JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Post-Budget Analysis: Discussion with CORI Justice, Combat Poverty Agency and Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

Chairman

I welcome the following: Fr. Seán Healy and Sr. Brigid Reynolds of CORI Justice; Mr. Jim Walsh, team leader, and Dr. Kasey Treadwell-Shine, head of research, of the Combat Poverty Agency; and Professor John Monaghan, vice president, Ms Audrey Deane, social justice and policy officer, and Ms Caroline Fahey, social partnership liaison officer, of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.

I ask the representatives of CORI Justice to commence the post-budget analysis. This will be followed by contributions by the Combat Poverty Agency and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Each analysis must be kept within the strict time limit of five minutes and members may then ask questions of all three organisations. I intend to adhere strictly to the time limit to ensure that we have a productive and worthwhile discussion.

I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Fr. Seán Healy

I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee. The circumstances have changed since we were invited to present our views on the budget to this joint committee. We apologise for the appalling abuse perpetrated by members of 18 congregations that are among the 138 member congregations of CORI. We also recognise that an apology or any number of apologies is far from being enough. The congregations concerned need to seek the forgiveness of the people whose trust they have almost unforgivably abused.

In critiquing the Government's recent budget and in all the other work that CORI Justice does, we apply gospel-based principles to do three things, namely, reflect on the situation as it is, identify an alternative and better future and seek out appropriate pathways to move from the current situation towards the desired future. The core principles we apply across the board include justice, human dignity and compassion.

Before addressing the Government's budget, Sr. Brigid and I wish to apply the same principles to the current issues that arise as a result of the findings of the Ryan report published last Wednesday. The report identifies an appalling reality of sexual, physical and emotional abuse. The pain and hurt caused to so many people in those institutions by abuse on such a vast scale are horrendous. It was extensive, systemic and far worse than we had realised. No words can convey the horror, pain, shame and anger felt by us at the revelations contained in the report. No words of apology can provide an adequate response to such abuse. When I use the word "we" or "us", I am referring to Sr. Brigid and me.

The religious congregations named and all of us need to reflect with humility on the content of this report and its implications. The report's findings are a catalogue of injustice characterised by an unspeakable level of abuse of human dignity and a massive lack of compassion that continued for many decades. The damage caused to innocent children is incalculable and has had major repercussions for them and their families across several generations. The failings at every level are reprehensible. For the religious congregations, these include a significant failure of leadership across the system and across a range of administrations. It portrays an abomination that cannot be excused on any basis.

Before turning to what the congregations concerned need to do to put right the horrendous wrongs of which we have spoken, we must acknowledge that much needs to be learned from the past so as to ensure that all vulnerable people are provided with the care and respect that they have every right to receive. Where children are concerned, the high level goals contained in the national agreement Towards 2016 identify what a better future for children might look like. These goals see a future in which every child should grow up in a family with access to sufficient resources, supports and services to nurture and care for the child and foster his or her development and full and equal participation in society. Every family should be able to access child care services appropriate to the circumstances and needs of their children. Every child should leave primary school literate and numerate. Every student should complete a senior cycle or equivalent programme, including ICT, appropriate to his or her capacity and interests. Every child should have access to world class health and personal social services and suitable accommodation. Every child should have access to quality play, sport, recreation and cultural activities to enrich the experience of childhood. Every child and young person should have access to appropriate participation in local and national decision making.

The religious should do everything in their power to promote the emergence of such a society. We have spoken specifically on the issue of children, but there are similar high level goals in Towards 2016 that spell out a desirable future for people of working age, older people and people with disabilities.

In terms of seeking appropriate pathways to move from the current situation to the desired future, it is crucial that religious congregations and others realise that actions speak louder than words. The suffering of the abused must not be prolonged in any way by any word or action. "By their deeds ye shall know them" is a scriptural phrase with strong resonance here. An attitude of humility coupled with a protracted exercise in restitution is what is now required of the religious congregations if the victims, their children and the people in general are ever to begin to forgive the congregations for their inexcusable betrayal of trust. This must begin with a clear statement from the congregations concerned that seeks forgiveness, rather than offers apology.

All 23 recommendations contained in the Ryan report should be implemented immediately and without qualification. The scale and depth of the realities identified therein require a reassessment of what has been done to date. Without doubt, substantial additional resources should be made available by the congregations involved, but we are not aware of what resources they have. If there are financial resources, they should be applied to addressing this reality. If financial resources are not available, then other available resources should be contributed. All options must be on the agenda, including the possibility of making a further, much larger contribution to meeting the bill for redress and to assisting the victims.

We recognise that the response to the report can never really compensate for all the suffering and pain endured by the people placed in the care of the religious. However, everything possible should be done both concretely and symbolically to make restitution for the considerable wrongs done to some of this nation's most vulnerable people. We commit to playing a full part in doing all that we possibly can to achieve this.

Regarding the second 2009 budget, we want to address an issue that might be of concern. An examination of the tables that we have supplied raises concerns as to whether the Government plans to close or privatise large swathes of public services. A close examination of the budget documentation shows that the Government plans to balance its books while reducing tax revenue far below the EU average. If the Government follows through on this, large parts of the services currently provided in areas such as education or health care will cease to be provided or be privatised. Such a move would have significant negative implications for fairness and the vulnerable in society. We have reproduced Table 7 from the macroeconomic and fiscal framework 2009-13 of the budget document published by the Government on 7 April as part of the second budget.

To set our observations in context, we wish to recall that, in the six years before the current crisis, the Government's annual budget set out to raise between 25% and 27.5% of GDP in tax. This produced a situation in which Ireland's total tax revenue was the fourth lowest in the EU, with only Estonia, Lithuania and Slovakia taking a lower percentage of GDP in tax. Under the row titled "Tax Receipts" in the table, it shows that the Government's latest projections on the maximum tax revenue that it is targeting to raise is 20.1% of GDP in 2009, 21.2% in 2010 and 22.3% through the 2011 budget. If these targets are achieved, Ireland's tax revenue will not be able to provide anywhere remotely close to the level of revenue required to maintain the current levels of social services. This means that the level of reduction in tax revenue envisaged in the budget projections for the coming years is such that large parts of services currently provided by the Exchequer could not be funded and, consequently, would need to be privatised or ceased. Is this what the Government is planning? It would be an extremely negative development at a time when there is an increasing demand for services due to the increase in unemployment. It is essential at a time like this that social welfare and services generally are adequately resourced to ensure that all people can access what is required to live with dignity.

CORI Justice believes that Ireland should remain a low tax economy. However, it should be one that collects sufficient taxes to meet the provision of an acceptable level of public services. In this regard, we note EUROSTAT's recent selection of 35% of GDP as the dividing line between high and low tax economies. Ireland should bring its overall level of taxation to 34.9% of GDP. The achievement of this low tax benchmark is particularly relevant given the recent collapse in taxation revenues and the obvious and immediate need for the Government to rebuild the taxation base. It is Ireland's overly narrow tax base and extensive tax breaks that have placed the Exchequer in such a precarious position and put so much unnecessary pressure on public services.

Ireland can never hope to address its deficits in infrastructure and social provision if we continue to collect substantially less tax revenue than that required by other European countries. The required tax reforms should not be attained through increasing income tax rates, but rather through reforming and broadening the tax base so that Ireland's taxation system becomes fairer. The Government should clarify its vision of where it sees Ireland in five years time and whether abandonment and-or privatisation of substantial parts of the social services funded by the Exchequer form part of that vision. If closure or privatisation of major services is not planned then the Government should state how it will secure the revenue needed to fund these services in the years ahead. The Government has constantly stated that it will protect the vulnerable while addressing the series of crises Ireland faces. However, its own budget documentation calls this commitment into serious question.

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the contrasting by the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, of Boston and Berlin and the social models they epitomised, we find ourselves in a situation where the US is moving away from the Boston model while Ireland is moving towards it. A small amount of the State's total income is not included in the budget figures as it is collected by local authorities and includes property taxes on businesses. A fairer tax system does not necessarily involve increasing income tax rates.

Mr. Jim Walsh

I welcome the opportunity to return to the committee to discuss the outcome of the budget, especially the impact of the budget on poverty. We presented our views on the supplementary budget to the committee in April. I acknowledge the ongoing interest of the committee in the work of the Combat Poverty Agency.

In considering the impact on poverty of the budget, we focus on the outcomes of the budget, the tax and welfare measures and the impact on people in poverty. I will not focus on the measures but the outcome. Poverty impact assessment is a requirement of public policy under the national action plan for social inclusion, which states that there must be an assessment of "policies and programmes ... for their likely impact on poverty and on inequalities which are likely to lead to poverty, with a view to poverty reduction". We are meeting a Government requirement.

Poverty impact assessment is relevant when the goal is revenue raising and extracting resources through the tax and welfare systems, as was the case with the supplementary budget. Where the Government must extract resources, it is critical people on low incomes are protected. We acknowledge the Department of Finance assesses the budget in terms of its impact on poverty. However, its assessment is limited and its empirical basis is based on two examples. It does not examine the welfare side of the budget. Our presentation is more comprehensive. It will consider the cumulative effect of the two budgets we have had for 2009, the budget in October 2008 and the supplementary budget.

In measuring the poverty impact of the budget, the first question is what we mean by poverty impact. We have set out three criteria. The first is that welfare incomes should be maintained in real terms so that those in poverty on lower incomes are no worse off. Relative income poverty should be reduced because there is a commitment at European level to make a decisive impact on income poverty. Our level of income poverty is 16%, which is above the EU average. The third criterion is whether the budget has helped to reduce the gap between the rich and poor.

We use a tax welfare model to see the overall effect of the measures in the two budgets, based on a representative sample rather than a handful of family types. This is a more comprehensive way to see the full impact of the budget. We compare budget outcomes with a policy context which is benchmarked in line with wages. We suggest wages are likely to fall by approximately 2%. Budget impacts are being compared with a neutral budget on that basis.

What has been the impact on the real value of welfare incomes? At face value, it seems positive. Welfare payments increased by 3.3% in the first instalment of the budget and inflation for 2009 is forecast to fall by 4%. There is possibly a paper gain of 7% in incomes of those on social welfare. However, this is misleading and the real gain in living standards for welfare recipients is lower. We contend there is still a gain. On welfare, we must factor in the reduction in the Christmas bonus. Effectively, the gain in the welfare increase goes from 3.3% to less than 2%, approximately 1.4%. To take a general measure of inflation and suggest it will benefit people on low incomes is also misleading. This concerns the composition of deflation at the moment. In April 2009 there is a deflation rate of 3.5%. Of that, 3.2%, or almost the full amount, is accounted for by the fall in mortgage interest and that does not have an impact on the core costs for low income households. A general fall in interest rates and linking that to the situation of people on welfare is misleading.

