridge. It is uncontested that this scheme has been abused by employers who blatantly used it as a substitute for real jobs. JobBridge represented an attack principally on young people. This was compounded by blatant discrimination in the form of reduced social welfare payments for those under 25. Attacks like this, combined with the horrendous situation with accommodation, amounts to the Government infantilising young adults, forcing them to be dependent on their parents or, worse, serving as a push factor in leaving the youth no alternative but to emigrate. There is no alteration in the Estimates on this score.
The bereavement grant, which was a minor but important contribution towards funeral costs for the poorest in society, was scrapped almost outright by the previous Government. I know, for example, that the hardship the absence of this grant brings on the families of those who have died from heroin overdoses has become a topic of discussion at local drug task forces. Again, this situation remains unaltered.
Family income supplement, FIS, is absolutely necessary for the families who receive it. That does not contradict the fact it is an indictment on employers and the prevalence of short hours and low pay. The projected increased spend this year over last year is, again, a reflection of the nature of the jobs recovery, which in large measure is being built on precariousness, with the taxpayer indirectly subsidising the profits of the private sector via income supports. The introduction and enforcement of a living wage and the abolition of short-hour, if-and-when contracts together would serve to lower expenditure on FIS on a proper basis.
The combination of an explosion of unemployment at the start of the crisis and a simultaneous reduction of public sector numbers, which found its own reflection in the Department of Social Protection, meant that the experience of many people in their engagement with the Department of Social Protection has been one of waiting weeks and months for the processing of applications. Again, investment in adequate staffing at this stage could eradicate these waiting times which, besides providing relief to the applicant, would also ease the volume of inevitable queries and representations made to public representatives and the Department, which in itself represents a drain on resources.
The former Minister, Deputy Burton, applied cuts to rent supplement when, for a brief juncture at the start of the crisis, the average cost of rents dipped. The subsequent skyrocketing of rent saw no commensurate restoration or increases. Instead, all we have had is the very partial roll-out of the housing assistance payment, which itself carries a sting in its tail as those who receive it are removed from the housing allocation list. Again, this is a cut that remains intact.
We must also remember that the Revised Estimates in the Department of Social Protection, like those of every other Department, are a restatement of the succession of cuts that were imposed on public service workers, most of which remain in place even after the Lansdowne Road agreement expires. Workers in the Department experienced a pension levy, unilateral cuts to salary in 2010, the USC, increment freezes, additional enforced hours, which constitute an effective cut in the rate of pay, and lesser conditions for post-2011 entrants into the Civil Service.
A serious process of Revised Estimates would have reconsidered all these cuts and proposed upward revisions to spending to provide relief for hundreds of thousands of individuals and families who have been put through the ringer and for whom talk of a recovery remains a sick joke. Instead, the airwaves tomorrow will be taken up by Government promises to abolish USC within the lifetime of this Government. While this is absolutely necessary for low and middle-income workers, the lack of action on these issues demonstrates by default this Government's contempt for the section of the population who depend on welfare.
I hope it does not detract from the dignity of the House to announce at this stage that Ireland is one-nil up against Italy, but can we move on-----
Can we note that Ireland went into the lead in the course of my speech?
Can we also note that the goal-scorer's father works in my Department?
Well done, Minister. We move on to Deputies Catherine Connolly and Clare Daly who I understand will share time.
I welcome this opportunity. I thank the Minister and wish him the best in his new role. I was tough on him in the brief period for which he was in speaking in the Dáil on health issues. I agree with Deputy Barry completely. If the Minister were seriously interested in reversing the inequality in society, he would have a different statement before us. I welcome the positive changes and the improvements that have been listed. However, they are done with the background of an improving economy allowing us to give a little more money back to the vulnerable, who really should not have suffered in the first place.
The Minister correctly pointed out that the Department has a huge budget, one of the biggest. He correctly said it is not going to people who are unemployed, by and large, but to a larger segment of society. The question is why and what is happening. Deputy Barry touched on it already. In fact he more than touched on the idea that it is to compensate for the inequality in wages. UNITE published a document, The Truth About Irish Wages, which revealed that the highest-paid private sector workers earn almost four times as much as the lowest-paid employees. Ireland has the second highest level of wage inequality behind Portugal out of 15 countries when it comes to the difference between the lowest and the highest paid. In case anyone thinks UNITE is too radical or too far on the left, let me quote from John FitzGerald, an economist who would not be known for his left-wing views. In The Irish Times on 7 June, he stated "Ireland’s market incomes are very unevenly distributed, and the tax and welfare systems, but mainly welfare, play a very important role in redistributing income". Here we have a system that has to compensate for the bad system of wages.
