Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 19 Apr 2005

Society of St. Vincent de Paul: Presentation.

I am pleased to welcome Mr. John Monaghan, vice-president and chair of the national social justice policy committee of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in Ireland, Ms Audrey Deane, national social policy officer, and Mr. John-Mark McCafferty, national social policy officer. They are here to make a presentation regarding their analysis of the 2005 budget. The analysis, which was forwarded at the weekend, has been circulated to all members of the joint committee and I will invite them to begin their oral presentation in a moment.

Before we commence, members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration regarding any matters being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contributions. Members are also reminded that if there is a possibility of there being a conflict of interest, they should make a declaration of interest, either now or at the start of a contribution.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but that this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it.

I have also informed Mr. Monaghan, Mr. Deane and Mr. McCafferty that Deputy Stanton and I will have to leave, since we are expected in the Dáil for Question Time. It is an unfortunate clash of events but priority questions have been tabled in our names and we will have to deal with them. Deputy Carty will take the Chair at that point.

Mr. John Monaghan

I thank the Chairman for inviting us to come before the committee. We are delighted at the opportunity to make this presentation on our budget submission. Perhaps I might start by setting what we do in context and by indicating why we produced a pre-budget submission and a budget response.

I am sure members are all aware of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul but one or two facts might help set matters in context. We have approximately 9,000 members who are spread around approximately 1,000 conferences and branches throughout the 32 counties of Ireland. We are, therefore, an international organisation.

We engage in a wide range of activities, mainly in visitation. Last year we made over 250,000 visits to families throughout the country. That meant that we were in contact with between 750,000 and 1 million people. We make visits to prisons, hospitals, Traveller halting sites, hostels, asylum seekers and migrant workers. It is not simply a matter of visiting family households, we also visit a wide range of other groups. We are the biggest provider of hostel accommodation in the country. It is not something of which we make a big deal but we provide 18 hostels with 1,200 beds every night. Were it not for those, the people in question would clearly be homeless. Last year we opened a domestic violence refuge in Longford, one of the few in the country. We run over 50 breakfast and after-school clubs throughout the country for children from disadvantaged areas. We run youth clubs and have 120 "good as new" shops to enable both people who come to seek our assistance and members of the general public to buy things relatively cheaply. We also have an expanding network of community resource centres.

All that activity engages our 9,000 members and the annual report we produced in 2003 showed that we had spent over €31 million in doing so. That meant we were spending over €600,000 a week across those activities, the greatest proportion of it going to families and people directly in need. I will give the committee a breakdown of where some of the money went.

We spent €3.8 million on food, which is hard to credit in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. We must be some of the best customers regarding fuel and the ESB, since we spent €2.5 million on those. On clothing, footwear and furniture, we spent over €1 million; we spent a further €2.6 million on tackling educational disadvantage; and we spent €7 million on direct cash assistance — including such things as rents, mortgages, paying for funerals and all the other things people have to do. That means that €17 million, or approximately €327,000 per week, is spent on people's most basic necessities.

The reason we have to spend that kind of money is the expanding number of calls for assistance to the society. They have increased dramatically in recent years. In 2002, the total number of calls received, at our head office on the New Cabra Road, from the greater Dublin area was just over 7,000. In 2003 that had increased to over 11,500 and in 2004 it had reached 18,327. In the first three months of this year, we have had nearly 4,000 calls. In a time of apparent affluence, an increasing number of people are calling on the society. A significant number of them do not come from the normal group — those on social welfare, disability benefits or pensions — one would expect but are people on low incomes but in work, namely, the group that will receive this marvellous rise of 65 cent when the minimum wage is shortly increased.

That is an indication of why we have been spending so much. If the committee ever needs any illustration of the very obvious and widening gap between the richer and poorer in Irish society, it need only look back to last September and the number of reports from official sources showing how that gap has increased. The ESRI report highlighting the widening gap between the rich and poor was published in that month, as was the National Competitiveness Council's report on prices in Ireland. It is the most expensive place to live in the eurozone, and the most expensive for food. When it is considered that the people we are dealing with spend a disproportionate amount of their money on food, one can see the impact this will have.

The NESC published a report in September which indicated that 6,500 social houses were built, yet there is a waiting list of around 50,000 households or approximately 140,000 people. Approximately 50,000 are children, so there is a real problem in terms of child poverty. EU reports in October indicated the number of people living on what is called the median income of between €185 and €208 per week, but that gap has widened. Overall, members of the committee can see that the problems the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is facing are not in our imagination. They are very real. It now looks, based on a preliminary reflection on last year's figures, that our spend will be way in excess of €31 million, and the number of calls we made in 2004 was in the region of 310,000.

That sets the tone for why we wrote the pre-budget submission and the response to the budget in the manner we did. We compared what we had asked for against what we received. In fairness, there were some items in this year's budget that we welcomed. We compliment the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, on the efforts he made in getting increases. Equally, we welcome the comments the Minister has made in more recent times regarding the condition of lone parents and the need to target payments at the poorest families. That is very useful. However, there is many a slip between the eye and the lip and we wait to see what transpires from those deliberations.

I thank Mr. Monaghan. I have to leave the meeting at this stage, and Deputy Carty will take over as Acting Chairman.

Deputy Carty took the Chair.

Ms Audrey Deane

I will broaden the discussion somewhat and talk about something that is close to the hearts of all members of the committee, that is, education as a critical enabler out of poverty. That is an issue on which the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is particularly keen and it is a core part of its mission statement. Unfortunately, we were disappointed in the most recent budget because we asked for a number of basic items which we did not get. I am sure members of the committee will have an inkling as regards the stress and lack of identity that many families face at the start of the new school year, each August and September, when they literally cannot manage their budgets because of their inadequate social welfare rates. If they are on low incomes they are pushed into a degree of debt at times. Mr. Monaghan will speak about debt shortly.

We asked for an increase in the back to school footwear and clothing allowance, but did not get it. We did not even get a review of the eligibility methods used to decide who could avail of it so we were extremely disappointed. The society will continue to help people out in their moments of need at that critical time of year. It is often said to us that it is neither Christmas nor first communion time that are the trigger points for low income families, but August-September when they literally cannot afford to kit out their children for school.

Early school leaving is still an issue. We all know that 14.6% of children under 15 still live in consistent poverty. In some schools as many as 50% of children have severe literacy and numeracy problems. The list goes on. Some 1,000 children do not even make the transition into secondary school. These indicators are manifestations of the struggle parents face to keep their children in school. We asked for basic items but did not get them. We will continue to step into the breach, but that is not really the job of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and we are disappointed with that.

We understand the issue of school books is not within the remit of this committee, but we will refer to it. Books are a basic prerequisite in helping to keep a child in school. Without going into the intricacies and minutiae of curriculums and the fact that children now write into books etc., there are ways and means of enabling schools to encourage families to avail of book rental schemes. However, we understand that principals are very busy people and we welcome the 300 administrative posts that apparently are coming down the line from the Department of Education and Science. Perhaps this will provide more space for principals in a crowded agenda. We want to see more concrete steps being taken to improve the current situation so that children can afford books.