I refer to the weak bargaining power of low income consumers. While everyone is seeking value for money, low income consumers have greater difficulty in achieving that in rent, food and utilities. In research carried out by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, only 15 of a sample of 27 low income households can meet the minimum essential standard of living. Almost half of the sample did not, which is important in assessing the real value of welfare incomes after the budget.

Relative income poverty is measured as those below 60% of the median income, €200. Relative income poverty fell by 2.5%. This was owing to a combination of the fall in the poverty threshold as median incomes have fallen by 4% and the increase in welfare payments is ahead of wage growth. This fall in relative income poverty must be highlighted as a real achievement of the past two budgets. In an historical context, the impact on relative income poverty in the budgets for 2009 is greater than the cumulative impact of budgets from 1998 to 2007. From those ten budgets, the relative income poverty fell by 2.2% and in one budget it fell by 2.5%. This is a significant policy achievement.

We have presented a diagram for the third criterion, the gap between rich and poor. This breaks down the population into ten income deciles, from the poorest to the richest. The incomes of the bottom 20% of the population increased by more than 5%. For the rest of the population there is a progressive decrease in income. For the richest 20% that decrease amounts to 7%. The redistributive budget involves taking resources from the better off and giving some proportion of resources to low income households. In cash terms, the bottom fifth gain by €300 million, the rest lose by €4 billion, with the richest fifth losing €2.6 billion. The richest 20% of the population is carrying 66% of the total loss occurring in the budget. In a long-term perspective, 40% of the gains from the budgets from 1998 to 2007 have been taken back in this last budget and 80% of the gain for the richest fifth of the population over that ten-year period has also been taken back in this budget. We see a redistributive budget in which the driver is primarily losses in income for the better-off with a small contribution coming from higher welfare payments. The magnitude of this redistribution is striking. In Britain they speak about redistribution by stealth. What we have here is "in your face" redistribution. It is the most significant redistribution of resources the State has seen in at least ten years.

What we have examined so far is a static perspective on the tax and welfare changes in the budget. However, this snapshot must be contextualised by happenings in the wider economy and this is where the real concerns about poverty emerge. We see an increased flow towards poverty due to a number of factors, including unemployment. It is important to know that the risk rate of being in poverty for someone who is unemployed is 40%. This means that for every five people who become unemployed two are likely to be poor; this compares to a poverty risk rate for people in employment of 7%. Lower earnings are likely to lead to more working poor and at a household level, as more people become unemployed, we will find more children living in poverty. We already have a high level of child poverty and it is likely that we will have more. The poverty risk is greatest for the lowest skilled and those with a low level of educational attainment. While a snapshot perspective is good, the real alarm bells are ringing about the dynamics of what is happening in wider society.

With regard to children and families, in our limited analysis we find that households in work with children are losing significantly in the budget; dual-earner households with children will lose approximately 6% of their income, while one-earner households with children will lose approximately 4% to 5%. However, households on welfare with children still gain.

We want to highlight the significant cut in child income support in the two budgets for 2009. We estimate that €520 million has been taken out of child income support through these measures. In cash terms, there are losses of €21 a week for children under six years and €40 a week for children aged 18 through cutbacks in child benefit. These are significant losses and we do not think this is a sensible approach when more families are on welfare. We have suggestions to make in that regard. We also have something to say about the Christmas bonus but people might want to come back to this.

The budgets for 2009 have had the biggest impact on relative poverty and the rich-poor gap in recent times; it is very dramatic. The magnitude of the policy change is remarkable. However, the driver is more income losses than higher welfare gains for lower income households. This is a major caveat. There is a real impact on living standards, but this is less than it seems on paper at between 1.5% and 2%. On this basis, there is no social or economic basis for cutting welfare rates in the budget for 2010. Socially, as we outlined, there are not many gains and living standards for lower income households are still inadequate in many cases. Economically, there is no basis because the resources going to lower income households feed directly back into the agriculture and food sectors of the economy and keep them ticking over. There is no rationale for it. However, we recognise the better value for money in welfare spends and have ideas on how this could be achieved.

Income taxpayers took a massive hit in the budget. We need to acknowledge this. The priority for 2010 when more resources will have to be found should be to widen the tax base. We need to stem the flow into unemployment and increase the flow out of it, especially of high risk groups. We need targeted and effective labour market measures to address the issue. We also need to strengthen our policy response to over-indebtedness across the board. I will speak more on this if members wish me to do so. We need to enhance measures to tackle poverty or we will pay a massive price in the years ahead. Child poverty will be the real story of Irish society in the coming years.

Our analysis highlights the need for a robust poverty impact assessment of future budgetary policy, particularly given its negative orientation. I am thinking of an bord snip which is reviewing public expenditure across the board. We need a rigorous and detailed poverty impact assessment of any changes to be assured that those on lower incomes will not be affected by the cutbacks.

Professor John Monaghan

It is a pleasure to return to address the joint committee. I hope members have a copy of our presentation which we have titled, People before Percentages. We have heard many percentages this morning. This is inevitable, but I will speak about the people whom we visit because it is important to focus on those who suffer in Ireland today, of whom there are many. We estimate that the Society of St. Vincent de Paul spends approximately €1 million every week. We could very well spend anywhere between €55 million and €60 million this year if we can get it. The number of calls for assistance has increased by more than 30% in many parts of the country, except in very disadvantaged areas because things were never good there anyway — they have not lost their jobs and are not the ones losing their homes.

The calls for assistance come mainly from families with children who are asking for very basic items such as food and assistance in meeting energy costs. As this peters out over the summer, they will seek help in meeting educations costs. Approximately one third of calls come from people contacting the society for the very first time; persons on welfare who may have not needed us previously, persons in work on low pay who, as Mr. Walsh mentioned, are affected by cuts in salary and persons who are unemployed. We need to be very conscious of those who have struggled for many years on pensions and social welfare because there is a tendency among the media to imagine that poverty only started last September and only involves nice middle-class people like ourselves.

Our presentation document outlines the scale of the problem that we are trying to work through. The Dublin region is the largest in the country and we have included a graph which shows that in the first four months of the year the number of calls has increased by more than 100% compared to the numbers last year and the previous year. We do not know whether this will extrapolate to an even greater increase at Christmas but it is very high. It indicates that whatever the numbers might be indicating, people are struggling.

It is true welfare rates were not cut but those on welfare are most definitely worse off now than they were prior to the budget. It is the only group who have had to pay increases in rent of at least €11 since October. They have lost the early child care supplement and been told that the Christmas bonus is going, which will cause great hardship. The only ones happy that the Christmas bonus is going are the moneylenders who are clapping their hands with absolute joy.

We heard suggestions of a softening up process by economists in the media and newspapers last weekend. They stated the decrease in the consumer price index was a justification for cutting welfare rates. As Mr. Walsh indicated, most of the decrease has been in mortgage relief or bank interest rates. The cost of what people spend their money on, namely, food, energy, education, health and transport, over which they have little or no control, has not decreased. We still have higher prices in Ireland compared with most other countries in Europe. The question I will put to those who believe those on welfare and pensions are doing very well is this: if people on welfare are doing that well, why is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul spending €1 million a week, making more than 350,000 calls every year and putting in approximately 2 million free volunteering hours? It appears we are helping the non-existent poor with their non-existent problems.

Mr. Walsh mentioned child support, a crucial issue. We welcome the introduction of the early education package. However, we are somewhat concerned that the limit that may be put on this and the capping of the amount a particular recipient can receive will cause problems for many poorer families. We know the removal of the early child care supplement is causing great difficulty for low-income families in work.

There are proposals to reduce or change child benefit. It is our experience that many families are using this money as an essential part of their daily budgets for food, rent and other expenses. Any reduction in child benefit, however it may occur, must be accompanied by a corresponding increase in payments to those who are very poor, in other words, qualified child allowances and family income supplements. Poor children live in families and do not fall into poverty in isolation.

It is ironic at a time when most of us have seen reductions in our mortgage repayments or, if we are lucky enough to live in private rented accommodation without depending on State support, can renegotiate our rents that tenants of social housing schemes have faced rent increases of at least €11 per week. They are certainly worse off than they were last October. It is proposed that the rent supplement would be reduced and that tenants would negotiate rent reductions with their landlords. This is a naive proposal, to put it mildly. These people are constrained to living in particular circumstances and are not free to move accommodation. The suggestion they would negotiate with their landlords is therefore ludicrous. The rent supplement scheme is itself a scandal. We are spending €432 million annually on it, a figure which could increase to more than €500 million next year. It is a waste and a poverty trap. It would be preferable if recipients were placed in social housing because they would thereby pay lower rents and, more importantly, would be able to work if they could find employment. At present, they are penalised if they have jobs.

The income levies imposed on the low paid are a further indication of how people have suffered. We have managed to pass a taxation Rubicon in that we have installed in the system the principle that one will pay tax regardless of how poor one may be. People earning less then the minimum wage of €289 per week are being taxed. It is called a levy but that is merely a different way to spell "tax". In the event that the levy is replaced by a tax in the next budget, we are concerned to ensure those currently paying it do not pay more. If we are to prevent an even bigger increase in poverty among the working poor, we have to ensure those who are now paying tax on low pay are taken out of the system as quickly as possible.

The society has helped unemployed people for as long as we have existed but we are facing an avalanche in this regard. This is a real human tragedy. We are concerned about delays in paying benefits because, while the Department claims average waiting lists of four weeks, in our experience the wait can be as long as 13 weeks. That is unacceptable. In fairness to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, we welcome her efforts to recruit additional staff to reduce the delays.

Serious problems arise in respect of self-employed people who have lost their businesses. Many did not pay for the correct stamps if they paid at all and now find they are entitled to little or nothing. We need to find mechanisms for protecting such people and are trying to play our part in this regard, especially in rural Ireland. Our focus should be on unemployed people with low skills because they will be the last to return to employment. We need to support young people in particular. The unemployment rate among young people, at 20%, is double the national rate. Deputy Enright noted on a previous occasion that the rate is closer to 30% in her constituency. Those who will be left behind are people with low education, so we badly need to help them.

We welcome the back to work enterprise allowance, which is aimed at encouraging people, especially the self-employed, to start up small companies. However, from my experience of my day job, which for many years has involved helping people to start businesses, I realise that two years is not long enough to get a small company up and running. It does not make sense to remove the benefit after two years, therefore.