Related to this, we see the report from the University of Limerick on zero-hour and if-and-when contracts.
We find that 5.3% of employees in Ireland have consistently variable hours. The highest proportion of those are employed in the wholesale, retail, accommodation, food, health and social work sectors - the most hard-working staff with the minimum protection.
I will turn now to the Minister's solution to unemployment. I welcome the fact that the unemployment rates have gone down as one could not but welcome that. However, we must look at how they have gone down. I have nothing to show me other than what the papers have exposed and well done to the media for revealing the abuses of JobBridge. There is the Gateway system for local authorities but I do not see any report on how successful that has been in leading local authorities to employ people. We now have the brand new JobPath, but the Minister should read some of the reports in The Guardian on this, which I am sure the Minister will admit is a pretty rational paper. It sets out details of the companies now employed by social welfare services in Ireland, such as Seetec. Is masla don teanga Gaeilge é "Turas Nua" a chur ar chóras mar seo. It is an insult to the Irish language to call one of these schemes Turas Nua when we are privatising the system by bringing in private, for-profit companies to remove people from the long-term waiting list. These people are suffering from bad health and disability but they are to be assessed if they are fit for work. We are paying them on the basis of-----
It is not an assessment of fitness to work. That is totally wrong.
I will be the first to say "sorry" to the Minister if I am wrong. Maybe he can use his time rather than mine but this is what I read in the information I have before me. I have tabled a number of parliamentary questions on this and Deputy Catherine Murphy has also tabled a question. Very little information has been given except to say that they will provide intensive individual support. The responses do not give any idea of the money paid to these private for-profit companies, how they will be assessed or who will monitor them. I can only go on what I have read in respect of their experience in England and it is not very good. It is something the Minister should really look at.
The cuts for lone parents were the most despicable ever made by a Labour Party in government. Even back in the 1980s, when social welfare was introduced for lone parents, or single mothers as they were then known, the importance of mothers and fathers having the chance to raise their children at home was recognised. The Fine Gael-Labour Party Government also changed the payment on a child reaching seven. I have a letter from a mother who has been put through the hoops in respect of a new payment. She has been told by Tusla that if she leaves her child unminded she will be in trouble. The new payment reads like something from Kafka on a bad day and I ask the Minister to look at it immediately and reverse it. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is not an organisation known for its left-wing leanings but it asks for this to be looked at. On page 2 of its document it calls for lone parents in employment, whose children are aged between seven and 14, to be allowed to receive both jobseeker's transition payment and family income supplement if they meet the qualifying criteria. It goes on to call for the transitional payment and payment of the SUSI grant. It is a document worth looking at; it is very short, very specific and to the point. How much time do I have left?
The bereavement grant should be reinstated and I see no reason for reducing farm assist. I understand the cost of bringing it back would be some €12 million and I cannot for the life of me see how the Minister can stand over that cutback. I fully support the concern of Deputy Penrose in relation to the self-employed. When I was canvassing door to door the position of self-employed people was mentioned more than any issue other than housing and health and people were filled with despair on the matter. It should be looked at immediately.
I will not repeat the points made so well by my colleague. I will deal with one example relating to the Revised Estimates of the Department of Social Protection. I sincerely hope the Department has enough money in the kitty to deal with a root and branch review of pension governance in this country because we are on the cusp of a serious problem in that regard. The Central Remedial Clinic is an example of what is likely to happen to the remaining defined benefit schemes in this country - a huge problem that will, sadly, end up on the Minister's doorstep. Ireland's pension industry is made up of 150,000 schemes with over 730,000 active members holding more than €80 billion in investment assets and over 226,000 individual PAS contracts with over €4.6 billion in investment assets. It is absolutely huge but absolutely not transparent and not accountable.
The CRC has been hit by controversy, not for the first time and not for the first time in respect of its pension situation. The Minister will know that in 2014 the departure of the former CEO Paul Kiely cost the CRC €750,000 in pension payments. An attempt was made to cover this up, which led to the resignation of the board. Now we have another pension scandal at the heart of the CRC under a new board and new management. The staff have been treated abysmally and this is important because if the Department, which is responsible for governance, does not intervene I have no doubt it will be replicated by other defined benefit schemes.