At the other end of the school cycle is the issue of the back to education allowance. This is for people who have left school early or mature learners over the age of 25. We see a great many lone parents who have come to realise the value of education and want to imprint that on their children and show, through their own life journeys, how important it is to get an education to improve one's career prospects and enhance one's income. The fact that the waiting time to avail of the back to education allowance has been increased from six to 15 months has been very disappointing. It confuses people, demotivates them and does not encourage those it should, particularly lone parents as well as other people in vulnerable positions or in low income households, to re-enter education.

School meals is a remit of this committee because it comes under the aegis of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. This, unfortunately, illustrates a lack of joined-up governance at implementation level. The Department of Education and Science is extremely busy with many other matters in schools so that sometimes it does not avail of the budget provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs for school meals, which was €6 million last year. These two Departments are almost at odds with each other from the viewpoint of this issue which, for the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, is ensuring children have food in their tummies for the school day. Mr. Monaghan will say how many school breakfast clubs we have.

Mr. Monaghan

We have about 50 and there are more. We are not the only people organising breakfast clubs. I do not know how many members of the committee will have been at a breakfast club, but it is well worthwhile having a look at what goes on. Local teachers and volunteers give children cereal, a yoghurt, some nutritious juice and a fibre bar. We did a survey recently on educational disadvantage. One teacher readily volunteered the truism that an empty stomach quickly unfocuses the mind. It is extremely difficult to teach young children who want to fall asleep, because they are literally coming to school hungry. Sadly, that has happened today and will happen tomorrow in this city. It is happening less than 500 yards from here.

Ms Deane

We would like to point out in a critical way, which will be accepted by the policy makers, the issue of food poverty in whatever its manifestation. For the Society of St. Vincent de Paul this means not being able to afford and access nutritional food. Food poverty per se is a much wider policy map, but in this context, I am curtailing my comments to the direct provision of food within the school system. There has been a review of the school meal scheme which has given rise to fruitful and positive recommendations. However, as yet they are not implemented. It is a very patchy scheme. The anomalies and eligibility issues would not pass scrutiny.

The issue of direct food provision for children within the school system must be ramped up and consolidated. A €6 million budget which is not availed of by a Department because of its other commitments is a sad indictment of where we want to go and the type of society we want our children to participate in. I will not say much more about food poverty except to note that Combat Poverty Ireland and CROSSCARE, the Dublin diocesan agency and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are working very hard to get the issue of healthy eating for all ramped up into a policy agenda. Members of the committee will be hearing much more about this issue.

I will refer to another area where joined-up governance is lacking. We all know that children like chips, baked beans and sausages. If a lone parent and a child are to follow the healthy food guidelines recommended by the Department of Health and Children, for a week, they will use 80% of that family's social welfare entitlement. One arm of government indicates that this is what the family needs to do to be healthy, but the bottom line is income inadequacy. That is what we are here to put to the committee in a variety of different messages. People do not have enough to live on.

I will end with the issue of early education. There is much deep research which shows that stress at this age in one's life has an enormous impact on how one develops as regards cognitive, language and social development skills. People are now starting to understand this. Members will have been made aware, on the doorsteps during the recent by-elections, that early education and care in childhood is a critical societal issue. We are not just talking about a labour market approach in getting women back into the workforce, but rather quality parental provision from birth until children enter the junior infants cycle, which we do not have in Ireland. We are talking about quality provision from birth until children enter junior infants. We do not have that in Ireland. We have a residual situation which the OECD, in its must recent early childhood report, has decried and many stakeholders are talking about it. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is fortunately able to participate in the NESF project team which is looking at this issue. It is important to stress to everyone that action on this issue has to be implemented. There is too much ivory tower style policy that has not been implemented.

We in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul witness the outcome of that, which is vulnerable children not being able to access quality care. Their parents cannot get back into education or work because of poverty traps. This is a huge issue for society and we will have to grasp it.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

The society welcomes the opportunity to address the committee with our analysis of the 2005 budget. The society recently made a submission as part of the End Child Poverty Coalition and we welcome the fact that we can make a submission today as an organisation in our own right. I will deal with the main issues that affect the society. I will be talking about adult income supports, child income supports, welfare to work measures, the impact of the habitual residency condition and some of the 15 social welfare cuts.

We broadly welcome the increases in the adult social welfare rates provided in the budget. We see these as a step in the right direction. They are consistent with the national anti-poverty strategy targets. Although they are less than we had hoped, they mean that the Government is not too far from fulfilling its 2007 commitments on adult social welfare support. This is not the case for children. Unfortunately, the Government broke its promise for the second time in meeting its own commitment, set out in Sustaining Progress and elsewhere, for meeting the child benefit targets. Child benefit is an important payment but it is not the only payment nor is it necessarily the most strategically focused payment. Currently there are a number of second-tier child income supports. It can be argued that the family income supplement is a child income support. It can certainly be argued that child dependant allowance is a targeted child income support. However, we challenge the notion that the child dependant allowance is a disincentive to families and parents going to work. It is at such a low level that we argue it would not act as a discouragement to people taking up employment.

We are also mindful of the fact that the National Economic and Social Council is considering the second-tier child income support payments and considering the possibility of merging the family income supplement with child dependant allowances. We know that there are a number of options available to the Government on this and we are trying to formulate policy to develop the child income supplement.

With regard to the welfare to work supports, we welcome the increase in the family income supplement. It is not necessarily as much as we had hoped, but it is certainly an important payment. There is an issue regarding take-up, but we discussed that previously with the committee.

While we welcome the increase in the minimum wage for this year, it is clear that from 1 May 2005, those on the minimum wage who are currently not paying any tax will start to do so. The tax credits are being raised but not sufficiently to make sure that low wage employees benefit fully from the raise in the minimum wage. This section of the population does not benefit fully from things like tax cuts. Due to the inadequate level of social housing provision, there are substantial costs for low wage families trying to pay for housing. High health costs and housing costs are a direct result of an inadequate level of social housing provision.

Organisations including the Society of St. Vincent de Paul were invited to a meeting with the Department last week to air our concerns about the impact of the habitual residency condition. We have been affected substantially by that impact. We appreciate that certain steps must be taken to safeguard the integrity of our welfare system, given the changed nature of the enlarged European Union. However, there are some unintended impacts and one of those is the impact of the habitual residency condition on homelessness. We feel that it has exacerbated homelessness in certain areas. Where the society has attempted to assist individuals in providing emergency accommodation, it has been prevented from doing so precisely because of the habitual residency condition. This states that it is not legal to accept someone who is not able to pay part of his or her rent through something like the SWA payment.

The staff and members of the society are in a quandary about the nature of support in the short term for families and individuals coming from some of the accession states. These people often arrive with insufficient funds and over-optimistic expectations on how quickly they will gain employment. They do not want to be recipients of another member state's social welfare system. Those unrealistic expectations are partly due to the fact that they have been aggressively campaigned by private agencies and even state bodies in the accession states. These bodies are looking for people to come to work in Ireland. It is remiss to contend it is not an issue that relates to how we formulate policy.

The social welfare changes were discussed when the coalition met the committee and the several outstanding cuts are documented in our leaflet. In general terms, we are concerned that not all the cuts announced in the Book of Estimates in November 2003 were rescinded. The cutback in respect of the widow's payment, for example, has been repealed but there is uncertainty in regard to some provisions. It is unclear, for instance, whether improvements have been made to the crèche supplement scheme. One cannot determine whether community welfare officers have a mandate to broaden the eligibility criteria for that benefit. In addition, there is still a significant waiting time for eligibility for the back to education allowance and there is concern about the direction the Government will take with regard to the money advice and budgeting service supplement.