It is all very fine to speak about protecting the banks and generating further employment but it will be essential to protect the jobs which already are available if we are to maintain and sustain the skills base of this country. I am aware that many political parties have grabbed onto this issue but I remind them of our pre-budget submissions in which we repeatedly advised that we need an imaginative mechanism which puts together the social welfare codes and other sources of money, such as the EU's globalisation, social and energy funds, to keep people in work rather than on the dole. Such a mechanism would have the great benefit of keeping companies in existence. The Government will recoup its investment through taxes, PRSI and levies and the people at work will have the benefit of having a job.

We are dealing daily with the conditions of apprentices. It imperative that every young person in an apprenticeship can complete his or her training. We must also retain for the country the skills of the graduates in whom we have invested substantial sums of money. The graduate support scheme which was introduced many years ago by Enterprise Ireland should be revived.

I will now speak about other important issues which are not necessarily relevant to the budget. We have great regard for our colleagues in the money advice and budgeting service but they are totally stretched and need more help and staff. We are especially worried about the suspension of the community support scheme which provides older people with alarms and safeguards. In the society's national management council meeting last Saturday, we instructed all our conferences to ensure no older person in Ireland went without an alarm. We will buy them if necessary and then argue the case with the Department because it would be unconscionable if an older person was hurt or died simply for the cost of an alarm.

Significant problems have arisen in regard to the mechanism and qualifying threshold for mortgage interest allowance as well as with the numbers who should be receiving it.

The previous budget's abolition of the book grant scheme for schools outside DEIS areas is a disaster. Schools throughout the country are seeking our help because they cannot support needy children. It is a scandal that a charity such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is expected to do the work of the State. We can apparently find €190 million to support the pig industry yet we cannot find €7.5 million to fund this scheme and support children. The cost of school books must also be addressed. In effect, there is a cartel in this regard and a system should be devised to put manners on that process. We have heard mutters about cutting back on the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance for poorer families and our response is "hands off." This payment is essential to poorer families.

The conditions for asylum seekers in this country are especially bad. They live on €19.10 per week, a sum which has not increased for several years, and we tend to forget them. They are the other part of the forgotten poor. Equally, the society is now being called on to help migrant workers who we were happy to take into the country when times were good but are now falling out of the system because they do not meet the habitual residency conditions. We are particularly concerned about what will happen when the new work permit system is introduced on 1 July because we expect it will cause great hardship.

In summary, calls to the St. Vincent de Paul have increased dramatically. We are now spending more than €1 million per week because there is no question that poverty and suffering have increased. While welfare and pensions were not cut in April's budget, poor people are certainly worse off. There is neither a moral nor an economic justification for reducing benefits because the cost of energy, food, transport and health remain high and poorer people have no way of avoiding them. We need to keep people in employment and address youth unemployment. As education is the key to progress and development of this economy, it cannot be subject to further cuts.

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul will continue to do what it has done for the past 160 years. We will be out every night of the week and will work as best we can to offer people our friendship, support, reassurance and hope. Above all else, we must focus on people before percentages.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I welcome the three groups and I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise a few issues with them. I have said this before, but, as a member of the Opposition, I am extremely disappointed with the absence of Government members. I do not make this point for political purposes, but people are entitled to know we are not obliged to ensure a quorum for the meeting. Had we chosen not to be here the meeting would not have been able to go ahead. We have received apologies from one Government Deputy only. I appreciate that Deputy O'Connor is here. The issues we are discussing are extremely important. Unfortunately, the influence the Opposition has in changing Government policy can be, to some extent, more limited than the opportunity Government representatives have. If they are not here to listen, I do not see how these issues will be raised at the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. I hope the Government members will see fit to ensure greater attendance at meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs because they are important.

I thank Fr. Healy for raising the issue of the Ryan report in his presentation because the Chairman told us we were not allowed to raise it, unless he brought it up first, not that we would necessarily have heeded that warning. In Fr. Healy's statement the word "we" refers to him and Sr. Reynolds, but he is here representing CORI. I am not clear if the statement he made reflects the views of CORI, including all 138 institutions, or his own. Will he clarify the matter because there is a difference? In his statement he said the report was far worse than we had realised, but I cannot agree with him. The scale was. Is that what he meant? The victims had told their stories so often at that stage.

Fr. Seán Healy

Yes.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I welcome the apology and take Fr. Healy's point that there must be other actions. He talked about seeking appropriate pathways, but I am not clear on where that pathway is regarding all the religious orders he represents. I very much welcome the fact that he is stating clearly that substantial additional resources should be made available, but the public, particularly the victims, and I would like to see the mechanism by which he intends to do this. He would not have heard what went on in the Dáil this morning. We would like to see the 18 institutions involved sit down with the Government and the victims groups to reach an agreement. Actions speak louder than words. Given what Fr. Healy said about compassion, the sooner that is done the better. The report has been out one week and in that time the victims have been almost forced to come out again because, although they are further on in terms of the report, they do not believe there is the closure they need because no agreement has been made. I do not like that word but it is a suitable one. Has Fr. Healy discussed with the 18 congregations how they will go about this, whether they will sit down with the Government and whether they will come up with an agreed contribution as opposed to a voluntary contribution? I do not agree with the concept of helping people behind closed doors. This must be public. We are discussing budgets in the context of having much less money in the economy; then one sees a spend of €1.2 billion and a 10% contribution, and people find this very hard to take. I fully accept the responsibility the State had and as a people, we have to deal with this. An issue about people who attended day schools has still not been touched. That is not an issue for CORI today, but until we deal with the issue, we will never be able to move on significantly from this. I would like to hear Fr. Healy say a little more about how the process will continue from here.

I return to the other presentations which were also extremely important. Professor Monaghan alluded to one point I wanted to make. I am concerned that there is a risk that we will ignore the really disadvantaged. That is, to some extent, understandable in that the people who have not found themselves in this position before are so shocked that they are more public and vocal and might, therefore, get more of a response. Are the new poor more likely to come to all the organisations than those who survived on social welfare for a considerable period?

My next question is to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which deals directly with people, one-on-one. What percentage of its customers are working? That seems to be a crucial issue. CORI has also done work with the working poor, about which I would like to hear more.

On money lenders and the Christmas bonus, the committee is doing work on the issue of indebtedness. I received a telephone call on the morning after the budget from one of my local credit unions to state this was the road we would go down because of this. We can see it happening already. The matter is being raised consistently with me and, I am sure, others. It is raised not in a political way or in the context of the elections, but in the context that they do not know what they will do when the time comes. That is a real worry for them.

Both the Combat Poverty Agency and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul referred to the consumer price index. That message needs to be conveyed in a strong way. The fact that mortgages are soaking up the biggest reduction is being ignored and needs to receive more attention. I could not agree more with what has been said on rent supplement. The scheme is out of control. It was supposed to be temporary and the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, was established. We have not got to the bottom of the reasons but it does not seem to be working. A major concern is that if people accept it, they will not be prioritised on council housing lists. Councils will state this is not the case when one discusses the issue in principle, but when one makes representations on behalf of individuals, one knows from the response that they are not a priority because they are in a relatively decent standard of accommodation. This issue must be strongly addressed because if we do not move people onto the RAS, we will maintain the poverty traps. That is the biggest issue. Whenever I have a good idea that I think would help the less well-off, I do a lot of work on it but may then realise it would create another poverty trap. It is very difficult to develop policy that does not create further traps. I would be interested to learn if any of the representatives has done specific work on poverty traps. We are doing some on how they affect lone parents but not on the general issue.

Professor Monaghan made an interesting point on the cost of school books. I agree that the axing of the grant has caused a difficulty. Perhaps he might contact the education committee on the cost of school books as the number of operators is very small. The frequency with which they change books is the most significant concern. There has also been an introduction of work books which, by their nature, have to be purchased new every year. There should be ways around this and the matter should be dealt with.

We must accept that the mortgage interest supplement scheme will cost more money but people are being told they paid more for their houses than they should have two to five years ago which is lovely in theory — we all know it now — but at the time they did not realise this. They had the income required and were approved for the loan, but now they have nowhere to turn to if they do not receive the supplement. When people contact the various organisations, have they already contacted their financial institutions? I find that people are not paying, but they are afraid to go to their financial institutions. That is a major concern.

One of the representatives from the Combat Poverty Agency mentioned that he had more ideas on achieving better value for money in regard to the welfare spend on which he would expand. I would be interested in hearing about them. What is the policy response to people being in debt, as we are doing some work on that?

For a group that has been abolished, representatives of Combat Poverty Agency have been before this committee more than any other group in the past few months. It is now part of the Office for Social Inclusion.

Mr. Jim Walsh

We will be on 1 July.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

Mr. Walsh indicated that we need a robust poverty impact assessment regarding what an bord snip is doing, effectively. Will the Office for Social Inclusion undertake that impact assessment prior to the next budget in December?

Vice Chairman (Deputy Charlie O'Connor)

We all agree with the very valid point made about the cost of books and will bring it to the attention of the Joint Committee on Education and Science.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I welcome the three delegations and concur with the points made by Deputy Enright. Unfortunately there was a delay of almost 15 minutes in getting this meeting started because we were waiting for a Fianna Fáil member to attend. At this point there is only one Fianna Fáil member present, which speaks volumes about the Government's concern regarding poverty.

I wish to respond to comments made by Fr. Healy on the redress scheme. I did not expect it to come up this morning as I thought discussion would be confined to the aftermath of the budget. Given that the witness has commented on it fairly extensively in his opening presentation, I feel I must respond to those comments.

The witness indicated that no words of apology could provide an adequate response. Last week, when the Ryan report emerged I was disappointed with the tone of some of the apologies we saw in the media, where some of CORI's members spoke in terms of apologising if they had hurt people. I could not help but think that many of these people still do not get it and the penny has not dropped about the extent of the damage done to very large numbers of people and the lives which have been destroyed. The tone of the apologies changed as the days went on and, I presume, as public relations advice was bought. There has been much PR in recent days on this.

Overall, it is disappointing that the seriousness and importance of the matter still has not dawned on many of CORI's members. The witness said in his contribution that actions speak louder than words — which they do — and the only way we can judge the religious congregations is by their actions in the aftermath of the Ryan report.

We also know the actions of these congregations in respect of the indemnity deal done and the kind of negotiations which took place, although it took some time for that information to emerge into the public arena through freedom of information requests. CORI engaged in the most hard-nosed type of negotiations with the State in that indemnity deal.

Fr. Seán Healy

To correct the Deputy, CORI had no hand, act or part in that deal. It does not even have a copy of the deal. It never approved or signed off on it. The 18 congregations did the deal themselves. I will comment on what the response should be but CORI itself was never part of the deal. The 18 congregations did the deal and CORI is not a signatory to it. As far as I am aware, nobody in CORI has never even seen a copy of the deal.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

The congregations are members of CORI.