In 2013 the interim administrator wrote that he was confident that with the appointment in 2014 of a competency-based board and a CEO through open competition the CRC would be able to move forward to the next phase of what has been a largely successful organisation. This has not happened. The CRC is at an all-time low and the pension fund has been unilaterally closed. Two members are within weeks of retirement, one with over 30 years of service and one with 44 years of service. Now they have no pension and have had zero consultation. How can this happen in an area over which we are supposed to have governance? How can no new pension plan be put in place? Is our governance so poor that this can be allowed to happen? I find it quite astounding.
This needs the intervention of the Minister to tell them to freeze this scheme now and prohibit them from going ahead with the decision pending a serious investigation into what has gone on. The board did not unilaterally make this decision. We have to look at the role of some of its advisers. The same company, Mercer, provided the administration, the actuarial and the consultancy services to the CRC plan and the trustee of the plan, the Irish Pension Trust, is owned by Mercer. Even more astounding, the CRC board decided to hire another Mercer person late last year to give them separate advice from that given to the pension scheme by the previous fellow from Mercer. It is even more worrying that in 2014 the administrator appointed after the board resigned made the point that they were obligated to obtain advice from an independent source that could be relied upon.
The Deputy may well be going beyond the terms of the Estimates before us. I caution her that it may not be relevant.
It is very relevant from the point of view that the obligations of this scheme, and towards the pensioners in the scheme, may one day end up on the Minister's doorstep both because they are pensioners and because he is responsible for governance in these areas and governance has been found severely wanting in this scheme. It was stated in December 2014 that the funding proposals were on track. They went slightly off track in 2015 but only to the tune of a couple of hundred thousand. Three months later, however, the scheme was unilaterally shut down without consultation.
That is a severe problem and, if not challenged in this instance, this will be replicated by others. What is the impact of that? It means that every day since then, the employer, in this instance the CRC, has been saving substantial amounts of money at the expense of pensioners. The interests of those people, who have, in my opinion, a lawful right to access alternative viewpoints as to how that funding deficit could be met, have not been met. No other proposals have been put in place.
I know from the Minister's previous brief that he takes his responsibility and his stewardship of Departments seriously. I can honestly tell him that this is one area that deserves his further scrutiny. There are organisations giving advice on our pension schemes that are appearing and popping up on all sides of the balance sheet, as it were. They are giving advice to both sides and it is pensioners who are losing out. Why is there such a clamber and rush to shut this scheme down? There is documentation that states this was being done deliberately to deny consultation to the employees, which the Minister knows is completely against Pensions Authority rules.
I appreciate what the Ceann Comhairle said, and I am trying to be respectful in dealing with the topic on hand. However, according to the Pensions Authority, pension fund trustees are supposed to be looking after the savings on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people in the scheme. Their obligations are not just to act with minimum compliance with the law but to act in the best interests of those whose retirement savings they are managing. That obligation cannot be answered in respect of the CRC.
Given the scale of the organisations involved in this matter, I urge that we dig deeper. If we do not, given our aging population and the demands on the Exchequer and the Minister's Department, they will come knocking on his door. Not only that, it is absolutely reprehensible that people who have paid into a scheme all their working lives - 44 years in the case of one person who will retire in a couple of weeks' time - would be told that there is nothing for them there and that the scheme is going to be wound up. We have a system of governance. This falls within the Minister's Department. He has a budget. I hope he ups the level of scrutiny applied because it is needed and an avalanche is coming down the hill in respect of this issue.
Thank you very much, Deputy Daly. Our next speaker is Deputy Danny Healy-Rae, who has five minutes, followed by Deputy Mattie McGrath, who has ten minutes. I can also announce that Ireland has beaten Italy one-nil.
Great news, a Cheann Comhairle.
I wish to raise a number of matters with our new Minister for Social Protection and to wish him well in his role as Minister of that Department. Many problems have been created in recent years which made it difficult for people who wished to get on community employment, CE, schemes as well as those in the Department trying to administer them. One problem is that a person has to be unemployed for 12 months before he or she can go on the CE scheme. Someone who finds a place on a scheme is denied going on it until he or she is 12 months unemployed. In other words, people are being denied the opportunity of staying in the workforce and that is very wrong. Will the Minister address this problem? A period of three months may be more appropriate. It would give them a chance to get rolling again and to get back into the workforce.