I thank the delegates for their contribution and invite questions from members.

I thank the delegates for their presentation and commend the Society of St. Vincent de Paul on the excellent and quiet work of its volunteers in every community. I agree with the sentiments expressed by the delegation, particularly in regard to the poor, and have long held similar views. My slogan for the last number of years has been, "The poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer and the middle class is being squeezed".

The delegates have first-hand knowledge of the experiences of people in need and we cannot doubt the truth of what they have said. I am aware of women who live in dread of two particular occasions in the year. The first is September when their children begin the new school year and the second is December and the awful expense of Christmas. I was pleased the delegates referred to the situation of those not receiving social welfare benefits and on low incomes. For those receiving social welfare benefit, the payment can vary from €185 to €208 per week.

It is sad that there are people paying taxes on very low incomes while some billionaires pay no tax. These wealthy persons live abroad and only return to this country to use their holiday homes and pursue their racing and other sporting interests. There is a more significant tax break for the horse industry than for those on low incomes. We must all speak louder and longer on this issue and impress upon the super-rich and the Government that the poor are getting poorer. Their voices are not heard because there is nobody to speak for them other than the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and a few other organisations.

The Government gave a commitment in regard to child benefit in 2001. However, this was the first provision to suffer at the first sign of a slight setback in the economy and the Minister reneged on his promise. There has been no increase in the child dependant allowance for the last ten years. Are we to assume it must be cheaper to look after a child now than it was in the middle of the last decade? I disagree with the Government's contention that a significant increase in this allowance might act as a disincentive for parents going out to work. It is generally the case that 99.9% of the benefit given to a mother will be spent on her child. The child benefit money is often saved each month for use as an emergency fund or to provide for the child's clothing and other necessities. That is how resources should be targeted and it is sad to see so many children suffering the ill-effects of poverty.

The delegation spoke about family income supplement, an issue I have raised on several occasions with the Government. My colleague, Senator Terry, has compiled an information leaflet on this scheme and I intend to produce something similar in the future. The simple approach would be to allow recipients to claim the allowance back at the end of the tax year. However, the Government will not do so even though this would be a far more convenient system for recipients and would ensure that all those eligible receive the allowance. There is a major dearth of information about this scheme.

Thousands of people are unaware that if their income does not meet the level defined by the Government as adequate to raise a family, they are eligible for this benefit. In addition, some people who are employed feel uncomfortable about claiming a social welfare payment. This issue would be eliminated if the allowance were repaid to recipients at the end of the tax year. If it is possible to demand payment from persons who have underpaid tax 20 or 30 years ago, it should be possible to ensure people are credited with a supplementary income allowance to which they are entitled. The same is evident in regard to nursing home charges in that the State is well able to take citizens' money but is not so quick to return it.

It is incredible that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul must dispense €3.8 million on an annual basis to provide families with food and €2.5 million for fuel. This is a sad indictment of our society. I have often heard it claimed, usually by people in pubs, that those in receipt of social welfare are well off. There are those who would spend €200 on a bottle of wine while others must support a family on the same amount per week. Some think nothing of opening bottles of champagne at the Galway races or donating thousands to a political party. There is no doubt the poor are getting poorer and it is time for the Government to consider how best to target resources. We must have particular regard for the welfare of children, many of whom suffer daily as a consequence of poverty.

I compliment the delegates on their presentation. They referred to all the key points in this matter because they have first-hand knowledge of people's daily circumstances. More politicians must listen to the concerns of people in this area and media representatives must get up from their shiny stools in the Dáil Chamber and do some active research in communities. Politicians and media people are aware the rich are getting richer because they encounter them at race meetings every week as they parade the horses which enjoy tax-free status. However, they seem to ignore the reality that the poor are getting poorer. I compliment the Society of St. Vincent de Paul on its work in speaking on behalf of those in need.

I compliment the delegates on their presentation and thank them for their efforts and those of their colleagues in other organisations to highlight the plight of those living in poverty on a daily basis. There is a common perception that in a country as rich as this those dependent on social welfare are somehow spongers. It is important that we tackle this misconception and illustrate that we must meet the needs of those living in poverty in a meaningful way if we are to progress as a country.

Education is a vital element in the effort to reduce poverty. We hear of children, in public and private estates throughout the country, who do not attend school on a daily basis. For some parents, there is the consideration of the cost of retaining children in full-time education. In its submission before Christmas, the delegation indicated the annual cost of clothing a sixth class school child is €360. The corresponding figure for a secondary school student is €275.20. It is to be hoped the Minister will consider these well-researched figures. I agree with Ms Deane that education is vital as part of an overall strategy to tackle poverty. The cost of school books, linked to the cost of clothing a child in September, is vitally important. Neither the budget nor the Social Welfare Bill dealt with the issue to any great extent. We in the Opposition will be highlighting this area in terms of working towards next year's budget. Hopefully the coalition will also concentrate on the issue.

We spent much time considering the back to education allowance. The committee and Opposition spokespeople raised the issue of waiting times with the Minister on numerous occasions. It was originally 15 months but he shortened it by three months. On the basis of motions tabled and amendments proposed by the Opposition, he gave a specific commitment that he would further reduce the waiting time from 12 months to nine. He clearly said it would not require an amendment to the legislation and that it could be done by order before the summer. We will be pressing him on this matter, and I have submitted questions to him this afternoon in this regard.

We agree with most of the delegates' comments. Some Government backbenchers made certain contributions in the Dáil in line with the delegation's submissions.

A vote has been called in the Seanad.

I am interested in the delegates' views on a particular issue, although they may not have an immediate answer. However, we are looking for a solution to rent supplement and low income earners. As things stand, as long as one member of a family is earning they are not entitled to a rent supplement. This causes a problem in terms of cohabiting, linkage and family units. There are people who would like to be together, either married or as a family unit. However, they may be on a low income with possibly only one member working. If they disclose that information they cannot receive rent supplement which is an unrealistic position.

We should try to link rent supplement and regularise the position. Rent supplement should be assessed on the basis of need, giving people the ability to get a house of their own. This is particularly necessary in the context of the numbers on the housing list. Do delegates have suggestions with regard to how that might be modified to help those on low incomes, whether working or in receipt of social welfare, in order that they can keep the family unit together and at the same time be entitled to rent supplement? In this way, they would have a roof over their heads until the local authorities were in a position to house them.

I welcome the delegates and congratulate them on their great work. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul has a local presence and is a helping hand to all. I was surprised at the amount of beds the organisation has. I did not realise there were 1,200 hostel beds throughout the country. The amount paid out every year is sizeable.

I agree the issue of back to school footwear and clothing has not been addressed in the past couple of years. Perhaps, it should be targeted at the less well-off. Can delegates elaborate a little on the breakfast clubs, with which I am not familiar? It seems to be a very good scheme in that anything which helps deprived children once they get to school is a plus.