Fr. Seán Healy

Absolutely, and I will deal with that question.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I accept that technical correction.

Fr. Seán Healy

There were 18 congregations involved but CORI has 138 congregations.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Those 18 congregations——

Fr. Seán Healy

I will deal with the issue. I have no problem in doing so.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I accept that fully.

Fr. Seán Healy

I appreciate that.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Those 18 members of CORI engaged in the most hard-nosed negotiations and that is how we judge them. It is not what their representatives say when they are on television or what they are advised to say through press releases but how they actually acted. They threatened to pull out of the negotiations and left the room on a number of occasions. They completely refuted the position adopted by the State, which was that a fair, reasonable and just division of responsibility would have been a 50-50 arrangement, whereby the State and the religious orders would contribute equally.

This was rejected completely and this is how we judge whether those congregations were serious in their acceptance of responsibility for the significant damage done to so many lives. We cannot attach much credibility to them on the basis of the stance they adopted in those negotiations.

When we consider the detail of the agreement, it was far from an equal contribution that was agreed. The congregations agreed to what was not even a 10% contribution, at €128 million from €1.3 billion. There were a certain amount of cash payments and an agreement to transfer properties, some €40 million of which was already transferred for one reason or another prior to the deal being done. It was a red herring and that €40 million had nothing to do with the agreement. It was a case of retrospective accounting engaged in by the members of CORI.

Properties were transferred as far back as 1999. I have been tracking this through my work with the Committee of Public Accounts, where we are now getting six-monthly reports from the Department of Education and Science on those properties which were supposed to be transferred. We discovered that it is not happening, even seven years after the agreement. The level of transfer is very disappointing; of all the properties which were supposed to be transferred, only 20 of the properties have been fully transferred. Another 24 properties totalling almost €18 million are under discussion and there are outstanding legal formalities. A further 19 properties are at various stages in the legal transfer process.

It is seven years later and the congregations have not kept to the very minor contribution in the overall scale of the compensation paid. The congregations have not kept their side of the bargain. The terms of the agreement were for property transfers totalling €80 million, with this amount including property transfers made since May 1999, with further transfers up to the total amount taking place within the next three to five years. That has not happened seven years later.

We judge the congregations by their actions but the 18 congregations involved have broken these terms from the agreement, which in itself was highly unsatisfactory. On that basis, the Government now has every right to call those 18 congregations back to the negotiating table. As they broke the agreement's terms, that deal must be opened again. The Government thus has an opportunity to enter into immediate negotiations with the 18 congregations, and I expect it to do so.

There is another question regarding the position of CORI and the congregations. Does Fr. Healy accept there is a need to re-enter negotiations with the Government and reach agreement on a fair, equitable and just contribution to be made by the congregations in light of our knowledge that the total bill comes to €1.3 billion? Does he accept that there is a need for an audit of all of the properties and wealth of those 18 congregations? Does he also accept that there is a need to put in place a transparent system to provide assurance to the public that no more sweetheart deals are being done, that nothing is happening behind closed doors and that there is absolute transparency in the way the congregations deal with this issue from now on? Fr. Healy's answers to those questions will give us some kind of assurance that actions speak louder than words. We are keen to know what are CORI's intended actions.

The Government's biggest failing in the past decade has been not dealing adequately and fairly with the operation of housing policy and the housing market and the fact that many thousands of young families now have a massive noose around their necks in the form of mortgages on properties that were overpriced. Those people are now in negative equity. Housing is so central to people's lives and is such a large expense. Does Fr. Healy agree that there is a need to bring the various organisations working in this area, including CORI, and Government agencies together to examine how housing can be made affordable in the future and how to deal with the inherited issues of debt associated with housing? This crops up on several fronts.

When this committee discussed debt recently it was a major issue. We all deal with this continually in our constituency clinics, whether in respect of people with large mortgages who cannot make the repayments or those who are unemployed. For example, a man might be unemployed and his wife might work part-time but when they seek support it is not available because of the 30 hour rule in respect of mortgage interest supplement. Do the organisations here accept that is an arbitrary rule that creates huge poverty traps? I find that when people contact my office they cannot get help because one of the couple works more than 30 hours a week. We have to advise those people that they would be better off on the dole. The Government said long ago that it would not tolerate a situation in which people were better off on the dole but that is undoubtedly the case in respect of the mortgage interest supplement. Have the three organisations here made any recommendations to Government in that regard because that is intolerable?

The committee dealt in detail with the budget changes and their aftermath. What are the organisations hearing about the changes to the rent supplement from those who approach them looking for help? What is the extent of the hardship caused by the increased contribution people must make? Do they have any indication of what is happening where the Government has, again arbitrarily, cut rent supplement? How does that work out? Have many people approached their landlords? What are the landlords saying to them? Is there a willingness to reduce the rents? Have the organisations met people who are threatened with being homeless as a result of those measures?

While there is some disagreement about child poverty between the organisations working in this area, there has probably been a failure to acknowledge the cumulative effect of various budget measures and cuts on family incomes. As we are knocking on doors now we are meeting many young couples with small children who are caught by the cuts and levies. If they are public service workers they must pay a pension levy in addition to the doubled health and income levies, and have to deal with the cut in early child care supplement and the threat of cuts to child benefit. What do the organisations think is the best approach to tackling child poverty? I know there has been disagreement about whether to increase child benefit or the qualifying child benefit. What is their position on that question?

Vice Chairman

I wish to acknowledge the remarks of Deputies Shortall and Olwyn Enright about attendance here. I am not going to be defensive about it but it is fair to say that I was present at 11 a.m. The staff can verify that. I share the concern and frustration the Deputies have expressed and I have already brought that to the attention of my colleagues. Unfortunately, I do not have control over the situation. I am not disagreeing with the sentiments they have expressed. If they care to check whether I was here the staff will, I hope, verify that. I suspect they will.

I intend to call the members in the following order: Deputies Catherine Byrne, Joe Carey, Seymour Crawford and Senator Nicky McFadden.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Before we start, may I excuse myself for a short time? I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts and we are launching our annual report. That is why I was concerned about the meeting starting late. I will return shortly.

Vice Chairman

Before the Deputy goes, I have listened carefully, as we all have, to the manner in which the discussion is proceeding, and, unless the groups say otherwise, I propose at the end of the contributions from colleagues to ask the groups to respond in the order in which they presented, CORI, the Combat Poverty Agency and St. Vincent de Paul. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I wish to explain my absence. I am a convener of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources which is discussing the Estimates with the Minister. I am also a member of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is meeting a deputation from the Minister of State with responsibility for rural development. I apologise. It is not easy to be in four places at the one time.

Vice Chairman

I understand.

Deputy Catherine Byrne

I welcome the presence of Deputy O'Connor here today. Thank God for him, and he comes from Tallaght.

I have listened to Deputies Shortall and Olwyn Enright and I have been listening to figures and so on here for a long time and although I am not an economist I believe that I am very clued in to what happens on the ground. I want to express my thanks to Professor John Monaghan and to the St. Vincent de Paul. I feel as if I am always singing from the one hymn sheet but I mean it sincerely because every time somebody from St. Vincent de Paul addresses this committee we hear what is really happening on the ground. We do not need facts and figures because it is obvious if one opens one's eyes and goes into communities that the poor are alive. Whether they are well is another matter but they are certainly poor. The witnesses have raised concerns about the forgotten poor and the new poor, particularly young people who are daily losing their jobs and young couples with huge mortgages who are distraught, as are their extended families because they see their lives crumbling around them. Next year St. Vincent de Paul could be looking for well over €100 million instead of €60 million or €70 million. That is only a small part of what I wish to say.

I agree entirely with the points about rent supplement and rent allowance. I have said before that there are thousands of vacant apartments in Dublin alone and I cannot understand why the councils and developers cannot come together to make some arrangements to house the many people who are trapped in squalor in our city. Many landlords are being paid outrageous money for kips where one would not house a cat or a dog never mind a child or family. Many of the families who are claiming rent supplement are council tenants who were evicted for various reasons, some for them for non-payment of rent, and they are being left in dreadful conditions.

Professor Monaghan knows how I feel about the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I grew up in an area where we went on holiday with St. Vincent de Paul. My first club holiday was in 1966 with 110 other children. We were brought away by volunteers but sisters and priests were some of the leaders. I can honestly say that I had a wonderful childhood in an area where there was a lot of poverty, not in my family but in families around me. We had wonderful holidays and just last night I was recalling some of them, the way we travelled in the boots of cars and the backs of lorries with our little haversacks on our backs and how we had a great time. There are many organisations that did a huge amount of good while I was growing up.

Like everyone else I struggled at the weekend to read the newspapers. I started to read the report a few nights ago and I am not even finished ten pages. I am sick to the stomach with what I have read. No one can repay the loss of a childhood or heal those wounds. Above all, they cannot relieve people of the nightmares they will have for the rest of their lives. I grew up less than three minutes walk away from Goldenbridge industrial school and I knew some of the children interned there. Some of the them were from sad backgrounds and their only crime was that they were poor.

I was treated to the leather and the cane in the classroom and was put outside or made to stand on a desk because I could not say the prayers in Irish. Like many others I am angry. The majority of people, however, who I have dealt with as catholic and a Christian in the church I love, and I have dealt with many priests and nuns in Inchicore who have been part of the community, I can vouch for their honesty and decency and their love for the less well off in the community. I have good friends who are priests and nuns and others who have left the priesthood or religious life because they could not cope with what was happening. A friend from the country came in to tell me once that she was leaving the convent and she said she was ashamed of what happened. She was a child when this happened but because she wore a cross she was seen as part of the package.

I regret the loss of good that was being done by the church down through the years because of people who saw themselves as gods who could do what they wanted with children, using and abusing them. I regret that because I am a Christian and a member of the Catholic Church. I believe in my faith and what has happened in these institutions has made me angry. I have not lost my faith and have not lost my belief in those I know who are still involved in religion. They will do their best to change what has happened and to correct the injustice that has been done to these people. If there was ever a time that we needed faith, it is now.

The church must open up its arms and do something without waiting for lawyers or anyone else to decide what it must do. The church has that power. If that and nothing else happens in the end, people will go back to their church and believe there are Christians among us again. For me, as a practising Catholic, I believe we have never had a greater need for a church and a community. I beg the conference to go back to the religious and tell them it is time to act, not to wait any longer. People have waited long enough. No money will ever repay them for what has happened but what CORI does in the next week or so is crucial as a signal of how society treats people.

Deputy Enright said that we will be able write a book in the coming months about the number of people physically and emotionally abused in classrooms. That will eventually come out.