Another rule is the year 2000 rule. If a person was on a scheme and accumulated six years of work on the scheme, he or she will be denied the possibility of going on the scheme after the six years has passed. A person aged 58 years or 59 years will not be able to go on the scheme any more. In other words, they will have no opportunities and will be locked inside at home. They will have no opportunity to get out and feel like they are doing good for anyone. They are waiting to get the pension and that is their only outlook. This was not the case before the year 2000. Will the Minister examine this rule and see if it can be changed?
Until four or five years ago, scheme entitlements could be interchanged between husbands and wives and partners and spouses. This suited, in particular, farmers, who were in receipt of farm assist payments, in the summer time. They could swap with their wives who would be allowed to go on the scheme instead of them while there was work to be done on the farm or other work that needed attention. This was a very sensible option but the option is now denied them. Approximately four years ago, the rule was changed and they are now denied that opportunity.
Everywhere in the country - take a place like Kilgarvan - there is another stupid rule. If three people on the scheme reach the age of 62 together, only one can remain on the scheme. People operating the scheme will have to send two people home. They will have to draw their names out of a hat and, depending on how they organise it, the fellow that stays in the hat stays working and the other two have to go home. That is wrong. I am asking that that rule be changed as well and that they are all given the chance to work until the age of 66 years when they reach the pension age.
The other rule is that a person has to be 25 years of age before he or she can go on one of these schemes. It is very wrong that youngsters have to stay at home and that they have to be 25 years before they can go on the scheme and go work in graveyards or GAA fields or something like that.
I refer to lone parents, especially young girls who get in the family way and have a child, which is a joy. However, they need assistance to get them started and until four or five years ago, they were able to get double payments. They were able to get their social welfare payment and they were allowed to go on the CE scheme and work. This has changed and they are now denied that possibility. There is no incentive for them to work now because they will get the same amount under the scheme as they would get under the lone parent scheme if they stay at home.
The Deputy needs to conclude.
I also want to mention carer's allowance because it is very important. It takes 19 weeks before applications for carer's allowance are even assessed. I know a man who applied in February and it was only the other day, after 19 weeks had passed, that the Department wrote to him looking for additional information. The application was not looked at until then. That is very sad and very wrong. A person will have pulled out of his or her job to stay at home and mind an elderly mother or father but it is 19 weeks before the application for carer's allowance is even looked at. That is very wrong and we must do something about it. Two or three weeks would be bad enough but 19 weeks is not on at all. Domiciliary care allowance applications take six months to process, which is too long as well. Will the Minister also look at that issue?
In September 2012, the then Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, changed the number of contributions needed to get pensions. Someone with the same number of contributions after September 2012 as someone with contributions before then is getting far less money. Will the Minister examine the issue and see how it can be addressed? It is not fair. A person who became of pension age in September 2012 gets much less in his or her pension than someone who became of pension age in August 2012. That has to be addressed.
Deputy McGrath has eight minutes.
Gabhaim mo chomhghairdeachas leis an bhfoireann peile faoin mbua anocht agus gabhaim mo chomhghairdeachas leis an Aire.
I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment. I wish him well and I look forward to working constructively with him on many issues. I hope he will bring some of his imaginative style to this portfolio. My colleague Deputy Danny Healy-Rae has covered nearly everything from the cradle to the grave but I have a couple of words left to say. I compliment my colleague for his frankness.
Reference was made to the situation of carers. They are the unsung heroes, as described by Deputy Penrose, and work from morning to night 24-7. I am delighted that the respite grant was reinstated. However, if one considers the amount of hours worked by a carer in keeping hospitals going, in keeping accident and emergency units cleared and in keeping hospital beds and respite beds free and empty for other people who have nobody to care for them, carers would not be earning €3, €4 or €5 per hour. The minimum wage would be out the window never mind the living wage. Carers are a dedicated bunch of people that I cannot help but salute. I do not have my carer's badge on tonight. I always wear it but I mislaid it somewhere recently. We need to salute the carers, support them and energise them because they have a very difficult job.