Would the people who sleep rough every night in our cities and larger towns not avail of beds with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul? Are their problems more related to alcohol and drugs? Some Society of St Vincent de Paul volunteers take care of them and give them soup, which is good. I am not sure where the problem arises. Is it because they are tied into alcohol and drugs that they do not avail of the organisation's shelter services?

I compliment and congratulate the Society of St Vincent de Paul on the work it has done.

Delegates are now invited to respond to those comments, and then Deputy Connolly and remaining Senators will speak.

Mr. Monaghan

I thank all members for their kind comments. I am a volunteer and last night I was out with a family which we helped approximately two or three years ago. We helped the young man set up his own business but sadly it failed several months ago and the marriage has broken up. The woman is now trying to get by each week on a single parent's allowance and a small maintenance allowance. Deputy Ring is right in that it is very galling to go into a home and sit down with someone who is in tears with worry about how she will pay the electricity bill and for the cooker which they could only buy through the ESB. Having no one to turn to, she borrowed from a money lending company. A considerable portion of their income is going to repay that loan.

We go in and are met by tears and bills and try to work through it. That is the reality for us as volunteers. We will do it tonight and every night this week, including Sunday, and every day of the year. It is hard, and extremely difficult to listen to other people castigate the poor and tell them there is no reason for anybody to be in that position. I have heard some very senior business leaders making such comments in the past week. They say there is no poverty in Ireland. It is as if they live behind a sheet of glass in that they can see these people and are aware of their existence but are living in a completely different world. It is a considerable problem.

The real difficulty with regard to rent supplement is the fact that we even need it. The problem we are faced with is that we are building such an inadequate number of social housing. I am not referring to affordable housing. The Government has made promises about building affordable housing but they are for those who previously could afford them. If you offered these houses to the people with whom we deal for a mere €2,500, let alone €250,000, they could not pay for them because they do not have the money. The number of social housing units built last year was no more than 6,000. The construction industry boasts that it built 80,000, but they are not for the people who really need them. The only way to get over the difficulty of rent supplement is to build more social housing units.

Rent supplement is costing a fortune — some €350 million every year. It seems daft to suggest we in this country promote family values and people living together when inspectors from the Department check if the boyfriend is living with a young woman. In fairness to the Minister, he has stated that he wishes to examine this.

I agree with Deputy Seán Ryan that the fact that if one goes out to work, one tends to lose the supplement is a problem. There is a tapering system, but for years we have argued consistently that the tapered system should be much more gradual and much more gentle. We should try to build family units, not break them apart. Mr. McCafferty can elaborate on this.

I wish to comment on Deputy Callanan's point that it came as a surprise that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul provides 1,200 beds every night. I am sure many people do not realise that. We do not make a big song and dance about the fact we are the largest provider of accommodation.

As regards breakfast clubs, I will explain briefly how they work. The Department very kindly provides each group that wishes to set up a club with about 60c per day towards the cost of the food. The local conference and group then provide the balance and also provide the money to ensure it can be delivered and prepared. One then tries to provide it in schools. Where possible, one makes it available to every child in school, because one does not want to make it appear as if there is a stigma associated with it. One goes into a school, one chats with the principal and teachers and one makes provision to bring in fruit juice, yoghurt or a packet of cereal and one tries to ensure that the children have something inside them before they start. It also gives them a wonderful opportunity for socialisation. It is worth remembering that many of the children in disadvantaged areas come from homes where life is not very good. It may be that they come to school hungry because one or other parent did not get out of bed. There could be problems in the home. There can be all kinds of difficulties, not just a lack of money. The act of getting a child into an atmosphere where he or she feels safe and secure and has something to eat is well worthwhile. The knock-on effects are incredible. It is a system that we and many other groups are operating. We can certainly make information available to the joint committee as to how a club might be set up.

Ms Deane

There is often a community employment scheme attached to the breakfast club which means parents might be also involved in a paid capacity as helpers or workers. For a family that may not have experienced employment, having a parent in recognised paid employment provides a great sense of esteem. Everyone feels better, the child sees his or her parent contributing something, so the clubs have nothing but good to offer. It really gets them up. They sing songs and get cracking together. Then things settle down and the children go into class with a full tummy and a better disposition. Everyone is the better for it.

I apologise for being repetitive, but the school meals food programme which is under the aegis of the Department of Social and Family Affairs is not delivering on its very commonsense recommendations. The issue of direct provision into schools must be rationalised and made more realistic. It must be made available to many more children to remove the anomalies of eligibility. I will not go on about it but we wait with bated breath for this key component of tackling food poverty to be delivered.

Health inequality is not directly related to this joint committee's brief, but I wish to state that from our perspective, the eligibility cut-off point for medical cards is still ludicrous. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul does not see the doctor-only medical card as a solution. It is only tinkering with an inequitable system. Some very robust research was carried out by the department of economics, UCC, which examined Government statistics from the GMS payment board. The research revealed that of all medical card holders who visited a doctor in 2000 and 2001, 77% needed at least one prescription. This puts paid to the argument that sometimes people just want to talk to a doctor. This is why we have health inequalities that are shameful in today's Europe.

Mr. Monaghan

As Ms Deane stated, this issue is not part of this joint committee's remit but it is important. I mentioned that I was with a family in my volunteer capacity two or three weeks ago. They were a low income family and one does not have to be on a very low income to not qualify for a medical card. If one is on the minimum wage and has a couple of children, the chances are it is touch and go whether one qualifies for a medical card. We have people with very low incomes earning €350 per week or possibly less, who do not qualify. The idea that doctor-only medical cards — I have christened them medical cards light — solve the problem is totally ludicrous. I suggest that members look at the Book of Estimates for the Department of Health and Children where they will find that 70% of the expenditure under the GMS scheme last year went on drugs, pharmacies and medical appliances. The funds did not go on doctors or paying pharmacists. Some weeks ago, I had the experience of being with a family where the parents were in tears because they could not afford to go back for repeat prescriptions to buy drugs for sick children. Several of the kids in the house had chicken pox. The joint committee will be aware of the way it runs through families. They came to us although they would not normally do so, looking for money to help them pay for prescriptions. It is absolute nonsense to think that simply going to a doctor, as is suggested by the doctor-only medical cards, will be the end of it.

Mr. McCafferty

I will respond to some of the questions. The first concerned the issue of children not in school. One of the vital supports that has now been introduced which was not in existence two years ago is the National Educational Welfare Board. It does a key job in assisting children at risk of school leaving and long-term truancy, but again, it is under-resourced. It has looked for sufficient funds to carry out its work. However, in a number of counties there is no board coverage. This is a key issue for us.

In terms of rent supplement and rent allowance, mentioned by Deputy Sean Ryan, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul advocates a far more understanding approach. The achievement of this aim raises technical details such as how couples and families are treated and how to treat them for income purposes and similar matters. As Mr. Monaghan noted, there is a question of tapering. It goes back to the issue of secondary benefits for people who move from welfare into work. It is about trying to support households in low-paid work, about a better tapering model in terms of income and also across time so people do not fall off a cliff in terms of support after six months or go above a relatively modest amount of disposable or gross income.

There have been discussions in other quarters about a more robust kind of housing benefit. However, this goes back to the issue whereby money has been introduced to chase a small number of social housing units. I know this issue is for another committee to consider. Much of it concerns the provision of bricks and mortar in the form of housing provided by either local authorities or housing associations. We are one of the major, and willing, providers of housing. The issue is with the Government meeting its national development targets both in terms of spend and output.