I visited The Base community centre in Ballyfermot this morning, a new centre built for the community that cost several million euro. It caters for 700,000 people every week from all walks of life, particularly the less well-off. If it does not get €1.5 million next year, it will be unable to open its doors. This building was only opened by the President a few months ago. CORI has said that every child should have access to quality play, sports, recreation and cultural activities to ensure their experience of childhood is positive. If the church does nothing else, it must support groups like this. If the Government cannot find the money, the church must support it.

When I grew up in Inchicore, I lived beside Keogh Square, one of the most impoverished places to live, where there were people working in the community as St. Vincent de Paul volunteers. Here we have a prime example of an excellent service for young people that can change their lives, as the St. Vincent de Paul changed my life, for €1.5 million. I appeal to CORI to do as much as it can.

Deputy Joe Carey

I was also in The Base with Deputy Enda Kenny and Deputy Catherine Byrne. I agree with her, it is a wonderful facility for young people. It is a model and there should a similar centre in every major town. The €1.5 million would be money well spent.

Referring to Fr. Seán Healy's remarks, the report of the Ryan commission represents in content and tone one of the darkest periods in Irish social history. The true extent of hurt, abuse and pain inflicted by the religious orders on the most vulnerable members of society for the best part of a century has finally come to light. I welcome that.

Like everyone else, I was struck by the passionate contribution by Michael O'Brien on "Questions and Answers". He told his story with such passion that people sat up and listened. I listened to Deputy Byrne outlining her experience in the same way. We need honesty in this debate but, above all, the church must be honest. It is not acceptable that the religious orders would contribute a mere 10% of the total liability for payments arising from the abuse perpetrated in a systematic and endemic manner in the institutions under their control for years. The deal was done in bad faith and it must be revisited. Along with my colleague, Deputy Enright, I ask that the 18 congregations would sit down with Government at the earliest available opportunity and begin dialogue with a view to agreeing some fair contribution which would give some degree of closure to the victims.

I welcome the presentation from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul representatives, who are always welcome here. The most serious issue for people on the margins is the Christmas bonus abolished by the Government in the supplementary budget. From representations I have received, I am aware of the pressure on people in terms of the Christmas rush and trying to come up with money for their children. In recent days the Government has hinted it might reintroduce the Christmas bonus. Cutting the bonus was one of the meanest measures introduced in the budget and I agree wholeheartedly with other speakers in that regard. The representatives highlighted the way the level of calls in the Dublin area alone increase in November and December. That record will be broken in 2009. The average number of calls to the society is 5,000 but that figure will probably increase to 10,000 this year alone.

The reinstatement of the Christmas bonus should be a priority for the Government and for this committee. The payments to people who rely on welfare is spent on food, energy, transport, education and health care, all of which are unavoidable expenses. The representatives made some fair points in that regard.

I concur also with the sentiments expressed about the book scheme not being available to students in non-DEIS schools. That problem is creating great hardship. I join the society in calling on the Government to reinstate the scheme as a matter of urgency. I thank the representatives for attending.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I welcome all the groups. I apologise for not being present for Fr. Seán Healy's statement but I have a copy of it.

I am from a Presbyterian background and I do not want to go into the details of what happened but it is extremely sad. My concern is to try to get the people who suffered dealt with but I am equally concerned that it will give the younger generation an excuse not to get involved in their churches, which could be more serious for the future of our country. As Deputy Byrne and others said, referred to the involvement of church structures and the support of Christian belief to get us through the current situation. A great deal of work must be done to ensure that the younger generation is not allowed to use this situation as an excuse to move away from what in the main has been a proud tradition of all the churches in this country.

Deputy Byrne was extremely passionate in her contribution. The committee is fortunate to have such a member who is in contact with people in that situation and who has come through so much herself. It gives those of us who come from a different background a clear understanding of the problem in real terms. I thank Deputy Byrne for her comments.

Deputy Carey mentioned the Christmas bonus. That is a serious problem as is the child income support. The decision in that regard will have serious implications for many couples who are still in jobs because the cost of child care might force one of them to leave their job because it would be more financially beneficial to them. Child income support was introduced for a specific reason. It was done for purely political purposes at the time to provide the cheques a fortnight before the election. However, it became part of the structure people depended on to deal with the child care and other such issues. These issues must be looked at sympathetically and seriously.

The Minister was present at our last meeting and members of all parties questioned her on people who are self-employed who did not have the necessary stamps, through no fault of their own. People in self-employment are only supposed to pay a certain type of stamp for pension purposes, not for dole purposes, and they suddenly find themselves with no work and therefore no income. We got agreement from the Minister and she advised us that she had advised her personnel on the ground that these people's current position would be taken into account and not their historic position. However, today I had a phone call from somebody who is being forced to provide fully qualified accounts that have been sanctioned by Revenue to be considered for any social welfare this year. That is ridiculous because it would take some time, and in some cases quite an amount of money, to furnish fully qualified accounts. It is ridiculous to expect people to get other building work or other employment having tried desperately to get work for three or four months of this year.

I want to record that the Minister was open and transparent with us. I specifically asked her had she advised the personnel on the ground in writing about this problem. She could not tell me that but I intend to get back to her having discovered in recent days that that is not happening on the ground. It is vital that all of us, through whatever means we can, encourage the Minister and her personnel to ensure that an individual's current position is the relevant one as far as means-tested social welfare payments are concerned.

People who have high mortgage payments and other commitments are in dire distress. Last Saturday night I spoke to a man on the doorstep and I recognised clearly, as someone who has been dealing with people for a long time, that this person was in distress. I tried to get him to talk in more detail. That man had been in a very good job but he lost it just before Christmas and try as he did, he has not got a job since. The situation has got in on him and it is very serious. We must be careful that lives are not lost in this situation, given that people will go through panic. They must be dealt with in a sympathetic way. They are not layabouts or people who did not try. They just find themselves in circumstances they never dreamt would occur.

I thank the organisations for their presentations today. I acknowledge that MABS is doing a good job but I am equally aware that the last call for many people is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. I am aware from my office in Monaghan town that it is the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and the community welfare officers who get families out of traumatic situations. With regard to community welfare officers, I wish to record my annoyance at the way they are being treated by the State. Medical card applications have been taken from them and are now centralised in Finglas. Only a few years ago the Government announced the decentralisation of offices out of Dublin, but now it is recentralising this into the city. Community welfare officers, like other groups, give tremendous help and support to people. It is sad to see their role being eroded by stealth. They have not even been advised of what their role will be in future.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I welcome the representatives of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Combat Poverty Agency and CORI. Like Deputy Shortall, I was not prepared for Fr. Healy's initial presentation relating to the Ryan report, but I wish to respond to it. I received a very good education from the Sisters of Mercy and I consider them responsible to an extent for the person I am now. However, having read the summary of the report, I am also acutely aware of the hardship that was caused by some of the sisters. I hate the idea of tarring everybody with the same brush, and I cannot do it. I get an impression from Fr. Healy today that is similar to the impression one gets from the Fianna Fáil logo being in small type on the election posters. According to the footnote at the bottom of the report, the "we" represents Fr. Seán Healy and Sr. Brigid Reynolds. Do they represent the congregations in this statement or are they speaking on behalf of themselves as individuals?

I have always respected and taken on board their submissions, but I am very concerned and worried about trust and where we go from here. Now, more than ever, we need our faith and to be able to depend on goodness. We must heal past wounds. Fr. Healy spoke about a failure of leadership; that certainly happened. However, he also said the Ryan report requires a reassessment of what has been done to date. What does he mean by that? It is not about resources and money, but about healing and saying one is sorry.

In his critique of the budget, Fr. Healy spoke about the banks. That has been discussed a great deal and legislation is due to be introduced on NAMA. I received representations yesterday from a couple whose house will be repossessed. Their mortgage repayments were €1,100 per week and the man lost his job last October. Fine Gael's policy is to have a good bank and a bad bank but the Government proposal appears to be that the good and the bad will be lumped together, with the taxpayer responsible for the bad part. Fr. Healy said the exposure of the taxpayer must be limited. Can he advise on how he believes that should happen?

The witness for the Combat Poverty Agency spoke about a loss of €21 per week for children. The rumours about what will happen to child benefit are rampant. I expect it to be either taxed or removed. That is the worst thing we could do because it is the only money that is focused directly on children living in poverty. I am referring to abusive situations in families. There is a huge amount of abuse in families in this country today. Children go hungry. In middle class families, where there is plenty of income, children also suffer. Child benefit is the only funding that goes directly to mothers and children. Do the witnesses wish to comment on that?

I thank Professor Monaghan for his wonderful work, with which I am familiar. The organisation spends €1 million per week. I compliment the volunteers who spend that money and visit people. They do an incredible job. Yesterday, I spoke to a community welfare officer about indebtedness and the people who are newly affected by it. She said her biggest problem is that where mortgages are very high, the community welfare officers can give no help because of the restrictions. The couple I mentioned whose house is being repossessed are in that situation. They can get no help from the community welfare officer. Do the representatives wish to comment on that?

The removal of the book grant scheme is an outrage and I am very concerned about the burden this will put on community welfare officers. I am also concerned that payment of the back to school allowance is in jeopardy. There must be some intervention before that scheme implodes as well.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I apologise for being absent earlier. I do not know what remarks were passed but I was in a committee all morning and met some of the representatives before coming here. I was due to meet a deputation but I decided to remain in view of the very serious nature of the discussion.

I welcome the representatives of the three groups and compliment them on their ongoing work and involvement over generations in trying to develop a better society for everybody, rich or poor. Senator McFadden mentioned the party logo. It is a pity to make the delicate discussion today party political. I am not ashamed of my party's logo. Nobody present who is involved in any organisation or party is ashamed of where they come from. We all try to do our best.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

It is very small on the posters. Some forgot to put it on the posters.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

We look forward to when Fine Gael is in government with the Labour Party and it has money for everything, including the back to school allowance and the Christmas bonus. Nobody in my party wanted the Christmas bonus to be affected and we are all working actively to find the money elsewhere, but the financial situation is clearly desperate and perilous. Funds must be got from somewhere and it is not easy. As has been mentioned, we have the new poor. These are the newly unemployed, people who were formerly self-employed and business people. The problem is across the board.

I compliment the three organisations on their presentations, which I have read. In CORI's second document, the footnote states that "we" refers to Fr. Seán Healy and Sr. Brigid Reynolds. The "we" means both of them. I have no doubt that it is because I understand the work they are doing and what they have done, as well as the passion with which they do it.