I also want to acknowledge the self-employed. I stand here as a self-employed person myself and speak for the self-employed on the issue of PRSI, which I know is in the programme for Government, the negotiations of which both Deputy Healy-Rae and myself are involved in. It is envisaged that there will be a benefit for the self-employed who do not mind paying PRSI as long as they get something for it. Many self-employed people have contributed so much: sole traders and their spouses who work long hard hours doing a lot of hard work. Many projects in rural and urban Ireland bear the footprints and fingerprints of self-employed people. Many self-employed people employ others with gainful employment. When the downturn comes, or God forbid if ill-health comes or an accident, a self-employed person can be left with nothing and penniless. Many of them are literally hungry because they do not have the money to support themselves or their families. That situation must be looked at. They do not mind paying PRSI at whatever class level is required if they get some return. The current situation is totally unfair.
Social welfare fraud must also be tackled. I had a PQ reply recently from the Minister for Social Protection and I was astonished at the amount of fraud that has been detected. These people are taking money from those who really need it and who cannot get it in many cases. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae made reference to people who are waiting 16 weeks for carer's allowance and domiciliary allowance. Social welfare fraud must be stamped out at all costs and cannot be allowed to continue. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. I could never condone that kind of activity.
With regard to community employment schemes, there should be an evaluation of the CE scheme system. This should involve an audit as to the value of those schemes to our urban and rural communities. The schemes are much needed now in cities and towns in drug projects and diversion projects, etc. The CE scheme is the backbone of many communities. I am the chairman of a scheme which has been in existence since 1998 in villages local to me in Waterford, Kilnagrange, Newcastle, Ballybacon and Ballymacarbry, all of which do great work. I salute the sponsors - I am one - of all the schemes up and down the country because it is a very onerous task which includes audits, and rightly so. Not a penny can be misused and we expect that. However, with labour employment laws, health and safety legislation, anti-bullying policies, etc, it becomes very onerous and sponsors have to deal with all of this on a daily basis.
I have a concern about the appointment of CE supervisors and the high level of training that is expected of them. I know the Minister is dealing with it but it might not always be the person with the FETAC Level 6 major award that can do a job that involves dealing with several different committees in communities across GAA, child care, churches, schools and all kinds of community games, covering all sorts of issues. Sometimes you cannot legislate for that. One needs a person with hands-on experience who could do the job and who is amply qualified. I salute many of the CE scheme supervisors who may not have qualifications like that because they came in to the positions during previous times. They are working with sponsors and do a great job in keeping the whole thing in motion which is very important. It is not as though one can walk in with a briefcase, collar and tie and do the job. One needs to understand the needs of the communities which can be very different and varying all around the country. I understand the Minister is looking at that situation. We need flexibility there and those who need to gain qualifications should be given time to gain the accreditation. There should be a level playing field for those who wish to enter the scheme.
I will turn to the Tús scheme which is too short year on and year off. Again, I salute the supervisors and the people who co-ordinate it. In my area, it was the South Tipperary Development Company, which is now in abeyance due to the legacy left by big Phil Hogan, the former Minister and now European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development. Tús also needs to be reviewed. With regard to the rural social scheme, I know it is also envisaged in the programme for Government and that it came up in talks. It is a huge issue. The agriculture sector has never been in a worse place with such a low income. Given the prices for milk and other commodities, the farmers are under pressure. These are people who are willing and able to work if their spouses could swap at busy times of year - it is all one family's income and it is just a matter of being more flexible, more understanding and allowing those people to work.
Rural land has been transformed by CE schemes and Tús. County councils have abandoned those communities and do not have the outdoor staff. Consider all the maintenance work the councils were doing in communities. The Tidy Towns committees, the sponsors, CE and Tús workers are now doing all of that highly valuable work. An audit should be kept as to the value of that work. It would cost billions of euro to do that work.