Deputy Callanan referred to rough sleepers. Luckily, within the Dublin area, the number of rough sleepers has decreased. Certainly, given the number of services and investment, the outputs look more promising. In major urban areas like Dublin, one has a better level of provision for people needing emergency remedial accommodation. This is particularly due to the homeless agency where one sees a joined-up approach in operation between the health sectors and local government. In the longer term, such people would be looking for transitional housing. In some ways the challenge in the major urban area is the provision of transitional housing and wider social housing. It remains a challenge across the board and I accept the Deputy's comments about the links between homelessness and mental health and addiction. These individuals require very tailored and specific supports. One of our partner organisations, the De Paul Trust, has been very innovative in this regard by opening what is regarded as a "wet" hostel for people with alcoholic problems. The challenge is to be innovative and flexible and more tailored in our responses than we have been heretofore. To underline what Mr. Monaghan said about the debate about the non-existence of poverty, this says more about those who make these claims than it does about the lives and experiences of those suffering from poverty.

I thank Mr. Monaghan, Mr. McCafferty and Ms Deane for presenting their views. I compliment them and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for the work they do. This work is done on a voluntary basis by hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. How many people are involved in the work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul?

Mr. Monaghan

We have 9,000 members spread across 1,000 branches throughout the 32 counties. For the annual accounts that were delivered in November 2004, we spent €31 million. We can make a synopsis of this available. We made over 250,000 visits in 2003 and in excess of 310,000 visits in 2004. We are talking about contacting somewhere between 750,000 and 1 million people in any given year. These visits take place in a country which is supposedly free of poverty.

These figures speak for themselves. I thank all of the society's members for the work they do. It is extremely sad there is work for these people to do. It is extremely sad to think that Ireland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world but still has so many people living in poverty that they need assistance from a voluntary organisation like the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. This is a reflection on the State and all of us that the State is not in a position to help these people and that voluntary organisations must step into the breach and offer assistance on a weekly basis. This committee aims to ensure that this situation improves. It is very disheartening for committee members to see on an annual basis improvements not being made. It is made worse when the circumstances for these people are worsened by cuts in public services. It was very disheartening to see, once again, that the cuts that were previously made were not reversed in the last budget. While I accept and welcome the improvements that were made, it is unacceptable that organisations like the society must fight and almost beg for these services.

A country is measured by how it looks after its disadvantaged citizens. There are far too many people currently living in poverty, particularly young people. If people live in poverty at a very young age, the likelihood is that they will remain in poverty. Unfortunately, many people living in poverty are congregated in certain areas as a result of bad planning. Therefore, they are attending the same schools. Hence, we have disadvantaged areas and disadvantaged schools. If one happens to live in a disadvantaged area and go to a disadvantaged school, one is labelled and starts out from a disadvantaged point. Whether it is down to housing, unemployment, sickness or overcrowding in schools, there are many ways in which people find themselves living in poverty.

The society has outlined the cuts that it is concerned about and that are affecting people, whether it is child benefit, back to education allowance, the crèche supplement or the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. These are all issues that affect people on a daily basis. They might appear to be basic needs but people are affected by the lack of these services. I fully support the work of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the cause for which it is fighting. It is a cause for which we must all fight. We have a number of months before the next budget to ensure, whether we are on the Government or Opposition side, we press the Government to ensure those people living in poverty are taken out of it. The cuts that were made must be reversed and improvements must be made in all the areas that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has addressed so that people can be helped out of the poverty trap.

What percentage of calls made by the society are to international families living in Ireland? Obviously, many of us live in areas where we have large numbers of international families and we are seeing them in our schools.

Mr. Monaghan

An increasing number of calls are being made to international families. We received 18,000 calls at the Cabra Road branch of the society. This branch only deals with the greater Dublin area. A similar pattern is replicated in most of the larger urban areas like Cork, Waterford and Limerick. Only 10% of calls are from immigrant and migrant families, be they asylum seekers or migrant workers. However, if one moves out to the larger housing estates, particularly in Dublin 15 where there——

I live in Dublin 15.

Mr. Monaghan

Then the Senator will be aware that there are many international families settled in that area. Our conferences in Dublin 15 are swamped with requests, with the greatest increase coming from immigrant families. Overall, the greatest increase throughout the country in terms of visitation is to single parent households. Single parent households consist of widows, widowers, separated or divorced people. They are not just composed of teenage pregnant mothers, who form a very small percentage of single parent households. We are talking about relationships that break up and lead to single parent households. Increasingly in particular parts of the city, international families are a huge issue.

I would like to reply to two points raised by Senator Terry because they are crucial. Senator Terry mentioned two issues that the committee might work on over the next number of months. We know Ireland is changing dramatically and that there are real problems in maintaining our economy. We talk about the need to take in approximately 50,000 immigrant workers every year for the next number of years to ensure we can maintain this marvellous economic growth. The society would raise questions about what we would do with that growth. One of the things we need to do is to ensure those people who are currently here in Ireland who might avail of this growth are helped. A particular group within this sector are lone parents. Currently, if lone parents take up education or employment, they will lose allowances because of the ludicrously low cut-off points. This makes no sense from either a social or an economic perspective. This was one of the reasons I called those 15 cuts mean, petty and vindictive. The removal of the crèche supplement was probably the most petty and vindictive of them of all. If we want to break the cycle of poverty we need, as Ms Deane noted, to ensure young children get a good start in education, complete primary education and move to secondary education. In my day job I am a professor of mechanical engineering in Trinity College Dublin and I do not see many of the people I visit attending my lectures. We have particular problems with this.

If we ensure that poorer children in particular receive adequate pre-school education, we have an opportunity to ensure they start well, stay and progress. However, we are not doing so and, as a consequence, getting a crèche supplement is a game of snakes and ladders for people. People who received this supplement previously had it quickly removed from them. This is crazy and should be addressed.

Depending on the day of the week, one Minister or another will claim child benefit is the panacea for these problems. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment may speak about it as a means of encouraging women to return to work. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, says it is an appropriate way of ensuring that the poverty of all families is ended. Child benefit is not sufficient to do three things simultaneously. The State must make up its mind. If we are conscious of helping people move themselves out of poverty, child benefit must be targeted to help the poorest or we must examine the issue of child care for those in work.

I disagree that child benefit will help towards child care costs. These are two separate matters.

Mr. Monaghan

Absolutely.

Child care must be provided whereas child benefit is available for many other needs.

I welcome the delegation and its presentation. One is heartened when examining any analysis that starts with a broad welcome. We are discussing poverty and a broad welcome indicates the delegation's foresight, implying that its report is a fair, critical and serious analysis. This is also possibly a request to a particular Minister for more of the same and to address areas with specific deficits.

I will not be repetitive by discussing the back to education allowance and the rent supplement. Regarding the voluntary aspect of the SVP, I saw faces when I was a young boy that I still identify with working voluntarily. I do not know what their motivation is but their work is appreciated in many towns. People who are well off are sometimes criticised for claiming there is no poverty but they acknowledge that someone else is picking up the slack and it is nice that these workers are quietly acknowledged for what they do.