I recognise the contribution of the religious orders across the State. I am involved with some of them on various voluntary committees. The State would be a poorer place without them; it would have fewer institutions, organisations and community projects if we did not have their leadership, guidance and never-ending work. I welcome their words contained in the document, which is what we need. I am not criticising the media but it is difficult to sort these issues out in the full glare of publicity. It was and is an appalling vista and must be totally re-evaluated. An even deeper evaluation is required to know where it came from and why. Was it inherent in our psyche as a result of being a colonised people in the past? I believe it was. I am not excusing it in any shape or form but I am saying that deeper reflection is needed into why any such abuses occurred. Some are probably still continuing in the country today. Michael O'Brien, who is a friend and a party colleague of mine, was so powerful on radio and television in recent days. Even he, however, was able publicly and privately to praise the order where he stayed some years ago for the work it had done for him and his family. There is good and bad in every situation and in all our beings; it is just a matter of being able to live out our Christian faith. I have no problem in declaring that I am a practising Roman Catholic.

There was never a more opportune time for the church to open its arms and its properties. If it does not have money there are many other ways for it to try to make amends. We will all try to go forward together in a loving relationship, trying to build for the future rather than dwelling on the past. We must deal with this report, however, and a different and more meaningful offer will have to come. There are perceptions and figures have been quoted by Deputy Shortall on property valuations. We cannot have a cloak and dagger approach to this matter. It is a desperately sad human situation and must be dealt with humanely. We must all play our part in that and I look forward to doing so. I compliment Fr. Seán Healy and Sr. Brigid Reynolds.

Vice Chairman

I now propose to call CORI, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul to respond in that order. On my own behalf, I wish to be associated with the welcome extended to all the groups. Under normal circumstances I would have a lot to say about all the presentations but because of the time constraints and due to much of what has been said — I would share a lot of what has been said — I do not think that is necessary. However, I welcome all the representatives and join other colleagues in applauding their work. CORI has been picked out but I would also pick out the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, because it is the background I come from. I hope the issues raised will not be lost in the midst of a more headline grabbing situation. I do not mean that with any disrespect to Fr. Seán Healy but I think he will understand what I am saying. The representatives are all very welcome and we have listened carefully to all of them. I now invite Fr. Seán Healy to respond.

Fr. Seán Healy

I thank all members of the joint committee for their forthright comments. I will try honestly to answer every single question, straight up, no fudging and no side to it. I was asked first by Deputy Enright if these views were reflective of CORI's 138 congregations. They are not. I do not know what the views of the 138 congregations are. That is being handled by CORI centrally. However, the views that Sr. Brigid Reynolds and I expressed here today are the views we would have had a week ago when this report was published. They continue to be our views. I have been contacted, and so has Sr. Brigid Reynolds, in various ways by a wide range of members of congregations, both among the 18 congregations and the other 120 ones. They have expressed views and sentiments exactly along the lines that I articulated on our behalf already. That is part of the reality. I want to make one thing clear: I am not trying to tar everybody. I do not know whether the Senator is making that implication.

Senator Nicky McFadden

No, I am not.

Fr. Seán Healy

I am sorry. I thought the Senator was suggesting that I was.

Senator Nicky McFadden

No.

Fr. Seán Healy

I am sorry. I misread it then. I certainly would not tar all religious with the same brush under any circumstances. This situation is difficult enough. Perhaps the best way to proceed with the questions and responses is to answer directly the three questions raised by Deputy Shortall at the end of her input. First, do I accept that there is a need to re-enter the negotiations and increase the contributions? My answer is "Yes". There is a need and an imperative to increase the contribution substantially. The second question was if I accepted there was a need for an audit of the 18 congregations and my answer is "Yes". It is, in fact, as I understand it, part of the Charities Act. Therefore, they would be governed by that law, but I think everything should be on the table. The third question was if I accepted there was a need to put a transparent process in place and my answer is "Yes". As Deputy Mattie McGrath said, everything has to be transparent in this process and I totally support that.

Some of the other things that arose included what mechanisms should be used. All possible mechanisms that have been suggested must all be on the table. Part of that has to involve a substantial additional contribution to address the issue of redress and to reduce the State's cost or liability on the redress side, but also to ensure additional support for the victims of this appalling situation. I find it extremely difficult not to express my anger at the situation and my emotional response to it. It is an extraordinarily difficult situation for somebody like Sr. Brigid Reynolds or me, whose congregations are not involved, and who have had no involvement of any kind in this. Both of us have worked as directors of CORI Justice for more than a quarter of a century. To see this kind of issue emerge and see it being dealt with in the way it is being dealt with is extremely painful to us.

I will now deal with the other questions that were raised. It was said that the sooner action is taken the better and I agree completely. I was asked if I would consider a 50-50 breakdown of the cost to be a fair, reasonable and just arrangement. Yes, I believe if they had the resources that would be the case. I do not know what the resources are, in fairness.

It was said that the level of transfer of properties is very disappointing seven years later. The Deputy has a lot more information than I have, as I have no idea what those are. However, I accept completely the Deputy's information from the Committee of Public Accounts or wherever she got it. I also agree that the level of property transfer is very disappointing given the time it is taking.

At the core of this, forgiveness and restitution are the keys. That has to be done both concretely and symbolically. The congregations concerned need to seek the forgiveness of the people whose trust they have almost unforgivably abused. I am talking about the congregations concerned. An attitude of humility coupled with a protracted exercise in restitution is what is now required of the 18 religious congregations if the victims, their children and the people in general are ever to begin to forgive the congregations for their inexcusable betrayal of trust. It is our view that substantial additional resources should be made available and all options must be on the agenda. No response to the report can ever really compensate for all the suffering and pain endured by the people placed in the care of the religious, but everything possible should be done — both concretely and symbolically.

In response to Deputy Catherine Byrne and others who ask us about our own role, Sr. Reynolds and I commit to play a full part in doing all we possibly can to achieve this. We make that commitment.

On the issue of The Base in Ballymun and the funding for it, I would dearly love to see that type of initiative supported and continue. It would be an incredible loss if it were not to continue, although the primary support should come from Government. I appreciate what was said.

Vice Chairman

It was Ballyfermot.

Fr. Seán Healy

What did I say — Ballymun?

Vice Chairman

Yes.

Fr. Seán Healy

It was Ballyfermot, my apologies.

Vice Chairman

Fr. Healy is obviously influenced by Deputy Shortall.

Fr. Seán Healy

Deputy Joe Carey raised the point that honesty was needed in the debate. I could not agree more.

Vice Chairman

Will Fr. Healy accept an intervention from Deputy Enright?

Fr. Seán Healy

Of course, yes.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I will wait until Fr. Healy has finished.

Fr. Seán Healy

The only other comment I had to make was on the question about the banks. What we stated in the response stands. We have serious doubts that the Government's approach is the best way to meet the two conditions or principles that we said should guide its decision. The two principles would be, first, that action to tackle toxic debt should be such that the exposure of the taxpayer is minimised and, second, not to expect that those who got us into this problem will get us out of it. I am no banking expert, neither is Sr. Reynolds. However, I am not convinced by what the Government states, that the banks will not be nationalised. Let me put it that way. I qualify that considerably by stating that I am not a banking expert.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I welcome Fr. Healy's comments and I accept the witnesses' bona fides. My difficulty is that they are speaking for themselves, not for CORI. I do not know how CORI is constituted or how a congregation can choose to be a member of it or not. As CORI is made up of 138 congregations, including these 18 congregations, Fr. Healy is not speaking for the 18 from whom we and the public need to hear today.

Fr. Seán Healy

I would certainly support that. The 18 congregations should be prepared to outline what they are doing and follow the lines of response that we have presented today.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

It is important from the perspective that CORI has a role here — it has come in to the committee on several occasions. The fact that those congregations make up part of CORI damages it to some extent. CORI is commenting on social justice issues constantly and this is probably the biggest social justice issue we as a country must face up to. There is a difficulty in that regard. It is not Fr. Healy's fault. However, the 18 congregations have a responsibility to CORI, but also to the State and to the people affected, to deal with it.

There is one other point. There have been some references to media which I do not normally step in to defend. However, were it not for the "States of Fear" documentary, and the response to it, I do not whether we would even find ourselves where we are today. That point needs to be made. The media can come in for a great deal of bashing but there are times when we must be prepared to say something positive came out of what they did.

Vice Chairman

I will now turn to the Combat Poverty Agency.

Mr. Jim Walsh

I will comment on three matters and my colleague, Dr. Treadwell, will comment on two. Poverty impact assessment, which is what we have tried to present here, is a self-assessment procedure. The Office for Social Inclusion does not carry out poverty impact assessment and I do not think the new division will be carrying out such assessments. The idea is that they are done by the relevant Department or agency. Clearly, there is an issue in that regard. For instance, the poverty impact assessment of the budget produced by the Department of Finance does not address the issue of the effects of the cut in rent, the cut in the school books scheme or the cut in the Christmas bonus. It is completely silent on that issue. Clearly, the practice of poverty impact assessment is not of an adequate standard. It would be a great project, especially in a time of cutbacks, for this committee to take an overview role of poverty impact assessments. For example, where is the poverty impact assessment of the cut in the school books scheme? The Department of Education and Science is required to produce one. Let us see it show us how that will not contribute to poverty. The Department needs to be accountable for that and someone should hold it accountable; there is a role for a group such as this committee to hold the Department accountable. We can hold the budget accountable in our role but in the division we will not be doing that. That is not envisaged. There is a need for an oversight body. This is a powerful tool, especially in a time of cutbacks in public expenditure. It would shine a light and address those specific issues, and then we could see what is the alternative. Unless we use this mechanism, we are missing an opportunity.

The second point concerns the value for money issue. That is a legitimate issue, especially in a time of financial cutbacks. The Government is spending €21 billion on social welfare. One must face up to that. The key point is that it be done in a planned way. We are seeing fairly arbitrary cutbacks and the problem with that is that we are creating poverty traps.

On the issue of targeting resources, we have come to the view that child benefit is a legitimate issue that needs to be looked at. We always have been of the view that it should not be taxed or means tested. As Professor Monaghan stated, child benefit is coming into its own at this stage as a support for families who are facing difficult times across the board. There may be scope to do something on child benefit but it must be done in a planned way. Our approach is to continue to make the payment but tax it rather than means test it because that creates more poverty traps. Every family, every mother, still gets the payment but then there is some paid compensation for that. There is still a problem. As has been stated, the payment is the only one ring-fenced for children. There is perhaps a constitutional issue as to whether that can be taxed. Outside of that, the payment must still be made and one claws back to a fair and equitable tax system. That is an example of a targeted approach.