The schemes also offer valuable training. Schemes like the one I was involved in were very progressive and many people moved back into employment or self-employment and that is the way it should be. There was a rule on CE schemes where a scheme could retain 10% of participants who are over 55 years but now it is very hard to keep anyone. If one was to keep the over 55s off schemes many of them would not get jobs in rural or urban Ireland and they need to be kept on until at least pension age. They are doing valuable work and are only getting €20 extra on top of their benefit or jobseeker's allowance for doing the work. It is a similar situation for those between the ages of 25 and 35. The packages are too inflexible and schemes are finding it hard to get eligible applicants who want to come out and work. It is getting harder to get them or they are not there. It will also become difficult to find supervisors if the Minister insists on carrying on with the same high level of regulations and qualifications which, in my opinion, are not always necessary to do those jobs. A scheme needs to keep the books right, adhere to employment legislation and health and safety rules and the supervisor needs to be able to take instructions and develop a good working relationship with sponsors and indeed a good relationship with social welfare officers and FÁS, whom I salute and who also do a lot of hard work. I deal with officers from the Waterford office and the Tipperary office who perform dedicated work which is time-consuming because there are so few of them and they have so many audits to do. In my area I deal with Michael Ormonde and Stephen Burke who perform much dedicated work on behalf of the Department of Social Protection and on behalf of taxpayers. There is good value of money delivered by schemes like that, from carers and from the self-employed who all supported this country through the worst recession we have ever seen. If we want to have self-employed people involved in kick-starting our economy in rural and urban areas then they need our support. We need them to know that there will be some benefit for them if they fall ill or if they had a period of bad trading, if they do not get paid from big companies or inadvertently go into liquidation. They need something to thank them for their service, a cushion which they have paid into. I wish the Minister well in his ministry.
I congratulate the Minister on his new portfolio and I wish him well. Our social welfare system needs fundamental reform. The net effect of recent budgets has been that low-income families and persons who are dependent on social welfare have suffered more by comparison with those who are better off. The Revised Estimates, published this month, provide €19.625 billion for all Department expenditure on schemes, services and administration in 2016. This is a similar figure to that published in the Revised Estimates in 2015. I hope this figure can be increased because of the improvement in the economy and that any increase is focused.
The application processes for carer’s payments needs to be changed to enable applicants to provide more information on the level of care being provided. This would give the Department a far clearer picture of the level of care being given in the absence of a face-to-face assessment and would prevent over 50% of applications being refused at the initial stage. Eligibility for disability allowance depends on capacity to work. However, decisions are made based mainly on a medical assessment. In many cases this does not, by itself, give an accurate assessment of a person’s capacity to work. People should be given an opportunity to describe how their disability impacts on their daily life. The Department should endeavour to work with the disability movement and voluntary disability providers to develop a fair and comprehensive system of assessing people’s capacity to work.
I appeal to the Minister to speed up the application process for carer's allowance and carer's benefit. The delays are causing unnecessary hardships and stress to many families who are caring full-time for their family members and loved ones. The staff in the Department of Social Protection dealing with the backlog of payments are doing what they can but they are understaffed and under-resourced. There are delays that could and should be avoided because of the service these people provide. A nursing home bed costs between €1,000 and €1,200 a week. These people are genuinely trying to care for people at home. There are other issues concerning home help and home-care packages which are not being provided as quickly as they should be to prevent people having to get nursing home care.
Those applying for payments are already in a distressing situation and this is only compounded by the time it takes for a decision to be made on a person’s entitlement to a payment. This needs to be addressed urgently. The family income supplement, FIS, is a welcome attempt to make work more financially worthwhile. As currently structured, however, it contains an obvious poverty trap which should be removed. This arises from the fact that in order to qualify for FIS a person has to work at least 38 hours per fortnight. This should be replaced by a sliding scale in order to reflect the fact that many people may be working or wish to work fewer than 19 hours a week and may be in just as much need as current FIS recipients. This would also create more of an incentive to work. I know a man who has two children and whose wife is having a difficult pregnancy and is off work. He works on a community employment, CE, scheme for 19 hours per week. He also works as a caretaker in a health centre on a contract basis and is paid €103 for ten hours a week. The family's total income is €510 per week. He is working approximately 40 hours per week. If he was working only 19 hours per week, he would be entitled to €610 a week. There is an anomaly here because, although he is working hard to provide for his family and pay the mortgage, there is a difference of €100 a week. While he is paid for ten hours on a Health Service Executive, HSE, contract, he informs me he is working approximately 20 hours a week to do what has to be done. That anomaly should be addressed.