From where does the SVP receive most of its demands? Is it in September, as Deputy Ring mentioned, when children are returning to school or does it have to do with Santa Claus? Does the SVP have a method for targeting people in need? It is not always easy to do so. Someone may lose a good job and his or her quality of life will change dramatically with the subsequent drop in earnings. A person's pride can get in the way of stooping to, as some would see it, or let anyone know that he or she is going to the SVP. Sometimes a mother may go without food in order that her child does not because appearances must be kept up. How much of this does the SVP see in its operations? If there is a difficulty, how does the SVP deal with it and become involved in people's lives?

I wonder about the people who see the SVP as a soft touch and tell it the right type of story or instruct their friends in the pub on how to go about it. There are people who milk the system, but I am not suggesting there are no people in need. Does the SVP have a core of individuals it views as never moving on? Are there persons on the SVP's books who are continually in need whereas others are only on them for a short period of time and for whom there is light at the end of the tunnel? Lifestyles can be an issue. The SVP might know there is enough money but that there is an abuse problem, for example, drinking or gambling, and that the children are not being taken care of. Does the SVP feel a moral dilemma in supporting such people? How does the SVP operate through these barriers? Does it concentrate on supporting the child's needs?

The presentation had a concise conclusion that referred to several issues. It stated: "children living in poverty were not sufficiently assisted, in particular due to only very modest increases in child benefit". What level of increase would take children out of poverty? It also stated: "education related costs can pose a significant barrier to participating fully in school life for children in low income families". We have free education.

Where is it?

Are we discussing the cost of books or clothes, or of getting children to school? The issue of people sleeping on the streets has been referred to and different numbers have been bandied about. Is there a way of ending this situation? If the SVP were given a pot of gold in the morning, could everyone be taken off the streets? Is it a cash or a mental health problem?

When one speaks about the SVP one must wonder whether the statutory systems are in place, such as the Health Service Executive or community welfare officers. Is the SVP picking up the community welfare officers' slack? There is a community welfare officer in times of special need and his or her workload increases significantly at the beginning of the school year and during Christmas. Does the SVP have a means of knowing whether someone has gone to the community welfare officer?

I was surprised by the doctor only medical card. I thought it was a move in the right direction and would relieve the pressure on people, but it is not as good as I thought it would be.

The Deputy must not have dealt with people with medical cards.

I deal with people with medical cards but we are discussing something that is not yet in place. I am interested in today's comments and in this issue. Should we say it is medical plus prescription? This is what I hear from across the table.

I agree that the medical card guidelines have not been reviewed for some time and there is a necessity to do so. If community welfare officers implement the measure by the book for people on minimum wage, the number of medical card holders will diminish dramatically. One must use common sense and give some leeway, otherwise there will be people in serious need. I met someone recently who was in a quandary about how to retain a medical card. This is sad in two ways. People on the minimum wage are concerned about the increase in wage levels and about how they must reduce their hours to retain their medical cards. They know the value of their medical cards, but it is a tragedy that minimum wage earners must speak in this way. It is terrible that those on the minimum wage are in danger of losing their medical cards. I have a few other questions——

I wish to comment on medical cards. When we return here next year, there will be fewer people on medical cards. This a great scandal which all political parties allowed to happen. In the past, community welfare officers had discretion to decide if someone was to get a medical card on sickness or income grounds. In future, however, they will only be able to grant yellow pack medical cards. There will be more people with yellow pack medical cards and fewer with full medical cards next year.

It is difficult to follow such a controversial Deputy but I will do my best. I apologise that I was absent for some of the meeting. I listened to the presentation but I had to attend to other business. I welcome our friends from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I do not say this in a virtuous way but I am always happy to support their work, particularly at local conferences. Normally I would not be parochial but as Dublin 15 has already been mentioned, I might as well refer to my constituency, Dublin South-West, which comprises Tallaght and other areas.

The first contact I had with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul was when I was in school in Drimnagh Castle. It is interesting to note the type of work the society does and I applaud it. I can recall a different time in Dublin when the Society of St. Vincent de Paul was always under a great deal of pressure. Now I live in a new town where there are still challenges but Tallaght is no worse than anywhere else. Like the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, I often come across families who have no bread but who have brand new DVD players and sometimes poverty needs to be examined in that context. I am not saying that there are no difficulties but sometimes poverty is about education and about people using and not abusing their money.

I will not rise to some of the political points made except to say that I am distressed with regard to the medical card issue because I would support people getting medical cards. Calling it a yellow pack medical card or a "medical card light" is a nice soundbite but it does not do much for the morale of people who need to access these services. We should be more sensitive. I am not criticising anyone for making the point. Perhaps it is a fair point——

That is what they are.

At the same time, we should be sensitive towards the people using them. To make a serious point and I would——

(Interruptions).

Deputy O'Connor, without interruption.

I thank the Chair for protecting me. Deputy Connolly made a reasonable statement. I remind the delegation that he is an Independent Member of the Dáil and his remarks should be taken in that context.

I do not agree with that. There is no such thing.

Like my colleagues, I also compliment the delegation on broadly welcoming the budget.

There is only one Independent Member in the Dáil.

Deputy O'Connor, without interruption.

I read the delegation's document before the meeting and it represents a good direction for the organisation to take because it is about building on policy. Sometimes people look at Government backbenchers, and I am proud to be one, and wonder about the role we play. I go about my work in the community in Tallaght and elsewhere in Dublin South-West and bring to politics the experiences I find at people's doors, in shopping centres and on buses and the Luas. It is right that we should join voluntary organisations in stressing to Government what we hear from people.

There are many quips about the change in direction that the main Government party, Fianna Fáil, took after its retreat last year. It is good that organisations involved on the day and other organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are at least acknowledging some progress has been made. That is not to say the world has changed. There are still demanding issues but we need to build on what has been achieved. We should agree — I am glad that the analysis supports the argument — that some progress was made. Let us now see what we can do about the rest of the agenda. I will bring to the Minister's attention, as will my colleagues, what has been said to us.

Joint Oireachtas committees are great because they give us an opportunity to meet people, listen to submissions and form views on which to base future legislation and budgets. Without patronising the organisation, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul has made a good contribution in that regard today.

If it is demanded of me to ask a question — I was following the style of other more experienced colleagues in not asking a question — I will do so. The document raises a number of issues. If the delegation was pressed on the priorities of the next and successive budgets — bearing in mind we have 800 days to go to the next general election and a number of budgets to come — what would it say to the Government in respect of its organisation's priorities?

Mr. Monaghan

I thank both Deputies for their contributions. There are so many questions I am not sure we can remember all of them. I will make one comment. Both Deputies remarked that we welcomed the budget at the beginning of our statement. That was not a political ploy. We do welcome it.

It was good. It was positive.

Mr. Monaghan

It was done because we welcome it. I met the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Brennan, before Christmas and made clear to him that if, on occasion, he took actions that we felt appropriate, we would applaud them. Before Deputy O'Connor joined the meeting——

I was listening on the monitor.

Mr. Monaghan

—I stated that we are happy with some of the remarks the Minister made. It remains to be seen how he will deliver on them but we are certainly happy with the remarks. We welcome them and accept that progress has been made. There is much further to go. I do not want to use Deputy O'Connor's party's slogan but he is well aware of it.

It would be relevant.