I did not say anything about the Christmas bonus. If one wants to put a spotlight on that, there are anomalies in terms of how the Christmas bonus is being paid. Some groups were excluded and others were included. We have made the suggestion that there should be a top-up payment at Christmas time and it should be focused on children. We gave two options. One is to pay an additional clothing and footwear allowance equivalent at Christmas time, which goes to the poorest children. If they got it in September, give it to them again at Christmas time. That would be a targeted payment. Doubling the qualified child allowance would be another way of doing it. Rather than cutting it, we should look at ways to target payments.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Does Mr. Walsh mean to double the payment throughout the year or just at Christmas time?

Mr. Jim Walsh

At Christmas time. There must be some response.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Would that not be very small?

Mr. Jim Walsh

I am throwing that out as a possibility in terms of a targeted response focusing on children.

On the issue of linking payments to social outcomes, Deputy Byrne spoke about fuel allowances on which the Government is spending more than €300 million. Where is the output of that in terms of tackling fuel poverty? We suggest that this cash payment should be linked in order to ensure that the houses in question are more energy efficient. There is no link between that intervention, namely, the cash payment, and the sustainable energy initiative, via the warmer homes scheme, which is aimed at trying to improve energy efficiency. The cash payment should be linked to a clear policy outcome.

The third aspect is bargaining power. This arises in respect of two areas. The first of these is the reduction in rent that is being sought by the Government through the rent supplement scheme. The beneficiaries of this scheme are not in a position or do not have the bargaining power to negotiate in respect of their rents. However, the State can negotiate or demand that a particular level of rent apply. It has informed the banks that they must take a 10% cut. Why then can it not inform landlords — whose activities are being funded by means of a range of different mechanisms — that they need to provide people with an 8% or 10% reduction? The State should negotiate directly with landlords and should not oblige tenants to play piggy in the middle.

The position is similar with regard to the school book scheme. Why does the State not take charge of the delivery of and negotiations relating to this scheme as is the case in Northern Ireland? Why does it not argue for a better deal? Low-income households are quite vulnerable in the context of negotiating better deals. As a result, the State, which is spending so much money, must intervene.

Another aspect is the possibility of a social tariff on electricity and gas. The State is spending a great deal of money in subventing the purchase of these, so why does it not seek a social tariff in respect of low-income households?

I am of the view that child poverty is a slow burner in the context of the current situation. Unless we intervene now, there will be major problems with child poverty in the future. I wish to draw a parallel between this and what was discussed in respect of the matters investigated by the Ryan commission, etc. The children to whom the Ryan report relates lived in poverty. Some 70,000 children continue to live in consistent poverty in Ireland and there are a further 140,000 living in income poverty. This problem, which was encountered 30, 40 or 50 years ago, remains and the State is still not dealing with it. That is the parallel. Why is the State not addressing the issue of persistent child poverty? Will there be a need to establish another commission in 30 years' time to ask why we did not intervene in respect of early childhood education, early school leaving and the provision of adequate supports for children in the home? This is a social problem which we cannot ignore because if we do so, we will pay a price in the years ahead.

Dr. Kasey Treadwell

We welcome the fact that the committee is going to be examining the issue of over-indebtedness. We recently published a policy statement on the topic and we are carrying out some work in-house in respect of it. We hope that this work will continue in the new division. Over-indebtedness is one of the striking features of what might be termed the "new poor". There are long-standing issues in respect of disadvantage, poverty, access to services, institutional barriers, bargaining power, etc. However, one of the most striking features of recent events is how quickly over-indebtedness has become a major problem for the State and society.

The challenge now is to recognise that over-indebtedness is a policy issue. Over-indebtedness does not relate to people's individual or personal circumstances, per se. There must be a social policy response to over-indebtedness. This must come not only in respect of mortgage interest relief and repossessions, there must also be a recognition that over-indebtedness is both a cause and consequence of poverty. There are many people who are going into debt in order to meet their living expenses. This problem relates to many more people than just the new poor and it has mushroomed in recent times.

We suggest that there are three avenues to be followed in the context of building a social policy response. The first of these is preventative in nature. In other words, people should not go into debt in the first instance. The second avenue is curative in nature and the money advice and budgeting service forms part of it because it can help people who get into trouble to solve their problems. However, there is a need for major resources in this regard. Business and personal debts are often conflating for those who are self employed and, as a result, an issue arises. The third avenue, which has begun to be addressed in some ways, is the rehabilitation of those who have incurred debt problems. Ireland has one of the most regressive systems in Europe in respect of rehabilitation. It is the only country in the world that can imprison someone as a consequence of his or her debts. That is a significant issue.

I wish now to discuss the important and emerging issue of the working poor. We are due to publish a study on this matter in the coming weeks. The issue of the working poor highlights the interface between the welfare and tax systems and various other systems. This is where most people can be badly affected by the quirks of the system. For example, individuals can be over the limit in respect of medical card eligibility or some of the other benefits that are available but they are still hit for tax, etc. A critical issue arises in the context of developing supports for these people.

One of the key issues we must consider is the notion of retaining employment as opposed to preventing unemployment. We must, therefore, examine how we might relax some of the structural constraints that prevent people from availing of higher quality and more sustainable employment. Particular issues arise in respect of certain vulnerable groups. Lone parents form one of the most important groups in the context of supports. There is a need to have viable progression routes into high quality and sustainable employment.

The concept of the working poor does not just affect those of working age. Children whose parents are working poor are, therefore, poor themselves. The issue of the working poor is extremely broad in nature and it affects many people across a range of situations.

Professor John Monaghan

A number of common issues were raised by members. I thank them for paying attention to what we stated. The issues to which I refer fall under a number of headings. The first of these is child poverty and the number of calls we receive and I will ask Ms Fahey to deal with that. The second is the importance of education and the book scheme and I will ask Ms Deane to deal with that. I will deal with the remaining matters, which include rent supplement, the number of people with major debts, including those who are self-employed, who are approaching the Society of St. Vincent de Paul — I will outline what we are trying to do in respect of these individuals — and the Christmas bonus. I will return to the latter. We are aware that a number of particular issues are going to arise in respect of it. I will now ask Ms Fahey to comment on the issue of child poverty.

Ms Caroline Fahey

The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is a leading member of the End Child Poverty Coalition. We have six policy priorities which, if they are implemented, will go towards tackling child poverty as an issue. In light of this discussion, it is important that child poverty be dealt with.

The first of our priorities is to ensure that basic welfare rates and targeted payments such as the qualified child increase be pitched at a level which prevents people from falling into poverty. Our second priority is that housing waiting lists should be addressed through the building and acquisition of social housing and also by means of the rental accommodation scheme. Our third priority is that educational disadvantage should be tackled and the DEIS and traveller education strategies be implemented. Our fourth priority is that medical cards should be provided for all children. In a case of which we recently became aware, a woman took her sick child to her doctor. She had recently become unemployed and did not have the money to pay. In addition, she had not yet received her medical card. The doctor refused to treat the child until payment was made. The woman in question was obliged to telephone the Society of St. Vincent de Paul from the reception area of the doctor's surgery, which is completely unacceptable. We need quality, affordable early childhood care and education and after school care and need to provide support for people in low paid employment through enhancing the family income support system. These are the priorities of the End Child Poverty Coalition.

Committee members wanted more information with regard to the people we currently assist and the changes coming about for them. We hear much about the new poor, but must also remember the people who have always been in a situation where they have needed assistance from groups such as St. Vincent de Paul. Professor Monaghan mentioned in his presentation that approximately one third of the people coming to us now have never previously been in a situation where they needed our help. If we look more closely at their needs, they largely mirror the needs of the people who have always been coming to us. Once people lose their jobs, food, electricity and gas become massive problems. Most of the people who ring us now to tell us they are waiting for their social welfare to come through are people who never came to us before. They did not need help from St. Vincent de Paul, but now the system they must access is inadequate, they must come to us for help.

The question of the employment status of people we assist was also raised. We do not have great information in that regard, but in April in the Dublin region the majority of people who called us and whose source of income we were aware of were people on one parent family payments. Most of the people we assist are lone parents. The number of those unemployed seeking our assistance represented 16% of the total, but that is probably a huge under estimation as we do not have great figures on that. The number of unemployed people seeking assistance has increased further in the past month. People on disability payments also contact us for help. In the main, it is people on social welfare assistance who are struggling and they are the people we are assisting.

Ms Audrey Deane

We are delighted to hear consensus across the parties on school books. Mr. Walsh spoke about using poverty impact assessment in a real way. Perhaps, if the Department of Education and Science had been using that tool in that way, it might not have said to us two weeks ago that it was sorry, but the support was gone unless it was a DEIS school, because of the lack of proof of need. If the Department had used the tool of poverty impact assessment, it might have been forced to admit that 56% of children from unemployed households do not go to DEIS schools and 61% of children from households where the parents are semi-skilled or manual type workers do not attend DEIS schools. The Department should not have removed this important support.

In July, the school transport payment kicks in and is €300 for children using this transport in rural areas. The medical card is used as de facto criteria for an exemption from the transport payment. This and many similar stealth cuts are hitting families who are just above the limits for the various schemes. These people may be hanging on to their jobs but cannot get mortgage interest relief. The situation is appalling. People are being hammered and we are very fearful for what will happen in the next few months.

Professor John Monaghan

I will follow up on what Ms Fahey said about the kind of people looking for help now who did not need it previously. This recession is very different from that of the late 1980s and early 1990s. We had high inflation and high interest rates then, but do not have them now. We had high emigration then because we could emigrate, but now we cannot. Another significant characteristic of this recession is that people coming to us for the first time have huge debts. We cannot pay those debts for them; we simply do not have the money. We try instead to work with those people. This is not something new, but something we have always done. However, what is new is the volume of people needing help.

The decision on what we will do was passed through our national management council last Saturday. We have decided that in each of the 13 regions throughout the country we will have specialist groups, made up of volunteer members with expertise in banking, law and finance, who will be able to offer advice to people coming to us. We will work to do deals with the banks and will, if necessary, hard nose them into court. We will also work with MABS and provide financial support. We will keep the bread on the table, the lights on, the homes warm, the children in school and will work with the other agencies to try to bring about a reduction in people's payments so they can keep their homes and keep up their mortgage repayments. This approach will, in particular, help the self-employed. They have been particularly caught in the trap. For example, there might be somebody who set up a small landscape gardening business, but who now finds himself with a trailer and a digger but no income. We are conscious that many people are in that kind of position and are moving to help them. We need to continue to build on this work.