Given the changing nature of the workforce, more focus is needed in the welfare system and the system needs to be more flexible. I welcome the Minister's statement that he plans to extend social welfare benefits to the self-employed. Treating the self-employed to ensure that entrepreneurship is protected and encouraged in public policy is of the utmost importance. Furthermore, FIS should be extended to the self-employed, under a system of selective voluntary opt-ins for them as well as those who operate small businesses. Self-employed workers should get the chance to increase their pay-related social insurance, PRSI, contributions to give them sick pay and unemployment payment entitlements. People who have to work for themselves and who in many circumstances give work to others have been given a very poor deal under the current welfare regime.
I will do my best to reply to as many Members as possible in the five minutes I have been allocated and I will correspond with those to whom I cannot reply now on the issues they have raised. I agree with Deputy O’Dea’s initial comment that Estimates would be better done in the old way through committees and that is what is intended in future. We could spend more time scrutinising the Estimates in committee format where there are questions and answers, rather than this format.
Deputy O’Dea said that the budgets introduced in the past five years were regressive. I dispute that. I know that is what the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, Stimulating Welfare and Income Tax Changes, SWITCH, model and other models say but those models are based on two false assumptions. One, they assume that a tax cut is the Government giving people money. I dispute that. I am of the view that people’s money belongs to them and when a Government cuts taxes, it is allowing people to keep more of the money they earned. Most people would agree with that. Those models, such as the SWITCH model and others conducted by academics, have no regard whatsoever for services. For example, an increase of 50 cent per week in social welfare is considered to be progressive but a second week of free child care counts for nothing. General practitioner, GP, care for everyone younger than six, including families with no income, counts for nothing. I am happy to make this argument and will do so in future.
I do, however, agree with Deputy O’Dea when he says there have been substantial cuts to welfare payments in recent years. There was the €16 a week cut taken from everyone on social welfare, apart from pensioners, under the Fianna Fáil-Green Government. Subsequent to that, while there were not cuts in weekly payments under the last Government there were cuts in real terms as a result of inflation because welfare payments did not increase in line with inflation in the past few years and there were cuts to secondary benefits. I am not going to pretend otherwise. I do also agree with him that it will take several budgets to restore the full value of benefits to the level they were at before the crisis. I do not intend to reverse all the structural reforms brought about by my predecessor which were designed to reduce welfare dependency and to encourage people to move from welfare to work but I do intend to reverse the cuts made solely with the purpose of saving money. I intend to do that, if I can, over the next four or five years and I hope I will have the support of the House in doing so.
In response to the question on the housing assistance payment, HAP, a total of €24 million will be transferred this year; €20 million was transferred in 2015. There were just over 10,000 people on HAP as of 13 June - 1,261 in Limerick but none in Wicklow, so there is quite a large variation.
Deputy O’Dea referred to the report on the back-to-education allowance, BTEA, as damning. It is damning in that it indicates that people on the BTEA are less likely to make it into employment than those who do not go back to education, but that requires much more study because it does not distinguish between people who completed their education and those who did not. That is not good enough. We need to make a distinction between those who managed to finish their education and those who did not. That requires further study.
Deputies Rabbitte and Connolly mentioned JobPath. It is outsourced to two different companies, one for-profit and one not-for-profit. JobPath tries to get people into jobs that have contracts with wages. It assists them in different ways, helping them to get a certificate they may need or a course, even to the point of helping them buy a suit for an interview. It does not carry out work capacity assessments on people with disabilities. There is a bit of a campaign to try to make out that the reforms carried out in the United Kingdom, UK, are being aped here. That is not the case. That is total misrepresentation by certain campaign groups. Neither JobPath company has the authority to stop or reduce anyone’s benefits, which is in total contrast to what was done in the UK, where private companies could make those kinds of decisions and carry out capacity to work assessments on people with disabilities. Nobody on disability allowance is even being referred to JobPath, only people on jobseeker’s allowance.
In respect of CE, Tús and Gateway, the rates of progression from those schemes into employment are pretty poor. They are designed for people who are long-term unemployed or people who struggle to get into employment. It would not be a good idea for somebody who is 21 or 22 and who is only three months unemployed to go into CE. It is much better for that person to get a regular job and the same applies in other circumstances. The real value in CE is assisting people in long-term unemployment and others who would struggle to get a normal job, giving them something to do and getting them started on the road to work. The real value is in the work actually done by CE schemes and communities. It should be aimed at those who are long-term unemployed, those who struggle to hold down a job, not those who are 21 or 22 and have been unemployed for only a few months who should be getting a regular job.
Debate adjourned.