Mr. Monaghan

It certainly would. I wish to return to other issues raised with regard to people not being good at managing money. The Deputies asked how we handle issues with such people and how we meet them. I have been a member in Leixlip in County Kildare and I grew up in Drimnagh so I know Drimnagh Castle well. I have been involved in the society for over 20 years. We do not go in unannounced or uninvited like the Lone Ranger. The only reason we go inside somebody's hall door is because we are invited in by that person or by friends.

A question was asked about working with community welfare officers and other agencies. We are increasingly trying to work with the money advice and budgeting service, MABS. When we visit a family which has problems with managing its budget, we suggest that we bring in our colleagues from MABS. They will go through the budget with the family and we will then examine where the gaps, such as those relating to mounting bills, are to be found. We will then try to develop a mechanism, between MABS, ourselves and the local credit union, in a way that may enable us to bundle the debts together. We will pay off some of the outstanding bills, which can be anything such as mortgages, medical bills, solicitor's bill from a separation, ESB or food. We will try to find a way of paying those.

The answer to the question as to how we get our money is by standing outside churches and knocking on doors. In May I will be with my colleagues in Leixlip knocking on the doors of 6,000 houses asking people for money. Sadly, we will use that money to do many things the State should be doing. That is another argument.

When we go to a family's home we try to assess its situation. The fact that there may be nice curtains on the window and a car in the driveway is absolutely no indication of the level of need or poverty within a household. It can be misleading. Yes, people do silly things, get themselves into pickles and go mad. In our experience, we come across a couple of chancers, proportionally the number is very small, and we are experienced enough to spot them. Sometimes we know and we go along with it. The reason we do that is because often the fact that they are trying to deceive us is an indication of the difficult situation in which they find themselves. An old man living alone will tell us he has no food. The reason is that he went to the off-licence and bought a few bottles. If the society is the only thing that will keep him alive, we will try to help him if possible.

We are trying to spend the money we get from the general public in a very human way. We tend not to waste it. We certainly try not to waste it and we act with compassion. There are three rules that the SVP operates. First, we offer friendship and support, we are there for people. Second, we try to move people away from dependence on us or the on State, to help them to become independent. That is why we are very happy when there is an improvement in employment and people can go out to work. That is also why we are keen to get people through the education system because it will help them to be independent. Our third pillar is working for social justice. When we see things within the political or bureaucratic system that are creating problems or poverty traps for the people we are trying to help, we are duty bound to comment.

Members of the committee have asked what motivates us. We are a lay Christian organisation, predominantly Catholic though not exclusively so. We do what we do because we are trying to live out, in as Christian a way as possible, the message of the gospels. We do this in a very practical way. We do not push religion down people's throats because that is not our business. We do not care what religion people have or if they have none. We are, however, a Christian organisation by ethos. We adhere to the teachings of Vincent de Paul and Frederic Ozanam, our founder, and to Catholic social teaching. That is what motivates us and keep us and the 9,000 volunteers going. It keeps us going into people's homes and offering help where we can, raising money from, predominantly, the general public and trying to do operate in a way that will alleviate people's difficulties. We are always conscious that what we need to do is shift people from their current situation to one where they can be independent.

Deputy Connolly asked if there are people who need our help, on a short-term basis, in situations where we can go in, deal with them and then move out again. The answer is yes. Many of the people we deal with would be like that. We go in, examine their problems and find a mechanism to solve them, whether it be by doing a deal with the local credit union, bundling all their debts into one or acting as guarantor for them. I will tell a story to illustrate my point.

The Aga Khan won a horse race in Kildare some years ago. He was very generous and gave every conference in Kildare €5,000. It was money that we were not expecting to receive. We lodged it in the local credit union and have been using that money as collateral since then. If a person approaches us who could never have enough money to save in the credit union, we use the Aga Khan's money as collateral and ask the credit union to give the person a loan. We act as guarantor and in the event that the person does not make repayments, we undertake to pay the credit union back. We have never had anyone default. We have helped young people with deposits for houses, helped people get out of debt, paid off moneylenders and done battle with banks, building societies and others. That is the kind of thing the society does. We do not make a big song and dance about it but it is happening throughout the country.

Ms Deane

Could I add something in reference to Deputy Connolly's remarks on medical cards? I do not wish to become embroiled in an ideological debate, because we do not have time for that, but it must be pointed out that there are extremely stark and shameful health inequalities arising purely from the fact that we have a two-tier health system. If a person can afford to pay, he or she will get access to better treatment. That is all I want to say on that. The chief medial officer, like many other influential stakeholders in the health debate, is also saying that we must stop tinkering with the two-tier system and start being more equitable.

On the issue of education——

Mr. Monaghan

I wish to take up the issue of the medical card light. The members of the committee are aware that since 1997 several hundred thousand people have lost their medical cards.

That is correct.

Mr. Monaghan

They have lost them not because they have become super rich but simply because the thresholds are so ludicrously low. Consequently, people are turning to us to pay their medical bills. In no society should people be coming to a charity to help them pay for doctor's visits or drugs.

Hear, hear.

Mr. Monaghan

Being able to go and talk to a GP will not solve the problem. That may happen for an older person, where the visit to the doctor is the main thing, the drugs are relatively inexpensive and he or she can manage to pay for them. However, the cost of medicine and drugs can be crippling for a person with a number of children. That can have a major impact on people's salaries, particularly those on smaller disposable incomes.

Our argument is that the way to approach this is to increase the total number of medical cards. We certainly welcome the 30,000 real medical cards and would hope that the number will be increased. We believe the way to solve the problem is to give people full medical cards, not GP-only cards. The latter will not solve the problem and people will still be coming to us. They will not have to find €40 or €45 for the doctor's bill but they will certainly be coming to us for help to pay for prescription drugs. Most prescriptions are repeat prescriptions and the fact that people will get back anything above €85 spent in a month does not help because they have to spend the money first and their incomes are low.

I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not disagreeing with what Mr. Monaghan is saying. I simply have an argument, to which I am entitled, about the phraseology. That is all. It is not the first time I have had this argument. It is a concern that has been expressed by various people. It is similar to the local authorities, including my own, giving different stickers to people who are getting waivers on their bin charges. People should not be treated like that. I am standing up for people. I do not disagree with Mr. Monaghan.

Sometimes people do not give Government backbenchers credit. We are just as capable of fighting for our constituents as anyone else and we do fight for them, in our daily work and in our contacts with the Minister. For example, I am the secretary of the Fianna Fáil policy group on social and family affairs. It would be very interesting if it were possible for Mr. Monaghan and some of my committee colleagues to attend some of those meetings. We do not spare the Minister or the officials. We are quite capable of raising these issues and are happy to do so.

Mr. Monaghan

We would be quite happy to attend those meetings at any time.

That is not my department and it would not be within my power.

Is the Deputy extending the invitation to everybody?

Or is he only inviting the Opposition?

Ms Deane

To return to Deputy Connolly's comments on the possibility — I am not sure if he was being whimsical in this regard — of free education, we have a very commoditised education system. We know that the fee paying schools are bursting at the seams. We also know that there are at least 300 unqualified teachers, most of whom are teaching in schools in disadvantaged areas. The fee paying schools can afford to source and keep the best teachers. One can talk about Christmas being a trigger for financial problems but the entire area of education is fraught for people across the income spectrum. It can be problematic for people with very low incomes, right up to the middle classes. Voluntary contributions from parents are often expected. Volunteers have sat in kitchens while an eight year old cries and wants to know why he or she cannot go to football the next day. The child cannot go to football because the parent cannot afford the €5 contribution. That is not free education. Why are the back to school clothing and footwear allowances not reasonable?