There are some strange anomalies. I am dealing with a case currently where the people in question owe a great deal of money. However, because they have managed to move out into very inadequate accommodation they got for nothing, they are managing to pay all their bills. Now that they are maintaining their payments, the banks and building societies do not want to come to any deal with them. They are being forced therefore, despite running the risk of being put in jail, to default. The only way people can get the banks to talk to them is to default. It is only by getting them to bring them to court that people can argue their case. Otherwise, the banks do not want to talk to them. We can just imagine the pressure these people are under. This group of people are not psychologically geared for that pressure. Seasoned recessionistas, people who have been on pensions or social welfare benefits for years will get by because they have incredible coping skills. However, the newer people do not.

With regard to rent supplement, we have started to see the effects of the changes in this area which kicked in at the beginning of May. We are hearing reports from people, particularly those around larger towns and cities, who have sought reductions from their landlords, but the landlords have refused and expect them to pay the full amount. This has started to become a problem in west Dublin and I suspect it is a problem in the Deputy's area. The problem has not built up yet, but it will be a significant issue.

Deputy Byrne made the point about vacant properties and asked could there be a way to deal with that in conjunction with the rent supplement process. We have been saying for years that it makes no sense to put people into rented accommodation that is, often, in dreadful condition and then penalise them when they try to improve themselves. We need to improve the rental accommodation scheme. The State or councils should buy up the vacant accommodation if it is suitable. There is no point in putting a single parent with three children and a buggy on the top floor of an apartment block, but we should buy up accommodation suitable to people's needs. We still have more than 150,000 people on waiting lists — approximately 45,000 families. That is more than we had at the start of the housing boom, when we were building more than 80,000 houses a year. The situation does not make sense, but we continue to spend rent supplement money into a black hole. The situation must be tackled. This would bring immense benefits, not just for the people renting, but for the communities in which they live.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Much of the rental property is unsuitable, is it not?

Professor John Monaghan

More than a little. Last year, when Dublin City Council checked the accommodation offered in the rental accommodation scheme, it rejected approximately 70% of it. It is ironic, however, that the community welfare office is forced to pay rent supplement on them. That beggars belief.

On the issue of the Christmas bonus, we know the bonus was often kept by people with disabilities or carers until January sales and then used to buy clothes. The bonus is gone now. Members should look at the information we have provided and see the ramp up in the number of calls we receive. That is in Dublin, but it is replicated throughout the country. The effect is the same throughout the country. Judging by the ramp up in calls, there can be no doubt that the removal of the Christmas bonus benefit will cause chaos. There is not much of an effect currently and people are not talking about it that much, but that is because we are a long way from Christmas. However, once Christmas approaches, the situation will be chaotic.

On child poverty, we need to remember that poor children do not live in isolation; they live in poor homes. The way to tackle child poverty is to ensure the families of which they are a part are looked after. Mr. Walsh is right. We are building up an unbelievable legacy if we do not do that. It is a scandal there is still child poverty when we claim to be a civilised Christian country. That is a joke. We need to tackle child poverty. The way to do it is to focus on the family unit. We must get away from nonsense such as whether somebody is cohabiting or not. Let us look after the families and the children. Then we can sort out the other issues.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

One of the issues this committee is dealing with this year is the question of children in lone parent families. The proposals are there since the former Minister's time, the late Deputy Séamus Brennan. Broadly speaking, would all the members of the delegation agree with the thrust of those proposals? The key aspect about the payment is that it is directed at the child, irrespective of whether there are one or two parents or whether both are working or on welfare.

Professor John Monaghan

We are talking about trying to keep family units together and it really does not make sense to proceed as proposed. I can give the committee one example. We have come across a situation which was described to us by a group called From the Ground Up which gathers information from around the country. This group told a harrowing story of couple who were in work, both lost their jobs and then encountered difficulties because in the good times they had two cars and a mortgage. They were contemplating him moving back to his mother and the lady going back to living in rented accommodation and claiming single parent allowance. That is not a made-up story, that is a fact about a family we have come across. Talking about breaking up families at a time when we should be trying to build them up, simply on the basis of regulations, really does not make sense.

Ms Audrey Deane

We were in favour of those proposals and contributed to them but they were made in very different economic times. Even when we were discussing those proposals the issue of the State agencies arose — in particular I refer to the ability of FÁS to be innovative and flexible about the supports offered to lone parents to encourage them and facilitate their return to the labour market. However, the society is very concerned now that, first, the jobs are not there and second, there is a possibility that these payments will be taken away on the particular date in time when a child turns eight. We are very concerned about that aspect, considering the economic retrenchment under way.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

On that issue of the poverty traps, I refer to the issue of whether two parents should live together or get married, which is a significant issue on which very little progress has been made in recent years.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I refer to community welfare officers being unable to pay mortgage relief for the high mortgages; these people are the new poor and they have no recourse anywhere.

Professor John Monaghan

Community welfare officers are operating within a very tight budget.

Senator Nicky McFadden

I agree.

Professor John Monaghan

It is obvious that the current mortgage interest relief mechanism needs to be beefed up. Given that the community welfare officers' hands are tied, our policy in the St. Vincent de Paul is to advise people to contact the society and we promise to work with them and with the other agencies to do what we can.

I am dealing with a family who are in difficulty. The man is working and so he is eligible for nothing, yet he is paying everything, including levies. We are working with the family — they are talking to MABS today — and we are trying to do a deal with the banks and building societies. We are trying to release money which they are paying out so that the family will have about an extra €800 to €1,000 per month in their budget to allow them to rent and not become homeless. In fairness to the community welfare officers, their hands are tied. The regulations need to be changed.

Senator Nicky McFadden

Unfortunately there is nobody here from the Government side of the House.

Vice Chairman

I think we have got over that.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I have a brief question about the capacity of the existing organisations, including MABS, to deal with the banks and the repossession issue. I am more conscious of sub-prime lenders than the banks. The delegation is dealing with people whose full-time job is to get the money back and they are pitted against people who find themselves out of a job. I think there needs to be an agency to work full-time on helping such people to negotiate with the financial institutions.

Professor John Monaghan

That would be the ideal.

Ms Audrey Deane

In fact, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is represented on the consumer panel of the Financial Regulator and we have made some very clear practical suggestions about what protocols should operate between banks, both sub-prime and main lenders, and their customers.

Mr. Jim Walsh

On the point about indebtedness, all roads lead to MABS and that is not right. One structure is being used to deal with everything and MABS is a curative mechanism which is very valuable and is under a lot of pressure. We need preventative and other systems — we need institutional change.

On the point about the mortgage, I am not too sure whether the response is a welfare response. Surely the banks need to take a look at that. We have made a number of suggestions because the banks are getting off the hook. We need to look at an institutional approach to this issue.

Deputy Olwyn Enright

I agree with Mr. Walsh. However, the difficulty is that the State only has control of the financial institutions that have come under the guarantee and sought support. To a certain extent, one can have control over some of the other financial institutions or at least negotiate or speak to them. However, when one is dealing with the sub-prime lenders, one is dealing at a different level and it does not seem possible to get a response from them.

Professor John Monaghan

So far we have not had anyone come to us who has been involved with sub-prime lenders. In the event, the line we would take would be exactly the line that I remember having to take back in the late 1980s and early 1990s which was that when a bank, a building society or a solicitor refused to accept a deal, we said they could go ahead and take people to court but they would be represented because we would pay for the solicitor who would make it very clear to the judge that St. Vincent de Paul was willing to try to strike a deal which the institution refused. We are happy to go down that road and embarrass them. We have done it before and we will do it again.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

That is a very worthwhile approach. However, the overriding point is that the Government is in a position to dictate terms to the banks, given the guarantee and that certainly should have been one of the conditions.

Mr. Jim Walsh

Sub-prime lenders are licensed and they cannot operate; it should be included in their licence agreement. The other point made by Combat Poverty Agency in our proposal is that these issues should not be dealt with in the courts and we have suggested an alternative mediation system, paid for by the financial institutions, which would take it out of the courts.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I wish to ask CORI and Combat Poverty Agency about the late Minister's proposals.

Professor John Monaghan

I must ask to be excused because the day job beckons. I have two exams in three locations down the road in Trinity College, starting at 2 p.m.

Vice Chairman

I am hoping to go out to the opening of Shamrock Rovers Tallaght stadium.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I wonder whether the two agencies support in general terms the proposals made by the late Deputy Brennan for lone parents and having the child payment as the central payment.

Sr. Brigid Reynolds

We are in favour of any proposal that helps couples to stay together and we are against anything that causes an incentive for couples to separate. We believe that children should——

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Are the proposals the right mechanism to achieve this?

Fr. Seán Healy

I do not know if it is the right mechanism but certainly it is one of the mechanisms that needs to be seriously considered and tested to see what the outcome would be. If there is no better mechanism available then we should go with that. We need a mechanism that protects children particularly but we also need a mechanism that is not encouraging the break-up of family units systemically because——

Deputy Róisín Shortall

Groups such as the delegation need to be specific about what is required. We have known for years that there is a major problem.

Fr. Seán Healy

Even in front of this committee, CORI has presented what we consider to be a very clear and straightforward solution that would eliminate not just that problem but also a variety of other problems that underpin——

Deputy Róisín Shortall

We have not forgotten about that either and we will be returning to it with the Department after the summer.

Fr. Seán Healy

I appreciate that and we will have it for the committee at that time.

Sr. Brigid Reynolds

The issue is that the tax and welfare has to be integrated and until that is done there will be problems and poverty traps and disincentives.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

There is no indication of any progress in that regard.

Sr. Brigid Reynolds

There may be when the tax commission reports.

Mr. Jim Walsh

Our contribution to this debate has been the policy paper produced by Mary Murphy and funded by the agency and we broadly support its views. The two aspects I would highlight would be the need to avoid a purely labour market-driven response to a situation dealing with families or care-giving bodies. Second, if a lone parent goes out to work, what happens to the children? Is this taking a resource out of the family which might be to the detriment of the children? This is why there is a need for a kind of child-centred perspective on any changes to be strengthened.

Vice Chairman

I thank the representatives of the CORI Justice Commission, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for attending this meeting. Ms Deane made the point that it has been a long and, at times, difficult meeting. I suggest that it has been a very good meeting. The CORI presentation may well grab the headlines, which would be fair enough. It is important to emphasise that issues of serious concern to all members of the committee have been discussed here today, particularly in the latter part of the meeting. I hope that aspect of the meeting will be reflected.

Fr. Seán Healy

I apologise again for having to deal with that issue. The members of the committee and the representatives of the other organisations are familiar with CORI's commitment to addressing budgetary issues and answering the kinds of questions that have been asked by Deputies and Senators today.

Vice Chairman

I thank everybody, including my colleagues on the joint committee, for their contributions to this meeting. I thank the various delegations for their attendance.

The joint committee adjourned at 2 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 10 June 2009.