We must stop the commoditisation of our health and education services. We live in a very income-unequal country, with major differences in outcomes for people in both education and health. We must decide where to target our resources and how best to invest in the next generation.

Mr. Monaghan

Deputy Connolly asked when we get the greatest number of calls. The answer is predominantly around the three c's, namely, communion, confirmation and Christmas. I have the figures for 2004. In January the number of calls was 1,308 and that dropped to around 1,100 in February. Why? Mainly because people spent too much over Christmas, had problems paying their bills and may have borrowed from moneylenders. Interestingly, the figure jumped up to several thousand in April, as communion time approached. As Christmas approached, there was a major increase in calls. There were 1,400 calls in October, 2,175 in November and 4,000 in December. Therefore, it ramped up. The calls increased when people were trying to put aside money to do things for Christmas.

I live in Leixlip, which is not a poor area, but the society spent €84,000 there last year. During Christmas week, we delivered hampers with turkeys, ham and so on, to over 100 households. This in an area that has Intel and Hewlett Packard close by. That is a microcosm of the rest of the country. The need would be even greater in Dublin 24, in Deputy O'Connor's area. There are people in that area who know what the need is like. It is a real problem.

I was not being patronising earlier when I made the point about the great work that the society does. In my own parish, for example, it does a great job.

Where is that?

If my colleagues can be parochial, I am entitled to follow their example.

I do not think it is fair to be parochial at a meeting of this nature.

Mr. Monaghan made reference to moneylenders. How prevalent is that issue? MABS and other mechanisms are in place to help people. How deeply in debt to moneylenders do people become? Do they typically get caught up with moneylenders before indicating that they have problems?

Mr. Monaghan

Moneylending comes in a variety of forms. There are the official moneylending companies, which are licensed by the State. They can charge considerable interest rates, perhaps 200% or 300%, on an annualised basis. The various clothing companies and catalogues to which people can subscribe are effectively moneylenders. In the Deputy's area and others, as May approaches, those living in more disadvantaged parts of cities will find that these companies have been poking letters, encouraging them to take out loans, through their doors. The interest rates will be extremely high. We might think that credit card interest rates are high but such companies' rates are much worse.

Are we talking about official lending agencies?

Mr. Monaghan

Yes.

Are such agencies really able to charge 200% to 300% per annum?

Mr. Monaghan

Absolutely. We will not discuss the technicalities but that is the rate charged on an annual basis. The problem is that when people get involved, it is so difficult to pay the money back that they end up getting top-up loans. The problem is much more extensive than people imagine. I did some work on the subject a number of years ago. I asked some colleagues about it and I was astounded by what I discovered. We have anecdotal evidence of problems with moneylending in the inner city. One person told me that there were no problems at all and that things were okay. Having spoken to his friends, however, he came back to me about a week later and said that the problem was two or three times worse than he had thought. The following week, he admitted that it was in fact about ten times worse and stated that approximately 400 families were involved.

It is one thing dealing with official moneylenders but the real problem arises when dealing with non-licensed moneylenders, who can be pretty rough. They hand money out to people privately and they are unlicensed. They are very rough guys. I have personal knowledge of this because I have been threatened with having every bone in my body broken for becoming involved. They will go to people in need, often lone parents who need money, and will give them €1,000 to get out of debt. They will ask for €2,000 back in a month's time. That is the kind of thing that we are talking about.

That encourages all sorts of wrong behaviour among individuals if they are coming under such pressure to return money. Are there any instances of people handing over their children's allowance book or pension book?

Mr. Monaghan

Yes.

How rampant is that?

Mr. Monaghan

That does go on. In some places, the situation is getting somewhat better. However, some individuals will drive to the local post office in the car and hand out children's allowance books to the recipients who will go in, claim the money and then give it and the book to the lender.

Those examples show how deep poverty goes in our society. When a family or individuals find themselves in a crisis, the first person to whom they feel they can turn should be their community welfare officer. What is Mr. Monaghan's experience of people gaining access to their community welfare officers, either in the country as a whole or in particular areas of Dublin or areas of particularly high population? In Roselawn in Dublin 15, it was the case for some time that people had to make an appointment to see their community welfare officer. That is because of the demand on officers' time and because their premises will not be large enough to cater for the number of people wishing to access the service. What is the experience countrywide and, if I may be parochial, in Dublin?

Mr. Monaghan

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty will talk about Dublin 15 but I can talk in general terms about community welfare officers. Our experience throughout the country is that the situation with community welfare officers is pretty good. They have a difficult job. People will often be quite distressed when they come into their offices. The old hands will be used to the system and might be trying it on. It is a difficult job and officers have decisions to make. That is part of the reason they have such discretion and some room for manoeuvre. My experience, and that of my colleagues in parts of north Kildare near where I live, is that we are in touch with people frequently and know them personally. I know that the situation is good in parts of Dublin. We are in touch with the local MABS units and the local credit unions. As a group, we try to work together. I stress that full and total confidentiality applies. We make approaches only with the full knowledge of the person talking to the individual concerned. That works quite well.

I invite Mr. McCafferty to talk about Dublin 15, as he has been involved there.

Mr. McCafferty

Problems arose for us regarding Dublin 15 around November 2003. Our members in Dublin 15 were saying that people could not obtain the level of access and service that they had previously been getting from the community welfare service. We struggled to get to the bottom of the matter. We even struggled to make contact through the local administrative system. When we eventually did so, there seemed to be an issue around premises. There were health and safety considerations about those premises and some industrial relations considerations arose as a result. It was a question of trying to change the premises, get new premises in the area or change their function, possibly going through some sort of planning process. The situation reached the stage where we had to use the local political system to approach those who might be able to apply some pressure. Those who were suffering from not being able to obtain access to community welfare, and who were not getting any kind of payment from the State and were, therefore, relying on payments from the SVP, were coming under pressure. It took some time to resolve that. It was the most vulnerable people who suffered.

We have just been called to a vote in the Dáil. Does Mr. McCafferty wish to return and conclude or is he happy to do so at this stage?

Mr. McCafferty

I would just like to say one thing in answer to the question about priorities. If I may, I will speak on behalf of the three of us. The key priorities for us involve adult social welfare rates. The latter is a bread and butter issue. Deputy Connolly asked about the adequacy of child income support rates. It is one thing for child benefit to reach its target and it is another for the second tier payment to be adequate for children in poverty. We have mentioned support, particularly in terms of access to housing and health care, for the working poor. There are also questions about the adequacy of the social housing spend and about general access to services. The priorities are broad.

I thank everyone for coming today. We have had a valuable meeting. I appreciate the delegation's attendance. I agree with the various committee members that the society does a tremendous job. I know that from my experience in my own part of the country. I was going to say something else but time has defeated us. We look forward to the delegation returning in the future.

The joint committee went into private session at 4.48 p.m. and adjourned at 4.49 p.m. sine die.

Top
Share